Some background on Bonnie O'dea while people wait..
Bonnie O'dea, a single mother who moved to Fredericton from Newfoundland, has been struggling for justice since she arrived almost two years ago. Not long after she moved here--into a unit owned by Fredericton Non-Profit Housing--the trouble soon started. A woman living in the next unit started harassing Bonnie's kids, which included chasing them and uttering racial slurs. Bonnie's landlord, Jennifer Sloat (the landlord of all of Fredericton Non-Profit Housing), did not take action to effect some stoppage of the continuing harassment. Bonnie contacted the police, over and over again (eventually there would be 31 police reports). Bonnie expected the police to do something, but did not get any satisfaction.
As time went on, the same situation repeated itself, with Bonnie continually having to endure stress at work while wondering if her kids were safe at home. This affected her work greatly and caused her great difficulty in being able to work normally. She lost work time and doctor's reports would confirm the stress she was under. Through the unavoidable stress-caused underemployment (and periodic unemployment), her and her family were pushed into trying to survive from a very low income. Into the new year of 2004, her tougher situation made it impossible to pay her rent in full at the start of every month. She came to an understanding with her landlord that there was no problem with this; that she would pay later in the month when she received enough money. She was doing the best she could, considering her economic situation. Other people in the neighborhood have come to similar understandings with the landlord.
Through the winter of 2004, amidst more harassment, and even a death threat by the same harassing and racist neighbor—aimed at Bonnie’s youngest—another issue arose. This same troublesome neighbor had been putting out large quantities of garbage (including diapers), but not properly containing it, leaving a very unsanitary condition for Bonnie to have to endure. She complained to her landlord about this as well. And after having to endure so many other occasions of inaction for her other complaints for justice, she let her landlord know that she was ready to contact the local MLA to make a public issue of the ongoing irresponsibility of the landlord. It was not long after that the Bonnie received an eviction notice. She was informed that she was being evicted for late payments of rent, which seemed completely contradictory considering that she had earlier received approval from the landlord for paying rent later in the month when money was available. Also, why had the landlord not given her at least a warning? When she tried to get the help of the Rentalsman, Peter Kessels, to look into the matter, she was again denied. The Rentalsman, who is supposed to, in a FAIR manner, investigate matters of dispute between landlords and tenants simply chose not to investigate, making clear that he was simply taking the landlord Jennifer Sloat’s word for it.
Bonnie was able to get the help of Vaughn Barnett, legal advocate (with a law degree) and researcher to help her fight the upcoming legal battle. She had already tried to find legal assistance with the services of an official lawyer, but with here low income, she was not able to find someone who was interested or able to help her. Vaughn was there, again, to help someone who could not afford the standard costs of legal fees. The matter was taken to court with Vaughn having assisted Bonnie with legal documents after the court showed it was unwilling to accept the documents as Bonnie had prepared them.
Vaughn recognized the difficulty he was in. The dilemma is as follows. He has helped poor people bring cases to court for years, but finally the Law Society of New Brunswick showed that they felt threatened by Vaughn, and had an injunction placed on him, preventing him from trying to “act as a lawyer”. Since the injunction, Vaughn has still helped poor people gain access to the justice system, but has had to work more and more from a marginalized position. When Bonnie’s case came to court on June 29th 2004, the submissions to the court from Vaughn (as evidence in defense of Bonnie’s case) were pronounced invalid. This was due to intervention by the Law Society. They were supposed to give Bonnie approximately 2-weeks notice if they were going to do this intervention. They instead did it on the day of the court, contravening the standards of the institution they are supposedly protecting the interests of. Rather ironic.
Bonnie was defending herself in court, and “Justice” Garnett was the presiding judge. Since Bonnie’s official court documents were thrown out thanks to the Law Society, Bonnie was put in the position where she could introduce the evidence herself, which included rent payment receipts and police reports. Although the judge could have heard and accepted Bonnie’s introduction of oral evidence, she simply chose not to. She accepted the Rentalsman’s judgement, which was that there was no need to investigate Jennifer Sloat. Injustice Garnett’s opinion, therefore, was that the actions that brought forth Bonnie’s eviction were JUSTIFIED, which seemed easy considering that she did not give a chance for Bonnie to assert her position. She then acted very tersely for Bonnie to “please leave”. Before the whole courtroom fiasco was done, the Judge also pronounced that the court would no longer accept any more written submissions by Vaughn Barnett, REGARDLESS of if they were done perfectly well according to the court’s standards.
