ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-494794

DATE: 20140630

BETWEEN:

HARRY SHERMAN CROWE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE INC.
Applicant/Co-operative

– and –

KADYAN BENJAMIN
Respondent

Celia Chandler, for the Applicant/Co-operative

Kadyan Benjamin, In Person

HEARD: 21 May 2014

REASONS FOR DECISION

Application under section 171.13 of the Co-operative Corporations Act

MEW J.

[1] The modern co-operative movement traces its roots to the rules and recommended practices of the Rochdale Pioneers Equitable Society, passed in 1844. Just as then, modern co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. These values are carried forward by the principles adopted at the International Co-operative Alliance’s Centennial Congress in 1995.

[2] Kadyan Benjamin is a member of the applicant housing co-operative (the “Co-op”). The primary objective of housing co-operatives is to provide housing to its members (Co-operative Corporations Act (“CCA”), R.S.O. 1990, c. C.35, s. 5(3.1)(a).

[3] Housing co-operatives and their members have rights and obligations, which are set out in the applicable legislation and the by-law of the Co-op.

[4] The Co-op’s by-law has various schedules and appendices, including the “Occupancy Agreement” at Schedule A. The principles adopted at the International Co-operative Alliance’s Centennial Congress in 1995 are included as an appendix to the Co-op’s by-laws.

[5] One of the responsibilities of a member of the Co-op who is in occupation of housing provided by the co-operative is to pay the applicable “housing charge” or rent.

[6] Kadyan Benjamin is the sole occupant of a two-bedroom unit owned by the Co-op. The normal monthly housing charge for the unit is currently $976 per month (including a $12 monthly fee for “sector support”). As of the date of argument of this application, Ms. Benjamin owed $8,560.84, with additional housing charges accruing at a rate of $32.09 per day thereafter.

[7] The applicant now moves for relief pursuant to s. 171.13 of the CCA, namely, orders for:

(a) Termination of the respondent’s membership and occupancy rights as of 30 September 2013;

(b) A writ of possession forthwith;

(c) Payment of arrears of housing charges until vacant possession of the unit currently occupied by the respondent is provided; and

(d) Costs.

[8] The nature of the application necessitates a review of a decision taken by the Board of Directors of the applicant on 18 September 2013, at which time the Board decided to terminate the membership and occupancy rights of the respondent based on the alleged arrears and repeated late payment of housing charges. These would be permissible grounds for eviction under the Co-op’s by-laws.

[9] On 20 September 2013, Ms. Benjamin was served with the Board’s Eviction Decision and Notice of Eviction Decision, terminating her membership and occupancy rights as of 30 September 2013.

[10] No issue is taken with respect to the form and content of the notice, having regard to Article 9.3 of the Occupancy By-law (which is entitled “How the Co-op Can Evict a Member”) and subsection 171.8(2)(8) of the CCA.

[11] It should also be noted that the decision of the Board to terminate the respondent’s membership and occupancy rights was suspended, such that if the respondent had paid her full arrears, said at that time to be $2,211 by 30 September 2013, the eviction process would not have gone forward.

[12] Ms. Benjamin did not pay the full arrears owing by 30 September 2013 but did, as was her right to, appeal the decision to the Co-op’s membership. An annual general members meeting (AGM) of the applicant was scheduled to take place on 12 November 2013. Ms. Benjamin’s appeal was put on the agenda. Ms. Benjamin’s appeal letter is set out in full below, and summarizes evidence that she subsequently deposed to in an affidavit sworn by her in connection with this application:

This letter serves to appeal my eviction from the place I call home since I was 3 years old. To my knowledge, my mother left the unit without owing any money to the co-op. In addition, she has been paying her rent on time and in some cases 6 months ahead of time.

My family and I have lived here for 18 years without damaging any property or causing any trouble for other members or the co-op’s management. 2 years ago, our home was broken into on the 1st floor while my mother and brother slept. We reported this to the co-op and nothing was done, not even a notice to the other residents that this had taken place. Since then, my mother has resolved to move for fear that the next time may be worse. I tried to convince her that we would be safe, but she decided to leave, which she did this July. Unable to accommodate me, I decided to remain in the apartment and start my life, as I was still in school and did not want to quit.

