[housewife]

I think the bigger problem is that these two though nothing of withholding rent, doing damage to the appartment and blaming the landlord for all their problems. Between these two and the landlord and tenant board the landlord is screwed.

They refused to show the plant room because they were "sleeping"

[OnTheIce]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Actually, that little piece of paper doesn't restrict them as to where they can grow it, just the amount they can grow.

Correct. However, that piece of paper doesn't give them the right to break rules within the Landlord and Tenant act and violate electrical codes, putting the other residents of the building at a safety risk.

Would you feel comfortable living above or below a place with live wires running randomly through the unit with the walls filled with mold?

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Lots of people grow plants indoors that ain't pot. Is that your suggestion to them as well?

Very true. Most people that grow plants indoors don't damage the property nor do they put other residents at risk with their actions.

[commanderkai]

I love how the issue is that they're growing pot. That's not the issue. The issue is they basically fucked this landlord over by not paying rent, and causing structural changes and damages to his property in order to grow said pot.

Who'll be held accountable? Knowing Ontario, it won't be the tenants, nor the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board, nor the various government agencies that enabled these two dipshits. Nope, the landlord gets fucked over by the Ontario government once again, because he needs to jump through hoops to evict two assholes who think they're entitled to damage another person's property, and not even pay their goddamn rent.

[Lemmy]

commanderkai commanderkai:

I love how the issue is that they're growing pot. That's not the issue. The issue is they basically fucked this landlord over by not paying rent, and causing structural changes and damages to his property in order to grow said pot.

Who'll be held accountable? Knowing Ontario, it won't be the tenants, nor the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board, nor the various government agencies that enabled these two dipshits. Nope, the landlord gets fucked over by the Ontario government once again, because he needs to jump through hoops to evict two assholes who think they're entitled to damage another person's property, and not even pay their goddamn rent.

That's what the landlord says. The tenants' version of the story is much different. They say they didn't do any damage and only refused to pay rent when the landlord failed to maintain the premises. If it turns out that the damage wasn't caused by the tenants, are you going to change your tune or is this more about hating on potheads than dealing with the facts of the case?

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

That's what the landlord says. The tenants' version of the story is much different. They say they didn't do any damage and only refused to pay rent when the landlord failed to maintain the premises. If it turns out that the damage wasn't caused by the tenants, are you going to change your tune or is this more about hating on potheads than dealing with the facts of the case?

Had you read the article, you'd know that the damages were already proven to be the fault of the tenants through the Provincial tribunal and via the adjudicator with the Landlord and Tenant Board.

[ShepherdsDog]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

pot is NOT a narcotic. Aspirin has been/is used to treat/mask/alleviate pain. Is aspirin a narcotic? What about Toradol?

I think Merriam Webster and the Oxford dictionary would disagree...... and every other dictionary, medical and pharmacological publication for that matter.

$1:

1nar·cot·ic noun \när-ˈkä-tik\
: a drug (such as cocaine, heroin, or marijuana) that affects the brain and that is usually dangerous and illegal

medical : a drug that is given to people in small amounts to make them sleep or feel less pain

Full Definition of NARCOTIC

1
a : a drug (as opium or morphine) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions
b : a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not
2
: something that soothes, relieves, or lulls

Reminds me of those who claim smoking tobacco is not an addiction, just a bad habit. Pot, opiates, and coke are all narcotics

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Had you read the article, you'd know that the damages were already proven to be the fault of the tenants through the Provincial tribunal and via the adjudicator with the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Had YOU read the article, you'd know that the tenants are appealing that ruling because they content that the landlord was erroneously presumed to be telling the truth, absent any facts, because of the negative stigma/bias attached to marijuana and particularly indoor marijuana production.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Had YOU read the article, you'd know that the tenants are appealing that ruling because, like with you, the landlords are likely presumed to be telling the truth, absent any facts, because of the negative stigma/bias attached to marijuana and particularly indoor marijuana production.

Read the article again Lemmy.

Absent any facts? Holes in the wall, altered electrical systems. Charge of mischief. Yea, no facts at all!

$1:

“It is not plausible that the landlord would have consented to have extensive damage done to the unit,” said adjudicator Egya Sangmuah.

The tenant has also been charged for altering the electrical system.

I'm sure the landlord went through the unit and ran wires around the place, cut big holes in the wall and filled them with mold just before the people moved in. Seems completely plausible!

[Lemmy]

We'll see what comes of the appeal. If it turns out that the accusations are valid, I will agree with you. If it turns out that the landlord is the one lying, will you change your tune any? The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

Odd that you give Rob Ford pass after pass, demanding accusations be proved and proved and re-proved, but you won't give these guys a chance at a fair appeal before hanging them.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

We'll see what comes of the appeal. If it turns out that the accusations are valid, I will agree with you. If it turns out that the landlord is the one lying, will you change your tune any? The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

Odd that you give Rob Ford pass after pass, demanding accusations be proved and proved and re-proved, but you won't give these guys a chance at a fair appeal before hanging them.

Why are you so quick to judge and condemn others when they are charged with something yet when it comes to this case, you're giving those charged the proper due course they deserve?

Might it be because you're standing behind them because of a habit you share with them? I would think so.

I always reserve judgement. In fact, I think I'm the most vocal about giving anyone charged with wrongdoing their chance to defend themselves.

But, for you to say that there's no facts and we don't know who's responsible is just false. They've had their day in 'court' and were found guilty which they are now trying to appeal. That doesn't even touch the mischief charge.