On the following day, the authorities arrived at Bonnie’s home while Bonnie was away preparing an appeal for the previous day’s garbage court decision. Bonnie’s kids were present as they arrived, and were forced to leave as the locks were being changed. They were embarrassingly thrown out of their own home and locked away from their own belongings.
Vaughn gave up his own home to give Bonnie and her family a place to stay. He moved into the men’s shelter and has been there since July 1st. On July 8th, Bonnie had her appeal case before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal to decide if she could get a stay in her eviction (allowing her a chance to move back into her own place), while she waited for her appeal case of “Justice” Garnett’s decision. What Bonnie had to do on this day was show that she had enough evidence for an arguable case in her upcoming appearance, that she had suffered “irreparable harm” though the eviction, and that it would be easier to give her back her place rather than leave it empty (which it is). The judge (Justice Richard) was very accommodating, understanding that Bonnie was not a lawyer and may not have operated exactly as a lawyer would. He gave her a chance to speak. She did very well. On the following day, the decision of Justice Richard was ready, and it made clear that, although Bonnie would not be granted a stay in the eviction, she had a very good body of evidence for her upcoming appeal case.
Bonnie is currently still waiting for the date of her appeal case. She has recently had to endure the news of her belongings being moved out of her home without being given notice (a friend who was passing by informed her). Pressure is continuing on the people involved in dealing the injustice to Bonnie. Posters have been circulated around Fredericton (well over a thousand) identifying the role of Jennifer Sloat (Fredericton Non-Profit Housing Landlord), Peter Kessels (the Rentalsman ), “Justice Garnett” and Fred McElman (Law Society Council). They all had a part to play in preventing justice for Bonnie. Additionally, the police should be mentioned as having failed their responsibility by not taking action on Bonnie’s dangerous neighbor. Beyond the posters, members of the Advocacy Collective (which always includes the victims of the struggles) are continuing with research into the track records of each of the individuals mentioned. We expect justice for Bonnie and will continue to increase the pressure, adding different tactics, if the same shenanigans continue.
I hope that this issue with Bonnie gets worked out. it is too bad but if person breaks the law then this kind of thing happens we are supposed to abide by what is known as the rule of law and if anyone breaks the law such as commits a crime against society then, there are penaltys that will result.
I have know bonnie since she was working at the Community Kitchen, she seems to be a nice person, I hope that she is out soon.
The backgrounder on Bonnie is a bunch of crappolla...She is ,has been and will always be a leach on society. I would love to hear the name of the place where she works ..cough... Ya right. Does anyone remember the lady who copied Charles and camped on the legislature lawn ..yep that was her ..pretty hard to work and protest for a few weeks at the same time ..To actually say that poor Bonnie was being Harrassed by a neighbour is another big laugh. The truth of the matter is that when she moves in to one of her free apartments everyone else moves out cause she is the most obnoxious lady to walk the streets of Fredricton...In jail or abusing the system set up for those who really need it to her its just another free night on the back of taxpaying NBer's ...charles distance yourself from these people the only thing that will happen to you is they will bring you down with them ...watch your back... :)
While all that has been said by anonymous does paint a picture of a very sad situation for this woman and her family it has to be said that it is only her side of the story. The incidents leading up to her eviction may or may not be true. There are always two sides to every story. Just because the police are called..(even to the tune of 31 times) does not mean there was a problem that justified police action. As a matter of fact taken at face value you would have to believe that indeed there was no justifcation. Unless of course your part of the Advocacy Collective, who always assume the police are corrupt and inept. This court case has nothing to do with her eviction but what she herself has done since. Not that I would expect Vaughn or the rest of the Justice League of Fredericton let a little thing like facts get in the way when they have something to rant about. What else would they have to do with themselves otherwise?