My mother spoke to the secretary in the office about vacating the unit and they told her that they would simply transfer the lease, and I could pay rent geared to my OSAP. As soon as my mother left, I was asked to sign a lease for the market rent; I explained that I was not able to pay it because my OSAP was limited. I was then told to go and apply for subsidy, so I went downtown and applied, but they said the waiting list would be a maximum of 2 years.

The office told us that the rent would be geared to income, but now they have changed their minds, which I do not understand, I am willing to accept a smaller unit in order to pay, as I am currently occupying a 2-bedroom unit. I have gone to Ontario Works to get help, but their help is limited as well. I have exhausted all other options and have failed last semester at my school because of the stress of becoming homeless.

For the past 3 months, I have done my part in trying to find a solution to this matter and have remained positive, even though the administration has failed to help me concerning my situation. I currently have nowhere else to go and, it is and has been difficult finding elsewhere on short notice that is also pet friendly. As much as our building has lost much of its appeal, it is still home for me and until my situation changes I am hoping it will remain as such.

Thank you for your time concerning this matter, and I do hope that we can reach an agreement.

[13] On 12 November 2013, Ms. Benjamin attended for the annual general meeting. However, a quorum was not present. Ms. Benjamin states in her affidavit that one member suggested that the Board should wait a bit longer so that other members could come out to the meeting, but a member of the Board said that according to the by-law they could only wait 30 minutes. Be that as it may, the meeting did not become quorate and, as a consequence, the Board’s decision was deemed to be confirmed by virtue of Article 9.4(g)(ii), which provides that the Board’s decision is confirmed if a quorum is not present at the meeting at the time of a vote on a member’s appeal.

[14] After a person’s membership and occupancy rights are terminated, a housing co-operative may apply to a judge of this court for an order declaring that the person’s membership and occupancy rights are terminated and directing that a writ of possession be issued (CCA, s. 171.13(1)). The court may also order the payment of arrears of housing charges (s. 171.13(2)).

[15] Section 171.13(12) of the CCA provides:

After a hearing, the judge shall determine the applicant’s claim and may make an order declaring the membership and occupancy rights terminated … or directing that a writ of possession issue or give judgment for the arrears of housing charges … and in any such order may pose such terms and conditions as the judge considers appropriate.

[16] The applicant therefore proceeded to effect the eviction of the respondent and the termination of her membership by initiating this application.

[17] According to Ms. Benjamin’s affidavit, in February 2014 after receiving her student loan, she did attempt to agree to terms with the applicant that would enable her to remain. However, her proposal was predicated upon occupancy of a one-bedroom unit at a rent geared towards her limited income. The applicant was unable to accommodate Ms. Benjamin’s request and advised the respondent that unless she was able to pay the full housing charge each month plus $150 towards arrears and legal fees and agreed to a judgment against her that could be used to evict her if she failed to make the payments, the applicant would proceed with the eviction process.

[18] Notwithstanding any other provision of the CCA or the Co-op’s by-law, a judge may “refuse to grant the application if he or she is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be unfair to grant it”: s. 171.21(1). In Windward Co-operative Homes Inc. v. Shuster (2007), 2007 8010 (ON SCDC), 222 O.A.C. 311 (Div. Ct.), Swinton J. observed, at paras. 11 to 12:

Judges will usually defer to an eviction decision made by a non-profit housing co-operative because of its democratic and self-governing nature (McBride v. Comfort Living Housing Co-operative Inc. (1992), 1992 7474 (ON CA), 7 O.R. (3d) 394 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 20; Ryegate (Tecumseh) Co-operative Homes Inc. v. Stallard, 2000 30138 (ON SCDC), [2000] O.J. No. 5423 (Div. Ct.) at para. 32; David B. Archer Co-operative Inc. v. D’Oliveira, 2003 21004 (ON SCDC), [2003] O.J. No. 1469 (Div. Ct.) at para. 5). As A. Campbell J. stated in Ryegate (at para. 35), the case law reflects

a general judicial recognition that the consensual and communitarian nature of the co-operative organization commands deference from the courts in any attempt to substitute the view of this court for the democratically governed view of the co-operative and its members.

As a result, the courts have refused to set aside a decision of a co-operative unless it was unreasonable, or the co-operative failed to meet the requirements of procedural fairness in reaching its decision to evict the member (Ryegate at para. 38).

