Hamilton tenants without water score victory before provincial tribunal

A pair of tenants living without running water in a rundown Hamilton apartment building for more than two months have thwarted their landlord's eviction attempt.

One of them, Chris Martinez, a nine-year resident, says he feels cautiously relieved" after Thursday's Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) outcome.

There is definitely a load off my shoulders, like it's one less thing that I have to worry about."

Based on the water problem, legal counsel for 1083 Main Street Inc. withdrew the N13 applications to evict the tenants for renovations.

Under Ontario legislation, a lack of running water constitutes a serious breach" of a landlord's responsibilities, tenant lawyer Roberto Henriquez told The Spectator after Thursday's hearings.

In such a scenario, the LTB is obliged to refuse applications.

They wanted to be able to stay in their homes, and that's what today signifies," Henriquez said.

Five other tenants in the sprawling Delta-area building across from Gage Park have pending N13 cases before the provincial tribunal. Dates haven't been set yet.

After Thursday's result, it remains unclear when exactly the property owner will address the plumbing to restore water service.

I'm still looking for a place to get out of here, because let's face it, I'm not going to have running water in three weeks," said Martinez, who pays $750 including utilities for a bachelor-plus-den unit.

But he acknowledges the prospect of finding another apartment he can afford with average rents soaring above $1,000 seems bleak.

I can't afford that because I'm on (a disability pension)."

Angela Smith, paralegal representing the landlord, hasn't responded to The Spectator's requests for comments.

Before the water problem arose in late December, the landlord had applied to evict the tenants to make way for renovations.

The tenants have made a bid to stay put, arguing they don't need to leave the building for the renovations to take place.

They have declined to stay in hotel rooms offered by the landlord for a variety of reasons, including fear of not getting back into their units or not being able to drive there.

On Wednesday, during an initial round of LTB hearings focused mostly on preliminary issues, Denny Ward, the renovation project lead, said vacancy was very important" to do the renovations.

If the work doesn't happen, the building will continue to be in a state of disrepair and continue to deteriorate, unfortunately," Ward said.

During a late-December storm, pipes in the building froze and burst, which prompted the landlord to turn off the water.

In a notice to tenants, Smith wrote the bad weather had caused extensive damage and expanded the already massive scope of work," planned for the building.

It would be at minimum" four weeks for a temporary solution" to restore a water supply.

Nonetheless, the city ordered the landlord to deal with the issue by Jan. 24.

Last month, with the deadline passed and still no repairs, the city's property standards committee heard an appeal from Smith on behalf of her client.

They agreed the units needed to be vacant to do the repairs with a timeline to be decided after the LTB issued a ruling on the N13s. The committee decided to reconvene within 45 days to set a timeline for repairs.

That decision generated outrage from tenants and city councillors, who directed staff to proactively monitor and ensure sufficient supply of safe potable water is provided."

As of Monday, the city had delivered 650 jugs of water to the tenants with an associated cost of more than $16,000, a figure that includes staff time and vehicle usage.

The landlord has also provided potable water, but it's not clear how much.

On Thursday, Coun. Nrinder Nann, whose Ward 3 includes the Delta area, said she hadn't yet spoken to the tenants after the hearings.

Nann said she lamented the situation had lasted so long but considered the LTB outcome a win" for the residents.

The cost of providing jugs of water, meanwhile, shouldn't be on the public dime, she added.

If it was up to me, I would say ... we should be charging the landlord for the cost of providing the water all this time."

Teviah Moro is a reporter at The Spectator. tmoro@thespec.com