Further to our recent phone conversation, and based on my preliminary inquiry into this matter, I wish to bring the following urgent concerns to your immediate attention.
As you indicated in your letter to Bonnie O’Dea, dated 2 April 2004, and evidently received by Ms. O’Dea on 5 April 2004, “The Residential Tenancies Act provides that any landlord or tenant affected by any decision issued by the Rentalsman, may within seven days after being notified of the decision, apply by Notice of Application to a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick, to review and set aside the decision.” Please be advised that Ms. O’Dea is presently trying to find counsel to assist her with such an application, and intends to proceed, whether or not she has a lawyer.
However, while the Act allows for seven days to make an application, Ms. O’Dea has been given only 3-4 office days, i.e., from Monday to Thursday, up to the long Easter weekend, right before eviction day on Tuesday, 13 April 2004. Rule 3.01 of the Rules of Court (emphasis added) states:
"Except where a contrary intention appears, in the computation of time under these rules or under an order or judgment of the court (a) where a number of days is prescribed, it shall be reckoned exclusively of the first day and inclusively of the last day, (b) where a period of less than 7 days is prescribed, holidays shall not be counted, (c) where the time for doing an act or taking a step in a proceeding expires on a holiday, the act or step may be done or taken on the next day that is not a holiday, (d) service of a document, other than an originating process, made after 4 o’clock in the afternoon or on a holiday shall be deemed to have been made on the next day that is not a holiday."
Since, according to (c), the time for making the application would expire on Easter Monday, the last day for this step to be taken is “the next day that is not a holiday,” namely, your designated eviction day. This would suggest that the eviction cannot legally be enforced on that day, at least until 4 p.m., as time for the application must still be allowed on that day.
More significantly, this would suggest that you decided to give Ms. O’Dea the shortest time possible (including a long weekend for half that time) to make her application. Further, I have been informed by Ms. O’Dea that, when she advised you that she was receiving assistance in challenging her eviction, you told her that you were moving up the eviction date. In light of this and our recent telephone conversation, in which you indicated that you would not even look into the possibility of the eviction being retaliatory, I have been left with the impression that you have simply accepted the word of the landlord, Fredericton Non-Profit Housing Corporation, without a proper investigation.
If my impression is wrong, you can demonstrate your good faith by postponing the eviction to allow a proper investigation into the following facts (as I understand them from my own preliminary investigation):
1) Rent receipts in your possession (which were not included in the file disclosure to Ms. O’Dea) should show that Ms. O’Dea had been consistently paying her rent around the 20th of each month, when she would get her Child Tax Benefit, long before the eviction issue arose – suggesting that this was an agreed upon arrangement with Non-Profit Housing, and that Ms. O’Dea is now legally entitled to assert waiver or promissory estoppel. 2) Other tenants appear to have had the benefit of similar agreements, and with the cooperation of Non-Profit Housing, it should be easy to confirm this pattern through the records of these tenants’ payment schedules. 3) Since November 2002, Ms. O’Dea has been complaining to her landlord and the Fredericton City Police (Police file numbers 2002-22637 and 2004-4899, with many files in between) about harassment and vandalism by her neighbour at 88 Neville Street, another tenant of Non-Profit Housing. 4) This neighbour has indicated to Ms. O’Dea that she receives preferential treatment and protection from Jennifer Sloat, of Non-Profit Housing, who had babysat her when she was a child, and who has arranged for Non-Profit Housing to pay her NB Power bill (which apparently is not done for any other Non-Profit Housing tenant). 5) Ms. O’Dea received the recent eviction notices only after she had confronted Ms. Sloat about the neighbour, and threatened to complain to public officials about the preferential treatment at Ms. O’Dea’s expense – notice of which has been given to you under section 24.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act. 6) On at least one occasion, Ms. O’Dea has heard a racial slur about her children from the neighbour, suggesting that the orchestration of the eviction by this neighbour and by Ms. Sloat might constitute discrimination in violation of the Human Rights Act – to which, of course, the Rentalsman should not be a party.
