I refer, of course, to the letter that the good elves of the TCHC sent to my friend Anne, ending her tenancy on Christmas Day.
Ho, ho, ho.
I remind you that Anne is 86 years old, is deaf, and has been a tenant of TCHC at 40 Asquith for 28 years.
Who, with half a human heart, would send a notice of termination, effective Christmas Day, to a woman who is 86 years old and deaf?
Half a human heart?
I sometimes wonder if TCHC has any heart at all. But you, dear readers, were quick off the mark, and many of you complained.
TCHC was equally quick, slapping an explanation on its website, as follows:
“The December 25th date on the notice provided to the tenant was an unfortunate choice and we have no intention of enforcing the notice on Christmas Day. The notice is not an eviction order.”
Before we all clap hands and break out the eggnog, allow me to return to the letter TCHC sent to Anne.
It reads, as follows:
“Termination Date: You must move out of the rental unit identified above on or before 25/12/2011.”
I repeat: you must move out. I repeat: on or before Christmas Day. It cannot be any plainer. It is an eviction order. The weasel words on TCHC’s website are an attempt to say, “Oh, well, that’s not really what we mean.”
In what sort of Orwellian world would the public landlord, acting on our behalf, send a threat in plainest English, which we are then supposed to interpret as meaning something else?
Let me return to TCHC’s website.
The Corporation says it has tried to help Anne, and while it cannot comment for reasons of privacy, the efforts of staff would have included:
“Offering to connect the tenant through community care access centres and other social services agencies to the help and supports that would enable them to maintain their housing.”
Oh, baloney.
In the first place, when many agencies are responsible for a problem, no agency is responsible.
In the second place, there is no evidence any of those agencies did, or tried to do, anything they were supposed to do.
On its website, TCHC also claims it is:
“Making repeated efforts to meet face-to-face with the tenant to communicate the very serious fire safety risks that occur as a direct result of hoarding, as well as the public health risks posed by pest infestations that often occur in units with excessive clutter.”
Repeated attempts?
I remind you that Anne is deaf, and that I have spent time with her and seen her place, and there is no device of any kind attached to her front door buzzer or her phone that would flash a light or otherwise indicate that someone her way comes.
It seems to me that, if you are working with many different agencies, and if you are making attempts to meet someone, and the person in question is deaf, the first thing you do is make sure there is a way for her to know you’re knocking at her door.
TCHC says it is trying. You may interpret that any way you wish. I interpret to mean, “We try, we fail, we wash our hands.”
Merry damn Xmas.
In the meantime, the Canadian Hearing Society has just sent an open letter to the Ontario ministers of Health, Municipal Affairs, Community and Social Services, as well as the Minister Responsible for Seniors, asking them to investigate what I suggest is a serious collision at the intersection of Anne’s rights, and TCHC’s responsibilities.
Origin
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment