6. hABITUAL PROBLEM LANDLORDS – RESPONSE TO INQUIRY 03-07

Propriétaires difficiles habituels - Demande de renseignements 03-07

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION as amended

That Council approve the following:

WHEREAS Rideau-Vanier, Somerset and Kitchissippi Wards have a Task Force established to deal with habitual problem properties;

AND WHEREAS the identified properties have been a problem for a number of years and receive excessive calls for service at an extensive cost to the City;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT By-law Services adopt a no tolerance approach for Rideau-Vanier, Somerset and Kitchissippi Wards;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that By-law Services be directed to give the shortest permissible timelines for notices of violations;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that when there is non-compliance of an order that By-law Services move automatically with a charge.

RECOMMANDATIONS MODIFIÉES DU COMITÉ

Que le Conseil approuve ce qui suit :

ATTENDU QUE les quartiers Rideau-Vanier, Somerset et Kitchissippi ont un groupe de travail chargé des questions touchant aux propriétés difficiles habituelles;

ET ATTENDU QUE les propriétés ainsi désignées causent de nombreux problèmes depuis plusieurs années et sollicitent les services de la Ville de façon excessive, ce qui est très coûteux;

IL EST RÉSOLU QUE la Direction des services des règlements municipaux adopte la méthode d’approche de la tolérance zéro pour les quartiers Rideau-Vanier, Somerset et Kitchissippi;

IL EST ÉGALEMENT RÉSOLU QUE l’on donne instruction à la Direction des services des règlements municipaux de donner le délai admissible le plus court en cas d’avis d’infraction;

ET IL EST ÉGALEMENT RÉSOLU QU’à défaut de se conformer à l’ordonnance émise, la Direction des services des règlements municipaux prenne systématiquement des mesures judiciaires pour corriger la situation.

For the information of Council

The Committee approved the following direction to staff:

That the Waste Inspectors be moved over to join the Property Standards Inspectors in the Community and Protective Services Department.

Pour la gouverne du Conseil

Le Comité a approuvé la directive suivante à l’intention du personnel :

Que les inspecteurs des déchets soient transférés et se joignent aux inspecteurs de la conformité aux normes de propriété au sein des Services communautaires et de protection.

DOCUMENTATION

1. Deputy City Manager, Community and Protective Services report dated 2 November 2007 (ACS2007-CCS-CPS-0023).

2. Extract of Draft Minute, 15 November 2007.

Report to / Rapport au:

Community and Protective Services Committee

Comité des services communautaires et de protection

2 November 2007 / le 2 novembre 2007

Submitted by/Soumis par : Rosemary Nelson, Committee Coordinator / Coordonnatrice du comité

Corporate Services Department / Services généraux

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Rosemary Nelson, Committee Coordinator

City Clerk’s Branch/Direction du greffe

(613) 580-2424 x21624, Rosemary.Nelson@ottawa.ca

City-Wide/ À l'échelle de la ville

Ref N°: ACS2007-CCS-CPS-0023

SUBJECT: hABITUAL PROBLEM LANDLORDS – RESPONSE TO INQUIRY 03-07

OBJET: Propriétaires difficiles habituels - Demande de renseignements 03-07

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

For discussion.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Pour discussion.

BACKGROUND

The attached memo from the Director, By-law and Regulatory Services and the City Solicitor entitled “Habitual Problem Landlords – Response to Inquiry 03-07” (Reference ACS2007-CPS-BYL-0048 IPD), was originally issued as “Information Previously Distributed” and listed as such on the Community and Protective Services Committee meeting agenda of 1 November 2007.

DISCUSSION

At the CPSC meeting on 1 November 2007 and on behalf of Councillor Leadman who was unable to attend the meeting, and who had put forward the initial inquiry to staff, the Committee agreed to defer the matter to the next meeting and that it be put on the agenda for discussion at that time.

CONSULTATION

N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 - ACS2007-CPS-BYL-0048

DISPOSITION

Community and Protective Services staff to respond accordingly to Committee direction.

Document 1

M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E

and Regina Saskatchewan, and report back in six months time with a recommendation for a new tool or by-law that would be suitable for our City.”

Bill 130 Enforcement Provisions

Amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001, contained in Bill 130 have provided somewhat greater flexibility to address contraventions of municipal by-laws than what was present prior to January 1, 2007. Most fines for by-law contraventions had a maximum penalty of $5000.00 and rights of entry were limited to those specifically granted in a provision.