My reading of the Residential Tenancies Act is that you lack the authority to enforce an eviction until you have conducted a proper investigation. Accordingly, if Ms. O’Dea does not receive your prompt assurance that you will postpone her eviction for this purpose, and if she has not had the time and means to make an application to the court, you are advised that I and others intend to do what we can (by direct action if necessary) to protect the constitutional right of this single working mother not to be deprived of her home without due process.
I would say that I must agree with what the concensus is with some of the folks who commented, without know thereason she was sentenced to five days in Jail, I cannot and should not make any comment I should wait until I get all the correct information, and will do so before making any further comments on any of the posts. Hurry up and give us the reason why the five day sentence was imposed.
I hate to admit but,it seems like she was playing the system and it caught up with her? It is only what i can gather based on the comments and blogs! yes there are some that are complete victims and then there are those that not only bring it upon themselves but push it until the breaking point! am I wrong or is there more info????
This story has gone on long enough. Bonnie is a burden on the taxpayers, her sons are old enough to go to work. one of them bikes around downtown all the time and does nothing. So me as a taxpayer has to pay for the housing offset of this family who does work but can't make ends meet and if I had any say she would be out of all provincial funded housing. Why must we pay for people who don't want to work including you charles. This has gotten out of hand and Social Assistance (welfare) needs to be cut off to able working ppl. Charles you can do a lot of jobs but you choose to be lazy just like bonnie and her kids. BAN WELFARE
Notice that as the government's culpability becomes clearer, the comments get nastier. No longer is anybody looking at the events themselves, namely all the questions about the legality of what was done, but instead it reverts to '*&^&damn no good poor people'
That's not surprising, before when it was just charles everybody calls him a kook, now its not just charles but charles and somebody else who are a couple of kooks, and of course then throw in the people who are arguing for justice for the poor (most of whom work, and one who can't work because the Law Society of New Brunswick won't let him) are all a bunch of freeloading ne'er do wells who don't deserve rights like everyone else.
That's sad, but not surprising. But it's not just these people, go listen to Richard Harris who says the same thing-and he not only worked but had his own business.
No doubt there are people posting who simply have no interest in justice or rights, since theirs are being met, but for those who actually care, just make sure you read the above letters about Bonnie's history, its pretty clear.
Let's assume the worst, let's pretend she's crazy and mean as all hell, even though there is no reason to think that. The point above is that her lawyer was asking the government to have a proper investigation. That is what decent governments do. As people here point out, we only get one side of the story. THAT is the problem and what needs to change. What we saw with her eviction was that one person oversees all low income housing in Fredericton. Is that the way it should be? Of course not. One person, no matter how able, shouldn't be allowed such power. This is legislation that needs to be changed so that the poor get the same rights as everyone. That way people can find out what the story is from both sides. The government is not supposed to be 'one side of the story', the governmetn is supposed to be the objective arbiter of these issues.
You guys are retarded thinking this "leech on society" does not hve the right to live in and raise her kids in a safe environment.
SuomynonA, I don't see how the landlord is losing out on money. Obviously you failed to read Mr. McKay's explaination. Her AND the landlord had agreed to let her pay halfway through the month, when money became available. The landlord is getting the money a couple of weeks late every month ... She's still making a profit.
The government and the justice system fails so many people, not just the poor. The poor just get a bad hand because no one is willing to protect them. Put yourself in their shoes.
Whether Bonnie is a leech on society or not (I don' tknow the lady), the justice system failed her. This is a case of basic human rights, and she and her children are being denied of just that.
16 comments:
Oh man the suspence is killing me. Hurry and tell us what happened.
Some background on Bonnie O'dea while people wait..
Bonnie O'dea, a single mother who moved to Fredericton from Newfoundland, has been struggling for justice since she arrived almost two years ago. Not long after she moved here--into a unit owned by Fredericton Non-Profit Housing--the trouble soon started. A woman living in the next unit started harassing Bonnie's kids, which included chasing them and uttering racial slurs. Bonnie's landlord, Jennifer Sloat (the landlord of all of Fredericton Non-Profit Housing), did not take action to effect some stoppage of the continuing harassment. Bonnie contacted the police, over and over again (eventually there would be 31 police reports). Bonnie expected the police to do something, but did not get any satisfaction.
As time went on, the same situation repeated itself, with Bonnie continually having to endure stress at work while wondering if her kids were safe at home. This affected her work greatly and caused her great difficulty in being able to work normally. She lost work time and doctor's reports would confirm the stress she was under. Through the unavoidable stress-caused underemployment (and periodic unemployment), her and her family were pushed into trying to survive from a very low income. Into the new year of 2004, her tougher situation made it impossible to pay her rent in full at the start of every month. She came to an understanding with her landlord that there was no problem with this; that she would pay later in the month when she received enough money. She was doing the best she could, considering her economic situation. Other people in the neighborhood have come to similar understandings with the landlord.
Through the winter of 2004, amidst more harassment, and even a death threat by the same harassing and racist neighbor—aimed at Bonnie’s youngest—another issue arose. This same troublesome neighbor had been putting out large quantities of garbage (including diapers), but not properly containing it, leaving a very unsanitary condition for Bonnie to have to endure. She complained to her landlord about this as well. And after having to endure so many other occasions of inaction for her other complaints for justice, she let her landlord know that she was ready to contact the local MLA to make a public issue of the ongoing irresponsibility of the landlord. It was not long after that the Bonnie received an eviction notice. She was informed that she was being evicted for late payments of rent, which seemed completely contradictory considering that she had earlier received approval from the landlord for paying rent later in the month when money was available. Also, why had the landlord not given her at least a warning? When she tried to get the help of the Rentalsman, Peter Kessels, to look into the matter, she was again denied. The Rentalsman, who is supposed to, in a FAIR manner, investigate matters of dispute between landlords and tenants simply chose not to investigate, making clear that he was simply taking the landlord Jennifer Sloat’s word for it.
Bonnie was able to get the help of Vaughn Barnett, legal advocate (with a law degree) and researcher to help her fight the upcoming legal battle. She had already tried to find legal assistance with the services of an official lawyer, but with here low income, she was not able to find someone who was interested or able to help her. Vaughn was there, again, to help someone who could not afford the standard costs of legal fees. The matter was taken to court with Vaughn having assisted Bonnie with legal documents after the court showed it was unwilling to accept the documents as Bonnie had prepared them.
Vaughn recognized the difficulty he was in. The dilemma is as follows. He has helped poor people bring cases to court for years, but finally the Law Society of New Brunswick showed that they felt threatened by Vaughn, and had an injunction placed on him, preventing him from trying to “act as a lawyer”. Since the injunction, Vaughn has still helped poor people gain access to the justice system, but has had to work more and more from a marginalized position. When Bonnie’s case came to court on June 29th 2004, the submissions to the court from Vaughn (as evidence in defense of Bonnie’s case) were pronounced invalid. This was due to intervention by the Law Society. They were supposed to give Bonnie approximately 2-weeks notice if they were going to do this intervention. They instead did it on the day of the court, contravening the standards of the institution they are supposedly protecting the interests of. Rather ironic.
Bonnie was defending herself in court, and “Justice” Garnett was the presiding judge. Since Bonnie’s official court documents were thrown out thanks to the Law Society, Bonnie was put in the position where she could introduce the evidence herself, which included rent payment receipts and police reports. Although the judge could have heard and accepted Bonnie’s introduction of oral evidence, she simply chose not to. She accepted the Rentalsman’s judgement, which was that there was no need to investigate Jennifer Sloat. Injustice Garnett’s opinion, therefore, was that the actions that brought forth Bonnie’s eviction were JUSTIFIED, which seemed easy considering that she did not give a chance for Bonnie to assert her position. She then acted very tersely for Bonnie to “please leave”. Before the whole courtroom fiasco was done, the Judge also pronounced that the court would no longer accept any more written submissions by Vaughn Barnett, REGARDLESS of if they were done perfectly well according to the court’s standards.
