Smoke Smoke Smokin' in my condo

UMMMmmm

Trudeau...   The Past Prime Minister said it best when he said the "Government has no business in your bedroom"

What would he say about this?

Section 2(1) of the Human Rights Code provides that:
2.  (1)  Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.
For the purposes of section 2(1) “occupancy of accommodation” has been interpreted to include living in a condominium corporation and “disability” includes a medical condition which may be irritated by the presence of smoke.
It is crucial to note that the Human Rights Code takes precedence over all other Ontario provincial laws, including the Condominium Act.
http://www.millerthomson.com/en/publications/newsletters/mtcondolaw-ontario/june-2014/the-smoker-next-door-responding-to-smoke

Meanwhile, those who smoke on balconies and carelessly flick their butts away are responsible for fires.   Who says so?    The Fire Department.

In the last five years, cigarettes sparked 97 fires on condo and apartment balconies, tallying $45M in damage, said fire chief Ken Block.
That includes the Clareview condo complex fire in May sparked by cigarette butt discarded into a diaper pail, which left more than 300 people without a home.
"Fires caused by the improper disposal of smoking material are completely preventable, and yet are the cause of some of our city's most dangerous and devastating fires, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/cigarette-butt-receptacles-ordered-for-condo-apartment-balconies-1.3114066

So where will we go for a cigarette?

What about marijuana?   Legal Medical use...  I have a permit / script for that...   right?

What are your thoughts?

Can your Landlord SNIFF YOU?

Are they changing too many rules?

Larry the Landlord Renting to Smokers?

No matter your opinion on the No Smoking Bans in public places; Landlords in Toronto are also faced with the reality that after renting to Smokers the condo unit or townhouse will be less desirable to subsequent tenants.

Landlords will very often need to repaint, rebroadloom and may very well need to replace fabric draperies.  So who pays? 

http://www.realequity.ca/cases/smoking.pdf

The Landlord Tenant Boards decision interprets the "wear and tear" that 20 years ago would have been Normal to now be Tenant Damage.

You can and will be held liable for repairs to bring the unit back to a rent-able condition.

Can you pass the SNIFF TEST?

Have the rules gone too far?  

Can a Condo Building Ban Smoking? Toronto Ontario

You know its coming....

The zeal for a NON smoking society.  What was a common and accepted event is now banned at work, restaurants, building entrances, outdoor patios and even soccer fields.   Now with new legislation they are proposing banning smoking in all condominium units and duplexes,  anything that shares a wall.

SAN RAFAEL, Calif., Oct 15 (Reuters) - A San Francisco suburb on Monday banned smoking in duplexes, condominiums and other multi-family homes, with city leaders saying they hoped to lead a wave of such regulations across California and ultimately the country.
The City Council in San Rafael, a community of 57,000 people about 15 miles (24 km) north of San Francisco, voted unanimously for the ban, following a handful of other California municipalities that have outlawed smoking in buildings with as few as two units.
"We are happy to blaze a trail," Mayor Gary Phillips said before the vote. "We're most happy to be in the forefront of the issue because we think it will greatly benefit our residents and those visiting San Rafael, and we think it will set the tone for other cities as well."
Tobacco-control experts predicted that the tough smoking ordinance in San Rafael could touch off a larger movement in other states and cities.
"The San Rafael ban is a very significant event because it will spread," said Robert Proctor, a Stanford University history of science professor. "We're on the downslope of a big curve. Smoking peaked in 1981 with 630 billion cigarettes sold in the United States. Now it's down to 350 billion. And that number will keep on going down until smoking is a distant memory."
San Rafael is the state's ninth municipality to completely restrict smoking in multi-unit housing, said Pam Granger, advocacy manager for the American Lung Association in California. Granger said California was the only state where local jurisdictions have banned smoking in homes.
The ordinance has generally been supported by residents who have spoken at city council meetings, although two smokers came out to oppose the ban on Monday evening.
"This proposed smoking ban actually intends to punish people for what they do in their own homes," Thomas Ruppenthal told the council. "I really feel this is tyranny."
The ordinance also would prohibit smoking on San Rafael's downtown streets - the backdrop for parts of the 1973 film "American Graffiti."
California municipalities have used the report to prohibit smoking in apartments and other multi-family homes. In some cases, the laws apply only to new construction or to just a percentage of a housing complex's units.
But the restrictions have become increasingly strict, and San Rafael's ordinance applies to all homes, new or existing and rented or owned, with shared walls. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/san-rafael-smoking-ban_n_1968990.html

All new or existing condominium units or residences with a shared wall, [takes in Townhouses and Semis] Knowing that we are approximately 6 months to a year behind the trends in California, How long will it be that we hear about this legislation in Toronto, Ontario?

Will Toronto Landlords be performing "sniff" testing on prospect tenants?
Will Condo buildings go SMOKE FREE?
Is a Smoker's Condo Evaluated at Less than market?  How much?

