Eviction

[LANDM]

What’s interesting is that the government evades the residential tenancy rules.....imagine if a normal landlord tried evicting for this reason? It would be a top story on the news.
And, it would not be allowed.

Owners of Condos in Strata buildings that are 19+ have been forced to sell due to having a child.
Rules are rules. Bylaws are bylaws.

Yes, but having an extra child? I’m not aware of that being a permissible or enforceable bylaw under the strata act or reason to evict under the RTA. However, I have not thought about it in detail so I could be wrong.

There were changes to the strata regulations where the old willy nilly age rules were narrowed down to 19+ and 55+, because of enforceability.

[soupy]

Owners of Condos in Strata buildings that are 19+ have been forced to sell due to having a child.
Rules are rules. Bylaws are bylaws.

Yes, but having an extra child? I’m not aware of that being a permissible or enforceable bylaw under the strata act or reason to evict under the RTA. However, I have not thought about it in detail so I could be wrong.

There were changes to the strata regulations where the old willy nilly age rules were narrowed down to 19+ and 55+, because of enforceability.

And this case involves neither because it is BC Housing. They wrote the policy, they are enforcing it. Makes perfect sense to me.

[kgcayenne]

Let’s suspend our judgment and resulting fascist remedies for just a minute and look at this bit of business:

She currently lives in a unit with three levels, full basement, living room, dining room, kitchen and a half bath on the second floor with a full bathroom with two large bedrooms on the top floor.

she has adequate space. I shared a room with my child for a year in order to stay fed and housed.

What about large families whose children were three to a room?

Seriously, if she were refusing a regular rental with less than that kind of space, people on here would cut her up for it, and tell her to lower her standards and share a room.

BC Housing: house people ferchrissakes.

People whining about ‘my tax dollars’: this woman could end up homeless and three children put in care. How much do you think it costs to keep children in foster homes? Well, it is a whole boatload more than what is going to this family now.

My own fascist remedy: every third cheque could be picked up at a clinic where a depo shot is given.

[JLives]

^^^ This.

Screw the rules. They're hurting, not helping, in this case. Let's start actually caring about people and looking at the big picture. And can we stop shaming women for reproducing? Are we of the mindset that kids are just for well educated rich people or something? We all deserve loving families and she has the space to accommodate. My mother spent my teenage years sleeping on a hide a bed in the living room so she could give her kids their own space and a HOME. You people would have been at the front door with pitchforks if this happened now.

[LANDM]

Yes, but having an extra child? I’m not aware of that being a permissible or enforceable bylaw under the strata act or reason to evict under the RTA. However, I have not thought about it in detail so I could be wrong.

There were changes to the strata regulations where the old willy nilly age rules were narrowed down to 19+ and 55+, because of enforceability.

And this case involves neither because it is BC Housing. They wrote the policy, they are enforcing it. Makes perfect sense to me.[/quote]
Which exactly explained and effectively repeated what I said. They don’t have to adhere to the same rules as everyone else. Merely a notation.

[Piecemaker]

Devil's Advocate here, since I know nothing about this woman beyond the link posted...
First, having mental health challenges can mean many things. It does not mean one cannot be a good parent.
Extreme stress however, is not good for anyone's mental health or parenting. Having a safe home to live in and raise one's children is something that may make all the difference for this parent.
Her home sounds adequate in size in which to raise 3 children. The rule by BC Housing was likely made with good intention to prevent over-crowding by extended family members or others moving into a unit or building. BC Housing provides affordable homes so that people have adequate space to live and children to grow. However, to rule that an infant cannot share a room with a parent is ridiculous. Foster parents are allowed to have an infant in their bedroom until age 2, for Pete's sake! Depending upon age and gender of the other children, they can certainly share a room for several years at least.
Another solution would be for BC Housing to provide her with a 3-bedroom unit( if their rule cannot be waived when it makes sense to do so).
We don't know the circumstances of her pregnancy. Not all birth control is fail proof. She may have been in a relationship that she believed to be a long-lasting, committed with the father contributing to future housing. She may have been sexually assaulted. It is a pretty sad state of things when people suggest she should give up her child for adoption because of poverty.
There are many of us pontificating on this forum who wouldn't be here without birth-control failure...even failure to get used.

[Mike Br.]

Which part of max occupancy regulation did she not understand?

[dontrump]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-259725-2-.htm#259725
How about taking responsibility for your own action's. Single mother now 3 kids. Come on its not our problem it's yours, own it.

not sure about this if its true I think it,s awful look its extremely hard to find a pace to rent ,looking at the size etc
of this place I don't think the difference between 3 or people is of any concern at all
because its basically a government run system there should be exceptions to the rules some times

[mexi cali]

Devil's Advocate here, since I know nothing about this woman beyond the link posted...
First, having mental health challenges can mean many things. It does not mean one cannot be a good parent.
Extreme stress however, is not good for anyone's mental health or parenting. Having a safe home to live in and raise one's children is something that may make all the difference for this parent.
Her home sounds adequate in size in which to raise 3 children. The rule by BC Housing was likely made with good intention to prevent over-crowding by extended family members or others moving into a unit or building. BC Housing provides affordable homes so that people have adequate space to live and children to grow. However, to rule that an infant cannot share a room with a parent is ridiculous. Foster parents are allowed to have an infant in their bedroom until age 2, for Pete's sake! Depending upon age and gender of the other children, they can certainly share a room for several years at least.
Another solution would be for BC Housing to provide her with a 3-bedroom unit( if their rule cannot be waived when it makes sense to do so).
We don't know the circumstances of her pregnancy. Not all birth control is fail proof. She may have been in a relationship that she believed to be a long-lasting, committed with the father contributing to future housing. She may have been sexually assaulted. It is a pretty sad state of things when people suggest she should give up her child for adoption because of poverty.
There are many of us pontificating on this forum who wouldn't be here without birth-control failure...even failure to get used.

Great post. You changed my mind.