Bruce Woodrow

A non-profit housing co‑operative applied under the Co‑operative Corporations Act for an order declaring that the respondent’s membership and occupancy rights were terminated, together with a writ of possession and judgment for arrears of housing charges.

The respondent argued that eviction would be unfair due to disputes about subsidies, alleged accounting errors, and significant personal hardship.

The court held that co‑operative eviction decisions are generally entitled to deference and that the respondent could not dispute arrears without first paying the disputed amounts into court as required by the statute.

The respondent had ceased making housing payments for approximately nineteen months, resulting in substantial arrears.

The court concluded that financial hardship alone does not make eviction unfair and granted the requested relief.

A housing co‑operative sought an order terminating a member’s occupancy and membership due to persistent arrears and repeated failures to pay housing charges in full and on time.

The member did not dispute the arrears or the procedural steps taken by the co‑operative’s board of directors, which included notice, an opportunity to make submissions, and information about the appeal process.

The court found the termination process complied with principles of natural and procedural justice and that the member had failed to appeal the eviction decision internally.

Despite acknowledging the hardship the order would cause, the court held that the co‑operative was entitled to enforce its by‑laws and operate in a financially responsible manner.

The court granted an order terminating membership and occupancy, issued a writ of possession, and ordered payment of arrears and ongoing daily charges until vacant possession.