Section 429 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides the authority for a municipality to establish a system of fines for offences under the by-law. The system of fines may include the following components:

· Designation of an offence as a continuing offence and provision for a minimum and maximum fine for each day or part of a day that the offence continues;

· Designation of an offence as a multiple offence and provision for a minimum and maximum penalty for each offence occurring in the multiple offence;

· Establishment of escalating fines for a second and subsequent conviction for the same offence and special fines in addition to the regular fine for an offence designed to eliminate or reduce an economic advantage or gain from contravening the by-law.

The Act also sets the range of such fines; that is, the minimum fine for an offence is generally not to exceed $500 and the maximum fine is not to exceed $100,000, although a special fine can exceed the maximum amount. In the case of a continuing offence for each day or part of a day the offence continues, a minimum fine shall not exceed $500 and a maximum fine shall not exceed $10,000. However, the total of all daily fines is not limited to $100,000. The minimum and maximum amounts are the same for each offence in a multiple offence as for the continuing offence but the total of all fines is not limited to $100,000. By-laws related to parking and animals at large may provide for a voluntary payment of penalties out of court. Under the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act, fines are, in most cases, limited to a maximum amount of $5,000.

It is important to note that the system of fines described in the Municipal Act, 2001, only applies to by-laws where the fines are provided for under the Provincial Offences Act. If a by-law is enacted under a different legislative authority which has provisions for penalties, the provisions of Section 429 will not apply. For example, it will not be possible to establish such a system of fines under the Property Standards By-law where the enabling authority is the Building Code Act, 1992 and penalty provisions are included.

In addition, the powers of entry have also been clarified in the amendments contained in Bill 130. In general, municipalities have the right to enter on land at a reasonable time to determine if there is compliance with a by-law. Sections 444 and 445 provide for the issuance of orders by the municipality to discontinue an activity that contravenes a by-law or to correct a contravention.

Legislation in Other Provinces

(a) Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador

Enacted in 2002, The Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act of Manitoba is intended to hold property owners accountable for threatening or disturbing activities that regularly take place on their property due to unlawful drug use, dealing, production or cultivation, prostitution and related activities, unlawful sale of liquor, unlawful use or sale of intoxicating substances, sexual exploitation of a child and possession or storage of unlawful firearms or weapons. Similar legislation has since been enacted in Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Where one or more residents of a neighbourhood fear for their safety, they may file a complaint with the Director of law enforcement and an investigation is carried out. The complainant’s identity is kept confidential and cannot be revealed at any time without the individual’s consent. Upon investigation, the Director has several options: not to proceed; to issue a warning letter; resolve the problem out of court; apply to the court for a Community Safety Order with or without closure of the property; or apply to the court for an Emergency Closure Order. If the Director decides not to proceed, the complainant may take the matter to court at his or her own expense.

If an Order is granted, it is posted on the property. In most cases, the Order will oblige the property owner to take steps to stop the problem and bar any tenants from continuing the specified activities. The tenancy agreement of a tenant may be terminated and the property may also be closed up for a period of time of up to 90 days. There is a right of appeal for the property owner within fourteen days of the Order. Tenants who are not involved in any illegal activities can apply to the court for a variation in the Order that would allow them to return to the property in question.

An owner who does not comply with an Order may face a number of penalties including fines of up to $500 per day of non-compliance. Tenants who do not comply face similar fines. Defacement or removal of a posted Order could also result in a fine of up to $2,500 and/or three months in prison.

Finally, it should be noted that this is provincial legislation that is administered provincially. There is no similar legislation at this time in Ontario.

b) British Columbia - New Westminster By-law

Enacted in 2004, By-law 6926, 2004 of the City of New Westminster is intended to regulate and license the letting of rooms for living purposes and to prescribe maintenance standards for residential property and rental units. The by-law was part of a comprehensive initiative to reduce crime and revitalize a part of the City known as the Twelfth Street Corridor.

This municipal by-law contains provisions enabling the charging of certain fees for what are termed “repeat nuisance calls”. The by-law provides that where police or city officials have been required to respond to 3 or more nuisance service calls for a single residential property in a 12-month period in response to nuisance conduct, activity or conditions, the City may impose an excessive nuisance abatement fee for each additional nuisance service call responded to within the 24-month period following written notice. Excessive nuisance abatement fees are defined to include the following costs incurred while responding to a nuisance service call:

· Pro-rata cost of police and City staff salaries including all fringe benefits;

· Pro-rata cost of using police, fire and City equipment and vehicles;

· Pro-rata administration costs;

· Pro-rata cost of police dogs assisting police officers;

· Cost of repairs to damaged city equipment, vehicles or property; and

· The cost of providing medical treatment to injured police and City staff.

It would appear that this “nuisance abatement fee” was established under the municipal fees provisions of British Columbia’s Community Charter that enable the municipality to impose a fee specifically related to the exercise of authority to regulate, prohibit or impose requirements. It was modeled after similar ordinances that have been implemented in several American cities.

