Evicted due to Privacy Screen

[cv23]

so they are blinded by the glare, yet refused to move to the shady side because they " like this side"
what they now like the glare? Sounds like there is little reasoning with them
As if cardboard boxes aren't flammable

Exactly. I'm curious what they like about that unit if it's so very very busy and loud and hard to sit out there with the noise and glare from the traffic?

Clearly it's all about them thinking they are "special" so don't have to abide by the rules that everyone else does. The only reason they gave for not moving the other unit which would help alleviate some of their issues with the presently occupied unit is "We don't want to".
Hopefully the RTB informs them "what they want" doesn't matter as much as what they legally agreed to

[normaM]

sounds like the side they are currently on is dirty, blinding bright, noisy 24/7
But nope, we wanna stay
If they hadn't been offered what to me sounds like a far better deal that's one thing
this is just being stubborn
And if they get evicted then what?

[JLives]

The rules are dumb, so long as they find a solution that is not a fire hazard. This is not worthy of an eviction notice. Strata people have too much free time on their hands and should be fined for wasting the time of the RTB. Leave these people alone and find a mutually beneficial solution in their current residence.

[Fancy]

The rules are dumb, so long as they find a solution that is not a fire hazard. This is not worthy of an eviction notice. Strata people have too much free time on their hands and should be fined for wasting the time of the RTB. Leave these people alone and find a mutually beneficial solution in their current residence.

That was tried. The rules aren't dumb when it specifically states no flammables.

[JLives]

The rules are dumb, so long as they find a solution that is not a fire hazard. This is not worthy of an eviction notice. Strata people have too much free time on their hands and should be fined for wasting the time of the RTB. Leave these people alone and find a mutually beneficial solution in their current residence.

That was tried. The rules aren't dumb when it specifically states no flammables.

The rules are dumb. What about a metal screen or something with tinted fiberglass panels? There's non flammable options. The bbq cover and deck chairs were a good option. It's not about the non flammable part, they're just being jerks.

[cv23]

The rules are dumb, so long as they find a solution that is not a fire hazard. This is not worthy of an eviction notice. Strata people have too much free time on their hands and should be fined for wasting the time of the RTB. Leave these people alone and find a mutually beneficial solution in their current residence.

Dumb or not the rules are legal, reasonable and everyone else in the building seems to have no issue following them. How many times should a tenant be warned about a rules violations before being evicted?

The management company has explained the very clear rules and these tenants don't want to abide by those rules. The management company offered them a different unit to try and help. Management was kind enough to give them MULTIPLE warnings with no fines issued. How much more should the management company do for a tenant who flagrantly ignores the rules. The management company has tried to work with these tenants but the tenants are not willing to abide by the rules they legally agreed to.
What does a strata have to do with a rental building or the RTB??????

[cv23]

The rules are dumb. What about a metal screen or something with tinted fiberglass panels? There's non flammable options. The bbq cover and deck chairs were a good option. It's not about the non flammable part, they're just being jerks.

Agree 100% the tenants are just being jerks.
The tenants knew the rules when they moved in and while the management company has been trying to work with them but the tenants are not being reasonable nor will comply with the rules they agreed to.

[Fancy]

That was tried. The rules aren't dumb when it specifically states no flammables.

The rules are dumb. What about a metal screen or something with tinted fiberglass panels? There's non flammable options. The bbq cover and deck chairs were a good option. It's not about the non flammable part, they're just being jerks.

I'm thinking the jerks are the tenants when they deliberately put flammables out there after being told to remove the screen. This has been going on pretty much since they moved in. Why aren't they more forthcoming coming about the agreement they signed? Just sayin'....

[Nedroj]

The rules are dumb, so long as they find a solution that is not a fire hazard. This is not worthy of an eviction notice. Strata people have too much free time on their hands and should be fined for wasting the time of the RTB. Leave these people alone and find a mutually beneficial solution in their current residence.

That was tried. The rules aren't dumb when it specifically states no flammables.

Anything can be "flammable" even say patio furniture or a book left unattended in the hot sun. Vague rules like that are hard to enforce because they are easily countered. All these people would have to do is take a few pictures of items on other people's patios that would also classify as "flammable" and state why is this item allowed but this item isn't. If they can show the Strata is being unreasonable and unfairly targeting these people while others are doing the same thing then there is a case for this to be dismissed.

[Fancy]

That was tried. The rules aren't dumb when it specifically states no flammables.

Anything can be "flammable" even say patio furniture or a book left unattended in the hot sun. Vague rules like that are hard to enforce because they are easily countered. All these people would have to do is take a few pictures of items on other people's patios that would also classify as "flammable" and state why is this item allowed but this item isn't. If they can show the Strata is being unreasonable and unfairly targeting these people while others are doing the same thing then there is a case for this to be dismissed.

As I mentioned before, what does the tenancy agreement state?

[gail49]

Denying accommodations for medical issues is against the Human Rights of Canada.

They have a legitimate complaint.

You are 100% right!!! I am dealing with my rental now through human rights on a different issue also for medical issues! There is a clause about rentals and medical issues called --

'duty to accommodate '.

[Fancy]

Denying accommodations for medical issues is against the Human Rights of Canada.

They have a legitimate complaint.

You are 100% right!!! I am dealing with my rental now through human rights on a different issue also for medical issues! There is a clause about rentals and medical issues called --

'duty to accommodate '.

They weren't denied accommodations.

[cv23]

If they can show the Strata is being unreasonable and unfairly targeting these people while others are doing the same thing then there is a case for this to be dismissed.

There is no Strata involved in this case this is a rental building owned by one individual/company with a professional management company in place overseeing daily operations.

[cv23]

Denying accommodations for medical issues is against the Human Rights of Canada.

They have a legitimate complaint.

You are 100% right!!! I am dealing with my rental now through human rights on a different issue also for medical issues! There is a clause about rentals and medical issues called --

'duty to accommodate '.

The building is more than accommodating these ridiculous tenants They have been offered another suite better suited to their health requirements but the tenants "don't want to" move into it.

[cv23]

You are 100% right!!! I am dealing with my rental now through human rights on a different issue also for medical issues! There is a clause about rentals and medical issues called --

'duty to accommodate '.

The building is more than accommodating these ridiculous tenants. They have even been offered another suite better suited to their specific individual health requests but the tenants "don't want to" move into it. The tenants supposedly don't like the light because of glaucoma but for some unknown reason the idea of closing the drapes hasn't occurred to them.
When they were first notified of their breaking the rules they agreed to any normal person would have said "Ooops I'm sorry. Would ... work? Can we do....?". But no, these two just keep doing things against the rules they agreed to without permission or approval and repeatedly got told they were disobeying the same rule over and over again. Obviously the tenants think the rules shouldn't apply to them because for some reason they consider themselves above the rules everyone else in the building abides by and they themselves agreed to before moving in.
They have no legal leg to stand on and should learn to follow the rules they agreed to or find a place that is better suited to their very particular individual comfort requirements.
The one positive thing about them whining in the press is now their names and faces are known so any landlord that doesn't want a problem tenant knows who to avoid renting to.