While the hearing judge has discretion to refuse to grant an application for a writ of possession on the grounds of unfairness, such discretion is to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances (Coady Housing Co-operative Inc. v. Fekete, 1995 7057 (ON SC), [1995] O.J. No. 4894 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)) at para. 11).

Was the Board’s Decision Reasonable?

[19] At the time the Board made its decision the respondent owed the Co-op $2,211 (a little over two months’ housing charges). The last payment received by the Co-op from Ms. Benjamin (or her mother) had been on 24 June 2013.

[20] Under the Occupancy By-law (Article 9.2) the Board can evict a member if, inter alia, the member owes housing charges to the Co-op at the time of the board meeting or has been repeatedly late in paying housing charges.

[21] The Notice to Appear, delivered to the respondent to inform her that the Board would be meeting to consider evicting her, specified the amount said to be owing by the respondent and alleged that she had repeatedly paid her monthly housing charges late (a member ledger was attached showing charges and payments relating to the respondent’s account).

[22] The member ledger in fact shows that the member’s account had had a zero balance as recently as 14 March 2013. She and her mother had then started to fall behind, although as recently as 1 July 2013 her outstanding balance had been down to $247.

[23] To assess the reasonableness of the Board’s decision, it is instructive to expand on the circumstances set out in the letter prepared by the respondent in connection with her appeal to the Co-op’s AGM.

[24] Ms. Benjamin has lived in the Co-op’s building since she was four years old. She became a member of the Co-op, in her own right, when she reached the age of 16. Until 26 July 2013, Ms. Benjamin had shared occupancy of a unit at the Co-op with her mother.

[25] Initially, Ms. Benjamin and her mother lived in a first-floor unit. However, in November 2011 their apartment was broken into by a male intruder. A subsequent request by Ms. Benjamin’s mother to put a bar on the window through which the intruder had gained entry was declined by the Co-op on safety grounds. After the break and enter, Ms. Benjamin’s mother became “paranoid and could not sleep”. She asked to be relocated to a unit on a higher level, but was told that she would have to go on a waiting list. Five months later, Ms. Benjamin and her mother moved to a unit on the 7th floor.

[26] Unfortunately, the problems experienced by Ms. Benjamin and her mother did not end. The unit was regularly infiltrated by the smell of marijuana. According to Ms. Benjamin, late at night she and her mother could hear voices in the stairwell and the smell of marijuana came seeping through the cracks of their front door. Ms. Benjamin’s mother became restless and stressed about another break-in.

[27] Although Ms. Benjamin and her mother raised their concerns with the co-operative, they were told that there was little that could be done. A rubber strip was placed on the door to help block the smell of marijuana, but it did not really help. Eventually, Ms. Benjamin’s mother could not tolerate the noise or stress any longer. She moved out, leaving Ms. Benjamin to live alone in the two-bedroom unit.

[28] Until 2010, the respondent and her mother had received rent-geared-to-income (“RGI”) assistance under the Social Housing Program administered by the City of Toronto. However, in July 2010 they were advised that, based on their income, they were no longer eligible for RGI assistance. This resulted in an increase to their housing charge. They were also told that if they did not qualify for RGI assistance again with the next 12 months, they would have to submit any subsequent application for subsidy assistance through the City of Toronto.

[29] The 12-month period came and went.

[30] Ms. Benjamin was a student at the time of her mother’s departure. Consequently, when her mother left, there was a dramatic drop in the household’s income. But Ms. Benjamin no longer had the benefit of any housing charge subsidy.

[31] According to Article 6.2 of the Occupancy By-law, members of the Co-op are required to give prompt written notice of any change in the number of persons in a member’s household. The by-law goes on to provide that the minimum number of people who can live in a 2 bedroom unit is two persons.

[32] Ms. Benjamin complied with this requirement by promptly notifying the applicant when she became the sole occupant of her two-bedroom unit.

[33] Ms. Benjamin claims that before her mother had moved out, she had spoken with Jennifer Chung, the applicant’s housing administrator, and had asked her if the Co-op could provide her with a smaller or subsidized unit. Ms. Chung was told that the respondent would not be able to afford the market rent of $976. Ms. Benjamin claims that Ms. Chung told Ms. Benjamin’s mother that subsidy could be provided but that her mother must first give notice to move out and have her name removed off the member lease. That is apparently what then happened.