On the following day, the authorities arrived at Bonnie’s home while Bonnie was away preparing an appeal for the previous day’s garbage court decision. Bonnie’s kids were present as they arrived, and were forced to leave as the locks were being changed. They were embarrassingly thrown out of their own home and locked away from their own belongings.
Vaughn gave up his own home to give Bonnie and her family a place to stay. He moved into the men’s shelter and has been there since July 1st. On July 8th, Bonnie had her appeal case before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal to decide if she could get a stay in her eviction (allowing her a chance to move back into her own place), while she waited for her appeal case of “Justice” Garnett’s decision. What Bonnie had to do on this day was show that she had enough evidence for an arguable case in her upcoming appearance, that she had suffered “irreparable harm” though the eviction, and that it would be easier to give her back her place rather than leave it empty (which it is). The judge (Justice Richard) was very accommodating, understanding that Bonnie was not a lawyer and may not have operated exactly as a lawyer would. He gave her a chance to speak. She did very well. On the following day, the decision of Justice Richard was ready, and it made clear that, although Bonnie would not be granted a stay in the eviction, she had a very good body of evidence for her upcoming appeal case.
Bonnie is currently still waiting for the date of her appeal case. She has recently had to endure the news of her belongings being moved out of her home without being given notice (a friend who was passing by informed her). Pressure is continuing on the people involved in dealing the injustice to Bonnie. Posters have been circulated around Fredericton (well over a thousand) identifying the role of Jennifer Sloat (Fredericton Non-Profit Housing Landlord), Peter Kessels (the Rentalsman ), “Justice Garnett” and Fred McElman (Law Society Council). They all had a part to play in preventing justice for Bonnie. Additionally, the police should be mentioned as having failed their responsibility by not taking action on Bonnie’s dangerous neighbor. Beyond the posters, members of the Advocacy Collective (which always includes the victims of the struggles) are continuing with research into the track records of each of the individuals mentioned. We expect justice for Bonnie and will continue to increase the pressure, adding different tactics, if the same shenanigans continue.
I hope that this issue with Bonnie gets worked out. it is too bad but if person breaks the law then this kind of thing happens we are supposed to abide by what is known as the rule of law and if anyone breaks the law such as commits a crime against society then, there are penaltys that will result.
I have know bonnie since she was working at the Community Kitchen, she seems to be a nice person, I hope that she is out soon.
Anon 8:37, it's Charles' blog. Why didn't you let him explain the story? Think he can't?
They were embarrassingly thrown out of their own home and locked away from their own belongings.
Correction. It was a rented piece of property, it was not her own home.
I'm curious, how many months do you expect landlords to lose their income for in order to make a poor tenant happy?
Is she getting any child support?
The backgrounder on Bonnie is a bunch of crappolla...She is ,has been and will always be a leach on society. I would love to hear the name of the place where she works ..cough... Ya right. Does anyone remember the lady who copied Charles and camped on the legislature lawn ..yep that was her ..pretty hard to work and protest for a few weeks at the same time ..To actually say that poor Bonnie was being Harrassed by a neighbour is another big laugh. The truth of the matter is that when she moves in to one of her free apartments everyone else moves out cause she is the most obnoxious lady to walk the streets of Fredricton...In jail or abusing the system set up for those who really need it to her its just another free night on the back of taxpaying NBer's ...charles distance yourself from these people the only thing that will happen to you is they will bring you down with them ...watch your back... :)
None of that big wankfest about housing explains why she got 5 days in jail.
While all that has been said by anonymous does paint a picture of a very sad situation for this woman and her family it has to be said that it is only her side of the story. The incidents leading up to her eviction may or may not be true. There are always two sides to every story. Just because the police are called..(even to the tune of 31 times) does not mean there was a problem that justified police action. As a matter of fact taken at face value you would have to believe that indeed there was no justifcation. Unless of course your part of the Advocacy Collective, who always assume the police are corrupt and inept. This court case has nothing to do with her eviction but what she herself has done since. Not that I would expect Vaughn or the rest of the Justice League of Fredericton let a little thing like facts get in the way when they have something to rant about. What else would they have to do with themselves otherwise?