In comparison, the fee provisions in the Municipal Act, 2001, do not contain a similar authority. However, these clauses do recognize that enforcement costs should be considered when establishing fees for services or activities performed by the municipality. Unfortunately, there is no specific authority to impose a fee similar to the nuisance abatement fee in New Westminster’s by-law. This would require amendments to the fees provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001 to permit the municipality to impose fees on individual property owners related to enforcement of municipal by-laws in circumstances where there are repeated requirements for attendance of enforcement staff.

Should Council wish to pursue any of the aforementioned approaches to address problem landlords, a request to the Province for specific legislation would be required.

Current Enforcement/Inspections Program in Ottawa

The following is provided with respect to the current enforcement and inspections program conducted by the By-law and Regulatory Services Branch in relation to problem landlords, primarily through the Property Standards and Property Maintenance By-laws.

Historically, due to limited staff resources, By-law and Regulatory Services was reactive, not proactive, in its enforcement of the Property Standards and Property Maintenance By-laws. Recognizing that this enforcement approach was insufficient, City Council approved the creation of six additional Property Standards Officer positions, which were in place as of June 2007, to better serve the community. The areas of Ottawa, which generate the highest volume of Property Standards Service Requests, are Ward 12 – Rideau-Vanier (Councillor Bédard), Ward 14 – Somerset (Councillor Holmes), and Ward 15 – Kitchissippi (Councillor Leadman). As a result of the deployment of the additional Property Standards Officers, those Wards in particular have experienced an increased Officer compliment of 50%. That additional staffing has provided the By-law and Regulatory Services Branch the opportunity to enhance its enforcement protocol. That is, Officers responsible for the areas specified have, since June, been able to proactively monitor known problematic addresses and take appropriate action as deficiencies are identified.

Further, Problem Property Task Forces have been established in all three of the aforementioned Wards and include representatives from the respective Councillors’ offices, applicable enforcement agencies and interested stakeholders from the community. The Task Forces meet regularly to share information and to ensure that problematic addresses are dealt with strategically. To date, the process has been successful.

In terms of the specifics of the enforcement process, the Ontario Building Code Act provides municipalities the authority to enact and enforce property standards by-laws. Officers are required to issue an Order under Section 15 of the Act to rectify any violations found at a particular location. The Order includes detailed information regarding deficiencies and provides a timeframe in which remedial work must be completed. Should the property owner not comply with the Order within the time limits specified, the City has the authority to enter the subject property to complete the necessary work and to charge back to the registered owner the associated costs by adding such costs to the tax roll. Further, unless circumstances warrant otherwise, a Provincial Offence Notice with a set fine of $610 is issued to property owners who fail to comply with an Order.

I trust that this information will be of assistance.

Original signed by Original signed by

Susan Jones M. Rick O’Connor

Director City Solicitor

By-law and Regulatory Services

c.c. City Manager

Deputy City Manager, Community and Protective Services

hABITUAL PROBLEM LANDLORDS – RESPONSE TO INQUIRY 03-07

Propriétaires difficiles habituels - Demande de renseignements 03-07

acs2007-cps-BYL-0048

ACS2007-CCS-CPS-0023 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Councillor Leadman advised that as a result of problem properties in her ward, correspondence has been forwarded to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. She indicated that the response from the Ministry as a result of Council’s direction following it’s consideration of SCAN (Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act) in July 2007, contradicts what the City is allowed under the municipal by-law and she requested clarification and a process to move towards addressing it by bringing forward the appropriate recommendation to the Ministry to address these discrepancies within the by-laws.

Cheryl Parrot, Hintonburg Community Association referred to her presentation previously distributed to Committee members. A copy of it is held on file.

Ms. Parrot expressed frustration that the City does not seem to be enforcing the by-laws it has and suggested that before it goes to the province to lobby for extra power, it should use it’s existing powers. She cited an example of a crack house in the community that residents have been asking the City for two years to check out because it was a safety issue for them. Recently, the house burned down and she thought that had the City applied the correct pressure to the landlord when requested, perhaps that fire could have been prevented. She provided further examples where the by-laws are being applied to law abiding residents, but problem landlords do not appear to face any consequences (copies held on file). She was seeking the same consistent approach in Hintonburg as that which was being carried out in Rideau-Vanier with proactive enforcement and a coordinated approach to enforcing the by-law.