[dino_bobba_renno]

This is a great example of what is wrong with the MMAR program. They give these people a "licence" to use pot but they don't put any rules or conditions around the use or growing of it. I've looked into this in detail in the past and it's utterly amazing, there isn't one single condition placed on the licence holders who are in the program. There are no rules as to where you can use, no conditions on whether or not you can operate a motor vehicle when medicating, no rules on where you can get your dope and best of all there is no criteria to take a licence away from someone if they are found to be abusing the licence or if they obtained the licence through fraudulent means. Add to that the police wont touch people with these licences if they are found to be breaking laws such as driving while impaired or smoking in the middle of a class room at SAIT.

The whole program needs to be looked at and overhauled so that makes licence holders accountable to someone which they currently are not. Just because you have a MMAR card doesn't mean that you should be able to smoke a joint on a plane, in a school, in a car or have a small grow op in a rental property.

[Lemmy]

I didn't say there weren't facts. I said the defendants claim that the tribunal presumed the landlords' story to be the "facts". The defendants claim the damage was done before they moved in and that they repeatedly tried to get that damage repaired by the landlord. This story just doesn't sound like the typical grow-up case. It seems to me that there's more to this story than the landlord would like everyone to believe. Maybe I'm wrong, but your reaction (and QBalls') seems pretty knee-jerk.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I didn't say there weren't facts. I said the defendants claim that the tribunal presumed the landlords' story to be the "facts". The defendants claim the damage was done before they moved in and that they repeatedly tried to get that damage repaired by the landlord. This story just doesn't sound like the typical grow-up case. It seems to me that there's more to this story than the landlord would like everyone to believe. Maybe I'm wrong, but your reaction (and QBalls') seems pretty knee-jerk.

The landlords claims have been backed up twice. By the tribunal (found guilty) and by the police (still awaiting conviction).

The tribunal didn't go ahead with the proceeding without facts and an actual inspection of the unit in question.

If cutting holes in walls, running illegal wiring and mold growth aren't a typical grow-up case, I don't know what is.

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

That's what the landlord says. The tenants' version of the story is much different.

Right, and the article clearly indictates the tenant's position.

Here's their position:

The article The article:

But the tenants in this year-long battle are appealing the ruling of a provincial tribunal which determined they caused the damage, and say it already existed before they moved in. They accuse the landlord of using their federally authorized grow-op in a converted second bedroom as an excuse to renovate the dilapidated apartment, and have them pay for it.
There is no damage,” said tenant Rebecca Rochon. “The only damage is from the ceiling because there is a hole in the roof. We’re packing up to move. We’ve had enough of him.”

Sure. That sounds believable. The apartment was already set up for a grow-op but now the landlord is wanting to change all that. All that PVC piping with wiring inside, the numerous security cameras within a single apartment. along with a few outside the rental unit, and an industrial strength fan? Yep, all that was already there when they moved in. Only now does the landlord want the second bedroom to be useful for things other than a grow-op. Right. That makes sense.

$1:

They say they didn't do any damage and only refused to pay rent when the landlord failed to maintain the premises.

Two things. First, if the tenants did any structural changes, including installing industrial strength fans, wiring, and any other changes to the layout of the apartment's utilities to support the grow-op, then they caused damage to the apartment. There is no discussion here. The article does not dispute that they did such modifications.

Second, the Landlord and Tenant board already ruled on the tenants' claims against lack of maintenance, and, although they ruled against the landlord, and gave the tenants a $850 abatement of their back rent, the Board also did not rescind their eviction, stating that:

The Article, quoting the Board's ruling The Article, quoting the Board's ruling:

saying most of the repairs needed were cosmetic in nature and did not meaningfully impact on their enjoyment of the premises.

On top of this, the landlord made a claim to the Board about the significant structural modifications the tenants did to his property, and the Board sided with the landlord.

Hilariously enough, when the city inspectors came in look at the damage, they didn't actually enter the room where the grow-op is taking place, thus giving him an incomplete picture of the situation...because the plants need "sleep time." What utter bullshit.

$1:

If it turns out that the damage wasn't caused by the tenants, are you going to change your tune or is this more about hating on potheads than dealing with the facts of the case?

This has nothing to do about "hating potheads". This has to do about hating shitty tenants, with the Landlord and Tenant Board allowing said shitty tenants to not be legally evicted from their apartment after a year, even with two orders of eviction.

They're not shitty tenants for being potheads, they're shitty tenants because they damaged a rental property in order to grow pot, and failed to pay their rent over bullshit excuses, even though they're receiving more than enough money to pay for the rent they owe each month. They're asshole tenants, who happen to think that having a license to grow pot means you can do whatever you fucking want to somebody else's property. The fact that this has been going on for a year is insane, and shows that being a landlord in Ontario is extremely risky business.

[QBall]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

So I guess since you don't like their "habit" they should just give up the pot and become addicted to narcotic painkillers instead?

Last time I looked popping a pill only affects the person taking it. I don't recall anyone ever complaining about the air being filled with Vicadin smoke or a landlord complaining about tenants damaging their apartment from Percacet. Also just because someone takes a prescription pain killer doesn't mean they automatically become addicted to them.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Actually, that little piece of paper doesn't restrict them as to where they can grow it, just the amount they can grow.

It also doesn't give them the right to grow it wherever and however they choose. I suppose a common sense/common courtesy test should be given before they hand out those licenses.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Lots of people grow plants indoors that ain't pot. Is that your suggestion to them as well?

Your average homeowner/tenant, and by average I mean 99% of them, are't growing 24 Bougainvilleas or 24 Hydrangeas or 24 Wisterias inside their house at a time. They may have one or two plants or if they're really into plants maybe even four or five inside their home, but when you reach 24 plants it's like having 24 cats: That many living things do not belong inside a house/apartment. People growing 24 Bougainvilleas or 24 Hydrangeas or 24 Wisterias have the common sense to do so inside a green house.