April 6th letter from VAughn Barnett to Rentalsman about wrongful eviction
by postd by Asaf Rashid Thursday, Jul. 22, 2004 at 8:59 PM
6 April 2004
Peter Kessels
Rentalsman
Dear Mr. Kessels:
Re: Bonnie O’Dea (86 Neville Street, Fredericton, NB)
Further to our recent phone conversation, and based on my preliminary inquiry into this matter, I wish to bring the following urgent concerns to your immediate attention.
As you indicated in your letter to Bonnie O’Dea, dated 2 April 2004, and evidently received by Ms. O’Dea on 5 April 2004, “The Residential
Tenancies Act provides that any landlord or tenant affected by any decision issued by the Rentalsman, may within seven days after being notified of the decision, apply by Notice of Application to a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick, to review and set aside the decision.” Please be advised that Ms. O’Dea is presently trying to find counsel to assist her with such an application, and intends to proceed, whether or not she has a lawyer.
However, while the Act allows for seven days to make an application,
Ms. O’Dea has been given only 3-4 office days, i.e., from Monday to
Thursday, up to the long Easter weekend, right before eviction day on Tuesday, 13 April 2004. Rule 3.01 of the Rules of Court (emphasis added) states:
"Except where a contrary intention appears, in the computation of time
under these rules or under an order or judgment of the court
(a) where a number of days is prescribed, it shall be reckoned
exclusively of the first day and inclusively of the last day,
(b) where a period of less than 7 days is prescribed, holidays shall
not be counted,
(c) where the time for doing an act or taking a step in a proceeding
expires on a holiday, the act or step may be done or taken on the next day that is not a holiday,
(d) service of a document, other than an originating process, made
after 4 o’clock in the afternoon or on a holiday shall be deemed to have been made on the next day that is not a holiday."
Since, according to (c), the time for making the application would
expire on Easter Monday, the last day for this step to be taken is “the next day that is not a holiday,” namely, your designated eviction day. This would suggest that the eviction cannot legally be enforced on that day, at least until 4 p.m., as time for the application must still be allowed on that day.
More significantly, this would suggest that you decided to give Ms.
O’Dea the shortest time possible (including a long weekend for half that time) to make her application. Further, I have been informed by Ms. O’Dea that, when she advised you that she was receiving assistance in challenging her eviction, you told her that you were moving up the eviction date. In light of this and our recent telephone conversation, in which you indicated that you would not even look into the possibility of the eviction being retaliatory, I have been left with the impression that you have simply accepted the word of the landlord, Fredericton Non-Profit Housing Corporation, without a proper investigation.
If my impression is wrong, you can demonstrate your good faith by
postponing the eviction to allow a proper investigation into the following facts (as I understand them from my own preliminary investigation):
1) Rent receipts in your possession (which were not included in the
file disclosure to Ms. O’Dea) should show that Ms. O’Dea had been
consistently paying her rent around the 20th of each month, when she would get her Child Tax Benefit, long before the eviction issue arose – suggesting that this was an agreed upon arrangement with Non-Profit Housing, and that Ms. O’Dea is now legally entitled to assert waiver or promissory estoppel.
2) Other tenants appear to have had the benefit of similar agreements,
and with the cooperation of Non-Profit Housing, it should be easy to
confirm this pattern through the records of these tenants’ payment schedules.
3) Since November 2002, Ms. O’Dea has been complaining to her landlord
and the Fredericton City Police (Police file numbers 2002-22637 and
2004-4899, with many files in between) about harassment and vandalism by her neighbour at 88 Neville Street, another tenant of Non-Profit Housing.
4) This neighbour has indicated to Ms. O’Dea that she receives
preferential treatment and protection from Jennifer Sloat, of Non-Profit Housing, who had babysat her when she was a child, and who has arranged for Non-Profit Housing to pay her NB Power bill (which apparently is not done for any other Non-Profit Housing tenant).