[34] After Ms. Benjamin’s mother vacated the unit, Ms. Benjamin was given a new lease agreement to sign with the Co-op specifying the market rent of $976. Ms. Benjamin did not sign the agreement. Instead, she spoke to Ms. Chung, explaining to her that she could not pay the stated amount and reminding her that (as per what she claims to have been told by her mother) the Co-op had agreed to provide her with a subsidy. Ms. Benjamin says that she was told by Ms. Chung that because her mother was not on RGI assistance when she left, the Co-op could not provide her with a subsidy, and that she would have to go to Toronto Community Housing and apply for one. This advice appears to be consistent with what the respondent and her mother were told in 2010.

[35] Ms. Benjamin was confused. She looked at the Occupancy By-law, which informed her that rights to a subsidy could be found in the Housing Charge Subsidy By-law (Article 3.5). The same article stated that the applicant’s coordinator “is authorized to determine who is entitled to subsidy and the amount of the subsidy”, with a right of appeal from the coordinator’s decision to the Board of Directors. Furthermore, the website of Toronto Community Housing advised that housing providers, such as the applicant, maintain waiting lists and are required to give priority to applicants who have been, inter alia, “over housed”.

[36] When Ms. Benjamin spoke to an agent at Toronto Community Housing, she was told that the applicant should have placed her on their internal transfer list so that she could move to a smaller unit. The agent told her that since she had been an occupant in the co-op for roughly 18 years and was, as a result of her mother’s departure, living in an “over housed” unit, her case should be a priority, with her name placed at the top of the waiting list and ranked by the date on which she became a member. She was given a “Market Rent Tenant Provider” form to give to the Co-op, for the Co-op to then return to Toronto Community Housing, so that she would be placed as a priority in their system. Ms. Benjamin subsequently discovered that when the Co-op had filled out its portion of the form, a mistake was made in that Ms. Benjamin’s date of membership was shown as 1 July 1996 – the date when her mother first became a member – rather than 2008, which was the year that Ms. Benjamin became a member in her own right; because of this error, the system at Toronto Community Housing had not recognized her application and she had not been placed on their waiting list.

[37] Ms. Benjamin also sought help from Ontario Works. Like the TCH agent, the individual at Ontario Works to whom Ms. Benjamin spoke was confused as to why Ms. Benjamin’s rent had not been lowered and why she had not been moved into a smaller unit. She was told that because her rent was “too high”, she was not eligible for funding. However, shortly before she met with the Board, she says that Ontario Works agreed to cover $800 towards the arrears and fund her $600 per month going forward. According to Ms. Benjamin, the Board members told her that these sums were not enough to pay off everything in full and that she would still be in arrears.

[38] Ms. Benjamin then went back to her case worker at Ontario Works and informed her of what had been said at the board meeting. She was told that once she got her first funding cheque and acceptance slip that she should bring it to the Co-op’s office and then it would be the Co-op’s responsibility to alter her rent upon receipt. Upon receipt of a cheque for $600 from Ontario Works for the month of September, Ms. Benjamin claims that she met with Ms. Chung. Ms. Benjamin informed the coordinator that she had been told that it was the Co-op’s responsibility to change her rent upon receipt of the Ontario Works letter accompanying the $600 cheque, and that if there were any problems the Co-op should contact the Ontario Works case worker. Shortly afterwards, on 20 September 2013, Ms. Benjamin received a letter from the Board with the decision to evict her.

[39] According to Ms. Benjamin, because of the stress of trying to deal with her new living condition and the arrears, she was unable to focus on her school work and failed her courses for the summer semester. She was placed on academic probation.

[40] There is no indication from the record that there was ever any direct contact between the Co-op and the case worker at Ontario Works. After the unsuccessful attempt to appeal, Ms. Benjamin says that the Ontario Works case worker told the respondent that she would need to obtain legal advice.

[41] Ms. Benjamin was unable to obtain legal aid and, thus, unable to afford to hire a lawyer. Nevertheless, at the hearing of the application she filed a motion record, the form and content of which did her great credit.