Referring to the Bill 130 Enforcement Provisions in the report, Councillor Leadman noted that Section 429 of the Municipal Act 2001 provides the authority for the municipality to establish a system of fines for offences under the by-law. When asked if this is something that currently exists or whether it is being proposed under Bill 130, Ms. Jones explained that the new Municipal Act allows for those new authorities; however, the Property Standards legislation falls under the authority of the Building Code Act and the City does not have the ability to do a system of fines under that Act and under the current Property Stanbdards by-law.

Some discussion ensued on the correspondence referred to previously by Councillor Leadman (letter dated 12 October 2007 from the Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Correctional Services ACS2007-CCS-CPS-0015 refers) in which several options are provided to municipalities to respond to problem landlords.

Ms. Jones indicated that while this is a response from one Ministry, she suggested the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the Honourable Jim Watson) should also review the SCAN legislation because his Ministry deals with legislation for housing. She explained that if the City is going to revoke a room house license, for example, the landlord has to evict the tenants. However, not every tenant may be a problem and so while they have laid charges for the license, the rooming house continues to operate because the landlord was not able to successfully evict the problem tenant. She suggested another letter be written to ask for input from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Councillor Leadman suggested that the Director follow-up accordingly with that Ministry and the Director confirmed she has already discussed the matter with the City Solicitor and would take that as direction.

In response to the comment made by the delegation that the City does not appear to be reacting to problem situations, Ms. Jones explained that the number of complaints has increased from 4200 in 2004 to upwards of 7500 this year. In 2007 in Kitchissippi ward alone, staff handled approximately 700 cases, compared to 344 in 2004. She also reminded Committee about the six new officers approved last year to proactively address issues in problem wards. Their call volume is expected to increase and they have few resources to respond to complaints. She emphasized they are doing the best they can with the resources they have and within legislative constraints.

Councillor Leadman hoped applying a zero tolerance policy for non-compliant landlords would give staff the clout do deal with those properties expeditiously. Ms. Jones advised that that is the approach they have taken. However, staff do recognize the challenges property owners face with regards to getting a contractor in to make the requested repairs in a timely fashion. Therefore, if the landlord shows an indication of hiring a contractor, staff believe it is better to allow that to happen rather than having to lay a charge and waiting for the matter to be dealt with. However, should the landlord be non compliant, the City will do the necessary work and collect the fees through the property tax. Further, the City would lay a charge for not doing the work and if it happens again, they will lay another and perhaps seek a higher fine for non compliance. She added that one initiative she and her provincial counterparts are exploring is entering into a reciprocal agreement that will see municipalities serving charges for each other when their respective landlords are located outside the municipality in which their property is located.

Councillor Holmes raised concerns about problem landlords who operate rooming houses with no license and the problems this raises for the community and the City. And, while enforcement of property standards appears to work well, she expressed some concern about building and waste inspections. She referenced her experience whereby Waste Inspectors instruct a property owner to move their garbage onto the private property, thereby making it a property standards matter. It is the latter which generate the complaints. She suggested that any letter written to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing should provide specific details of how the Building Code Act and the Municipal

Act must change in order to get the City better access to those properties as well as a more efficient fining system.

Responding to her initial concern about rooming houses, the Director advised that only those in the former City of Ottawa are licensed. Staff recognize that the by-law is not currently adequate and are working on a new by-law which is intended to be brought forward early in 2008. She added that it is under the new by-law where staff will be able to go in and lay charges, which would go a long way to addressing the issues. In terms of the City going in and doing the work that is required on a property, she explained that they can if invited to do so by the tenant or landlord. Councillor Holmes was interested in seeing the list of work done on properties in her ward.

With respect to the various pieces of legislation and what the City needs in terms of being able to act, Ms. Jones advised that there are a variety of issues such as resources and they need new rooming house legislation and need to move forward with whatever authorities that exist under the Municipal Act to establish a system of fines. She confirmed that the specifics to ask the Minister relate to where the City does not have the authority and the conflicting provincial legislation the City is up against. At the request of the Chair, Ms. Jones agreed to provide a copy of the letter staff prepare for the Ministry, to the Committee.

Councillor Bédard acknowledged that the Nuisance Committee established in his ward appears to be working well and is a reflection of the dedication of the inspectors who have a low level of tolerance for landlords who do not react quickly enough when requested to improve their property. He realized that staff are overworked and overburdened and do not have enough resources, but as eluded to previously by Councillor Holmes, he believed there is a waste of staff resources. To rectify, he suggested that the By-law Officers and the Waste Inspectors should work together in order to reduce the duplication of visits to the same property. He suggested there has to be some sense to having these inspectors better organized in such a way that if they see an infraction they know it is such and act accordingly.

Moved by D. Holmes

That the Waste Inspectors be moved over to join the Property Standards Inspectors in the Community and Protective Services Department.

CARRIED *