Have you say.... 

Do You have the right to smoke at home?

Victory for non-smoking condo couple in B.C.

A decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal late last year could have an enormous effect on owners and occupants of condominiums and rental apartments across Canada in the coming months.

Paul and Rose Kabatoff live in a suite in an attractive three-storey condominium building in Langley, B.C. They both have a number of health problems including respiratory illnesses and allergies that are negatively affected by second-hand cigarette smoke.

In August 2008, smokers moved into the suite below their own. The Kabatoffs appealed for help to their condominium corporation (known in B.C. as a strata corporation), claiming that the second-hand smoke coming from their neighbours downstairs worsened their health problems. They provided a letter from their doctor supporting their request.

Ideally, the Kabatoffs wanted the condominium to adopt a no smoking bylaw, which it would not do.

Eventually, they filed a claim with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, asserting that the condominium failed to provide them with a housing environment free of second-hand smoke. They alleged that the condominium refused to do anything about the smoke issue, and that they were told that if they had a problem with the smokers they should move.

The B.C. Human Rights Code makes it illegal to deny accommodation to a person because of his or her physical disability (among other reasons) without "a bona fide and reasonable justification." The Ontario code has a similar prohibition, stating that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation without discrimination by reason of disability (and other reasons).

As with other provincial Human Rights Codes, the B.C. code prevails in the event of a conflict with any other legislation – including the B.C. Strata Property Act.

In October, the condominium (strata) corporation applied to the tribunal to have the complaint dismissed without a hearing. They based the application on the fact that the smokers were not violating any condominium bylaws. The president of the corporation said that it does not have a no-smoking bylaw and it therefore had no authority or ability to respond to the complaint.

Essentially, its position was that since there was no prohibition of smoking in an owner's private suite or balcony in the building, there was no basis for the Kabatoff complaint.

Tribunal member Marlene Tyshynski presided at the hearing, and dismissed the condominium corporation's application to toss out the complaint. She also provided a clear road map for the Kabatoffs to pursue and even succeed with their claim.

"If the Kabatoffs are able to establish that they have disabilities that are exacerbated by second-hand smoke," Tyshynski wrote, "their complaint that Strata Corp. failed to accommodate their disabilities could amount to discrimination under the code. The Strata Corp.'s application would be denied."

If the Kabatoffs are able to produce medical evidence of physical disability at the hearing of their complaint, it seems that this condominium – and similar condominium or rental buildings across the country – would be forced to become completely non-smoking if any occupant complains of a disability resulting from tobacco smoke.

As a human rights issue, the no-smoking requirement would supersede any building bylaw or condominium legislation in force at the time.

The idea that external legislation could affect the governing of condominium corporations will probably not go over well with the management and boards of thousands of condo and rental buildings across the country.

On the other hand, those of us who are very sensitive to tobacco smoke will chalk this case up as a significant victory for public health advocates. (Full disclosure: I am an elected member and past chair of the executive committee of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association.)

In a telephone conversation last week, Paul Kabatoff said that negotiations are underway with the new condominium board, and that his Tribunal application may not have to proceed to a full hearing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the entire building became smoke-free within the next little while.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Aaron is a Toronto real estate lawyer. He can be reached by email at bob@aaron.ca, phone 416-364-9366 or fax 416-364-3818.

David Pylyp; So, smoking is bad for you, we all know that. Now, we know that the Landlord Tenant Board previously ruled on Smoking and causing damage to a rented unit; this shows that people are also suing for their right to have a certain lifestyle.

Do you think it is fair? I thought that what ever happened inside our own homes was our own business? Join in Have a say!

Secondary smoke is grounds for action by board

Q: Can anything be done about a heavy smoker if smoke is permeating the next-door unit? Second-hand smoke is a health hazard.

A: The number of second-hand smoke queries sent to me warrants revisiting this question.

The Condominium Act specifies that no person shall permit a condition to exist or carry on an activity in a unit or in the common elements that is likely to damage the property or cause injury to an individual. Injury must be considered as including injury to one's health.

A condominium corporation, under the act, has a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the owners and occupiers of units comply with the act and with the corporation's declaration, bylaws and rules.

If the board is satisfied that second-hand smoke is entering the unit of a complaining occupant, it should demand that the offending owner take steps to deal with the issue, perhaps by limiting his or her smoking or confining it to rooms vented to the outside of the building. If the owner refuses to co-operate or if those steps do not solve the problem, the corporation may be obliged to instruct the owner not to smoke within the unit.

If necessary, the corporation should discuss a court application for a compliance order under section 134 of the Condominium Act with the corporation's lawyer.

David Pylyp; In a previous related post we also talked about a woman suing for damage to her suite by a tenant.  

Would the condominium board be able to PROVE it's case in a court of law?  Who would be responsible for the legal costs of mounting such an action?  How are cooking odours any different in the hallways from second hand smoke? 

Your comments are invited.