5) Ms. O’Dea received the recent eviction notices only after she had
confronted Ms. Sloat about the neighbour, and threatened to complain to
public officials about the preferential treatment at Ms. O’Dea’s
expense – notice of which has been given to you under section 24.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
6) On at least one occasion, Ms. O’Dea has heard a racial slur about
her children from the neighbour, suggesting that the orchestration of the eviction by this neighbour and by Ms. Sloat might constitute
discrimination in violation of the Human Rights Act – to which, of course, the Rentalsman should not be a party.
My reading of the Residential Tenancies Act is that you lack the authority to enforce an eviction until you have conducted a proper investigation. Accordingly, if Ms. O’Dea does not receive your prompt assurance that you will postpone her eviction for this purpose, and if she has not had the time and means to make an application to the court, you are advised that I and others intend to do what we can (by direct action if necessary) to protect the constitutional right of this single working mother not to be deprived of her home without due process.
Sincerely,
Vaughn Barnett
I would say that I must agree with what the concensus is with some of the folks who commented, without know thereason she was sentenced to five days in Jail, I cannot and should not make any comment I should wait until I get all the correct information, and will do so before making any further comments on any of the posts. Hurry up and give us the reason why the five day sentence was imposed.
Two peas in a pod. Charles and Bonnie should hook up and move in together.
I hate to admit but,it seems like she was playing the system and it caught up with her? It is only what i can gather based on the comments and blogs! yes there are some that are complete victims and then there are those that not only bring it upon themselves but push it until the breaking point! am I wrong or is there more info????
This story has gone on long enough. Bonnie is a burden on the taxpayers, her sons are old enough to go to work. one of them bikes around downtown all the time and does nothing. So me as a taxpayer has to pay for the housing offset of this family who does work but can't make ends meet and if I had any say she would be out of all provincial funded housing. Why must we pay for people who don't want to work including you charles. This has gotten out of hand and Social Assistance (welfare) needs to be cut off to able working ppl. Charles you can do a lot of jobs but you choose to be lazy just like bonnie and her kids. BAN WELFARE
NO MORE WELFARE
Notice that as the government's culpability becomes clearer, the comments get nastier. No longer is anybody looking at the events themselves, namely all the questions about the legality of what was done, but instead it reverts to '*&^&damn no good poor people'
That's not surprising, before when it was just charles everybody calls him a kook, now its not just charles but charles and somebody else who are a couple of kooks, and of course then throw in the people who are arguing for justice for the poor (most of whom work, and one who can't work because the Law Society of New Brunswick won't let him) are all a bunch of freeloading ne'er do wells who don't deserve rights like everyone else.
That's sad, but not surprising. But it's not just these people, go listen to Richard Harris who says the same thing-and he not only worked but had his own business.
No doubt there are people posting who simply have no interest in justice or rights, since theirs are being met, but for those who actually care, just make sure you read the above letters about Bonnie's history, its pretty clear.
Let's assume the worst, let's pretend she's crazy and mean as all hell, even though there is no reason to think that. The point above is that her lawyer was asking the government to have a proper investigation. That is what decent governments do. As people here point out, we only get one side of the story. THAT is the problem and what needs to change. What we saw with her eviction was that one person oversees all low income housing in Fredericton. Is that the way it should be? Of course not. One person, no matter how able, shouldn't be allowed such power. This is legislation that needs to be changed so that the poor get the same rights as everyone. That way people can find out what the story is from both sides. The government is not supposed to be 'one side of the story', the governmetn is supposed to be the objective arbiter of these issues.
You guys are retarded thinking this "leech on society" does not hve the right to live in and raise her kids in a safe environment.
SuomynonA, I don't see how the landlord is losing out on money. Obviously you failed to read Mr. McKay's explaination. Her AND the landlord had agreed to let her pay halfway through the month, when money became available. The landlord is getting the money a couple of weeks late every month ... She's still making a profit.
The government and the justice system fails so many people, not just the poor. The poor just get a bad hand because no one is willing to protect them. Put yourself in their shoes.
Whether Bonnie is a leech on society or not (I don' tknow the lady), the justice system failed her. This is a case of basic human rights, and she and her children are being denied of just that.
Sorry, I didn't realizeit wasn't McKay's message until I had posted the first time. Charles, if you get this, can you edit my post please? Thanks.
Post a Comment