[42] The applicant’s housing administrator, Ms. Chung, denies that she ever advised Ms. Benjamin or her mother that the applicant could provide Ms. Benjamin with a subsidized unit. While it is acknowledged by the applicant that Ms. Benjamin requested a transfer to a smaller unit in July 2013, she was not eligible for a transfer under Article 6 because she had to have lived in her current unit for one year (which, at the time, she had not). Furthermore, she was ineligible for an internal transfer because she was in arrears. Finally, although the applicant knew that Ms. Benjamin had requested a transfer, she had not submitted a formal Application for Relocation, pursuant to the Member Selection and Unit Allocation By-law and, hence, her transfer request could not, in any event, be processed.

[43] Ms. Chung denies any knowledge of Ms. Benjamin’s efforts to receive financial aid. No funds have ever been paid to the Co-op by Ontario Works for Ms. Benjamin’s housing charges or arrears. A member ledger, printed off on 1 May 2014, confirms that no payments from Ontario Works (or any other source, for that matter) have been applied to the respondent’s account. There is nothing in the evidentiary record to explain the contradictory evidence of the applicant and the respondent concerning monies received from Ontario Works.

[44] While the picture is an incomplete one, it does appear that Ms. Benjamin is in a catch-22 situation. Through no fault of her own she now finds herself as a single person occupying a two-bedroom unit. This is a violation of the Occupancy By-law. Knowing this, Ms. Benjamin did what the Occupancy By-law required her to do, and notified the Co-op. The Co-op, however, says that she cannot move to a smaller unit, which she would be more likely able to afford, because she and her mother had moved to the unit she currently occupies less than a year previously. Furthermore, the Co-op says that the applicant is barred by virtue of the fact that she has fallen into arrears (not surprising given the cost of occupancy of the two-bedroom unit). Even if she could overcome these two hurdles, she would still have to fill out the correct form, which the applicant says she has not filed, and she would then have to wait her turn. Indeed, although it is not entirely clear, it may be that her position on the priority list has been negatively impacted by the Co-op having provided incorrect information to Toronto Community Housing.

[45] While the Co-op necessarily has rules that govern the number of occupants, units, transfers and arrears, there is nothing in the record that suggests a recognition by the Board that the respondent’s circumstances were the result of a conflicting intersection of these rules. She should have been extended more of a helping hand. Instead the Co-op moved quickly down the path to an eviction decision.

[46] One of the aims and objectives of co-operatives is to provide and operate housing accommodation primarily for persons of low or modest income. This does not, of course, relieve members of the obligation of paying their occupancy charges. Indeed, as Pitt J. pointed out in Secord Avenue Co-operative Homes Inc. v. John, unreported, 20 April 2009:

[Y]ou could have a situation developing where if one person’s failure to pay might result in other people themselves losing their right to stay in the co-op, because it is not a situation where your failure to pay impacts only you; your failure to pay has a significant impact on everybody else because that is the whole idea of a co-op.

[47] In the respondent’s case, however, on 8 August 2013 when Ms. Benjamin received a letter from the office regarding the arrears, which then stood at $1,260, she had only been in the unit alone for 13 days. She had not yet signed a new lease agreement because she believed the housing charge provided for in the lease was unfair having regard to her circumstances. She was trying to get things straightened out.

[48] When she was shown a copy of the ledger relating to occupancy of the unit (which, until July 2013, had been by her mother and her) she discovered there had in fact been just two late fees incurred by her mother in 2012 and 2013, both of which had been paid within less than 24 hours. Likely not an extreme example of repeated late payment.

[49] While there is no indication that the Board did not properly follow the procedures relating to the decision to evict, given the unique circumstances of the respondent – and in particular the “Catch-22” as described above – I have concluded that the Board’s decision in September 2013 to evict her was nevertheless unreasonable.

[50] The Co-op could and should have done more to work with the respondent to help her navigate the issues of transferring to a one-bedroom unit and obtaining a reinstatement of subsidy. To the extent that the Co-op’s own policies impeded the ability of the respondent to move into a smaller and more affordable unit, there should have been some recognition of this by the Board.

