WELLINGTON COUNTY – A man’s lawsuit against the County of Wellington alleges it failed its duties as a housing service provider and violated his rights and freedoms.
However, the county contends the man wilfully or negligently damaged his unit, breaching the terms of his tenancy agreement and the lawsuit has no place being before the Superior Court of Justice.
According to a statement of claim filed in 2023, a man being evicted from rent-geared-to-income housing operated by the county in Palmerston is suing the County of Wellington for $30,001 for costs to relocate to a new area, expenses incurred from moving and pecuniary damages as a result of moving. Two county housing services employees are also named in the lawsuit.
Court documents show the county served the man in late September with a N5 notice to evict due to alterations and construction to his unit that went against the tenancy agreement.
The county began investigating the unit in the summer after concerns from neighbouring tenants and custodial staff of construction noises from his unit.
The inspection found the man had installed additional locks and deadbolts on all doors into and within the premises, including the front and back doors, bedroom door, washroom door, and cabinet and utility closet doors. The man also affixed wooden 2 X 4s to the floor and covered them with carpet.
Some of these alterations blocked exits or access to electrical panels within the unit, according to an affidavit.
The man was advised to remove the alterations or face potential eviction for interfering with the county’s obligation to keep the building safe.
When a further inspection revealed nothing had changed, the man was served with the eviction notice unless he repaired the damaged property or paid the estimated repair cost of more than $16,000 within seven days.
The man alleges the county breached duty of care as a community housing provider and infringed on his rights to fundamental freedoms to safeguard himself by installing additional locks on doors throughout his unit as he asserted there was a secret passage door installed in the unit.
“The plaintiff explained that he made the alterations because he believed there was access to his unit (a ground floor apartment) through secret units above and below him and that he believed people had entered his unit through the floors and cabinets,” a court document stated.
The statement of defence noted the county is contesting the jurisdiction of the Superior Court in being involved in these matters and claims this should remain before the Landlord and Tenant Board.