[51] Even if I am wrong in my conclusion that the Board’s decision was unreasonable, s. 171.21 of the CCA, as Himel J. noted in Lakeshore Village Artists’ Co-Operative Inc. v. Leger, [2004] O.J. No. 6180 (S.C.), at para. 47:

… provides that even if a judge finds that the eviction decision was procedurally fair and there was a reasonable basis for the Board of Directors to arrive at its decision at the time, the judge may still refuse to grant an application for a writ of possession where, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be unfair to grant the application…

[52] In Windward, supra, at para. 28, the Divisional Court stated that “‘unfairness’ requires a balancing of the interests of the member facing eviction and the other members of the Co-operative”.

[53] Lakeshore Village was decided before Windward. The court in Windward declined to follow the result in Lakeshore Village because, in Windward, unlike in Lakeshore, there had not been “an improper removal of a subsidy or an incorrect calculation of arrears… At no time up to the hearing was the respondent in receipt of a subsidy. Nor was there any evidence that he was eligible to receive a subsidy in accordance with the Co-operative's Subsidy Policy at the time of the hearing judge's decision. Nevertheless, the hearing judge stayed the enforcement of the order to pay arrears and, in effect, ordered an indefinite and retroactive subsidy” (para. 26).

[54] By contrast, in Ms. Benjamin’s case, the initial removal of her (mother’s) subsidy was not challenged, but there does not seem to be a serious dispute that she would have been eligible for a subsidy at the time of the eviction decision and was in fact seeking one.

[55] Furthermore, the Board decided to evict Ms. Benjamin almost immediately after her mother moved out (contrast with Harry Sherman Crowe Housing Co-operative Inc. v. Hylton, 2012 ONSC 1229, at para. 28, per B.P. O’Marra J. where there was an extensive history of the member falling into arrears and entering into repayment agreements) and notwithstanding the fact that there was no evidence Ms. Benjamin was otherwise a disruptive tenant. Further, Ms. Benjamin is a long-time tenant (in Ellen McGreal Housing Co-operative Inc. v. Kubo-Bunzigiye, 2012 ONSC 111, B.P. O’Marra J. notes, at para. 28, that “[m]any of the cases where courts have refused to uphold orders of eviction were ones where the member had lived in the cooperative for many years or the problems were a function of the tenant's health difficulties”) and her proactive efforts to resolve the housing situation were stymied in part by the Co-op’s own rules.

[56] For the foregoing reasons, I decline to grant a writ of possession or to terminate the respondent’s membership of the Co-op at this time.

[57] The matter does not end there, however. There remain substantial arrears of housing charges.

[58] While the respondent’s current predicament is, in part, a result of the applicant’s inability to relocate her to a smaller, more affordable unit and to assist her, to the extent possible, in obtaining a reinstatement of subsidy or other financial assistance, she cannot expect to live for free. She must pay something until things are sorted out.

[59] No evidence was adduced as to what the housing charge would be on a one-bedroom unit – with or without subsidy. Nor was there much evidence concerning the ability of Ms. Benjamin to pay even a lower rent. The record does indicate that in February 2014 she was agreeable to paying $100-$150/month towards the arrears in addition to a housing charge reflective of her limited income for a one-bedroom unit.

[60] In Lakeshore Village, referenced above, a case that has some points of similarity to the present matter, Himel J. ordered payment by the member of a monthly amount for “outstanding arrears and towards the monthly charges pending determination of the monthly charge once his subsidy is approved” as well as ordering the co-operative to place the member’s name on the “over housed” housing list of the co-operative, to complete the forms necessary to effect an internal transfer to a smaller unit in the building immediately and to prepare the necessary forms for an application for subsidy. The member was ordered to complete those forms and submit them immediately to the housing authority. The member was also directed to take steps to apply for a disability pension to increase his monthly income and, hence, his ability to pay monthly rent. Himel J ordered that, provided the monthly payments were made, the member could stay in his larger unit until a smaller one became available. Her order also provided for a writ of possession issuing in the event of further default.

[61] I am prepared to consider the imposition of similar conditions to those ordered in the Lakeshore Village case. I do not, however, have the necessary information to devise appropriate terms at this time. If the parties are unable to agree on such terms for incorporation into a consent order, I will invite further input from the parties and set such conditions as seem to be appropriate.

[62] Given the outcome, there will be no order as to costs.

Mew J.

Released: 30 June 2014

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HARRY SHERMAN CROWE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE INC.
Applicant/Co-operative

– and –

KADYAN BENJAMIN
Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mew J.

Released: 30 June 2014