VIOLATIONS
AKELIUS CANADA LTD
COMPANY VIOLATIONS
TENANTS AND THE CITY OF TORONTO
Subsection 27(3) of the Act requires that a notice of entry by a landlord to do work in a rental unit must specify a time of entry between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.
Further information to this case: In the following months this same landlord proceeded to illegally enter the tenant's apartment twice and was fined another $1,000.00 for each count bringing the fine total to $3,000.00.
QUOTE from case TNT-92678-17 section 15: In Wrona, the Divisional Court ordered a rent abatement of $1,000.00 for the illegal entry. After the Divisional Court’s decision was released in late January 2007, the Landlord again entered the Tenant’s unit illegally twice in May 2007 following notices of entry that were deficient for the same reasons. In Board Order TNT-00226, issued the Board considered the $1,000 abatement granted by the Divisional Court for one illegal entry, and because two more illegal entries had taken place within four months after the Court’s decision, the Board ordered a lump sum abatement of $3,000 to reflect the seriousness of the matter.
The tenant was also awarded costs before the Tribunal amounting to $519.10 disbursements, plus $25.00 of the hearing fee, which totals $544.10 for the first $1,000.00 fine.
Another tenant in another building brought this same issue up and was told by Akelius both along tenants did not know how to use the dryers. A tenant in this building having similar problems informed the Akelius property manager the company had not obtained permits for the renovation of their apartment they have been living in for over a year, the property manager informed him he didn't know what he was talking about.
A few days later a representative from Akelius Canada applied to the city for renovation and plumbing permits for this same apartment unit. Someone should inform the employee of Akelius Canada Ltd. you can't backdate permits. The point here is for tenants in renovated apartments to be aware if you have problems in your units it is not your fault it is Akelius and the bad renovations.
Sending notices for non-payment of rent when the rent has been paid. Here is a case where Akelius Canada went one step further against a tenant. (Many tenants since Akelius Canada Ltd. came to Toronto have received these notices.)
CASE: TEL-76447-17-RV
LINK: Late payment of rent
SUITE ENTRY
Akelius Canada Ltd. is in constant violation of the law pertaining to the entry of apartments throughout their property holdings involving thousands of tenants within the city of Toronto. Notices not filled out with the appropriate information, sometimes too vague, and the time frame is not specific enough. It is time to put an end to this violation by submitting an application on behalf of all tenants in superior court.
Example: CASE for not following the appropriate guidelines under the current Residential Tenants Act:
LINK: TENANT AWARDED $1,000.00 FOR THE LANDLORD'S ILLEGAL ENTRY
Akelius Canada Ltd. is in constant violation of the law pertaining to the entry of apartments throughout their property holdings involving thousands of tenants within the city of Toronto. Notices not filled out with the appropriate information, sometimes too vague, and the time frame is not specific enough. It is time to put an end to this violation by submitting an application on behalf of all tenants in superior court.
Example: CASE for not following the appropriate guidelines under the current Residential Tenants Act:
LINK: TENANT AWARDED $1,000.00 FOR THE LANDLORD'S ILLEGAL ENTRY
Subsection 27(3) of the Act requires that a notice of entry by a landlord to do work in a rental unit must specify a time of entry between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.
Further information to this case: In the following months this same landlord proceeded to illegally enter the tenant's apartment twice and was fined another $1,000.00 for each count bringing the fine total to $3,000.00.
QUOTE from case TNT-92678-17 section 15: In Wrona, the Divisional Court ordered a rent abatement of $1,000.00 for the illegal entry. After the Divisional Court’s decision was released in late January 2007, the Landlord again entered the Tenant’s unit illegally twice in May 2007 following notices of entry that were deficient for the same reasons. In Board Order TNT-00226, issued the Board considered the $1,000 abatement granted by the Divisional Court for one illegal entry, and because two more illegal entries had taken place within four months after the Court’s decision, the Board ordered a lump sum abatement of $3,000 to reflect the seriousness of the matter.
The tenant was also awarded costs before the Tribunal amounting to $519.10 disbursements, plus $25.00 of the hearing fee, which totals $544.10 for the first $1,000.00 fine.
APARTMENT RENOVATION PERMITS
The majority of apartments renovated within this building and other properties being offered at the higher rents were not properly inspected by City of Toronto as proper permits were not taken out at the time of renovations (upwards of 70 units within this building). Plumbing problems and the bad installation of dryers (some overheating in various buildings as they were not vented properly, one tenant spoke with a representative from the appliance manufacturer along with an Akelius representative in attendance and was told they were installed improperly within the newly renovated units.
The majority of apartments renovated within this building and other properties being offered at the higher rents were not properly inspected by City of Toronto as proper permits were not taken out at the time of renovations (upwards of 70 units within this building). Plumbing problems and the bad installation of dryers (some overheating in various buildings as they were not vented properly, one tenant spoke with a representative from the appliance manufacturer along with an Akelius representative in attendance and was told they were installed improperly within the newly renovated units.
Another tenant in another building brought this same issue up and was told by Akelius both along tenants did not know how to use the dryers. A tenant in this building having similar problems informed the Akelius property manager the company had not obtained permits for the renovation of their apartment they have been living in for over a year, the property manager informed him he didn't know what he was talking about.
A few days later a representative from Akelius Canada applied to the city for renovation and plumbing permits for this same apartment unit. Someone should inform the employee of Akelius Canada Ltd. you can't backdate permits. The point here is for tenants in renovated apartments to be aware if you have problems in your units it is not your fault it is Akelius and the bad renovations.
THE FIRST APARTMENT RENOVATIONS (392 UNITS )WERE MENTIONED IN AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED JULY 31, 2014. AFTER FURTHER RESEARCH SEPTEMBER 30, 2018 THE FOLLOWING WAS DISCOVERED. NOT ONLY DID THE COMPANY RENOVATE 392 APARTMENTS AS THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE POINTED OUT THE COMPANY DID SO WITHOUT PROPER PERMITS.
Link to article NEW RENT MONSTER
EXAMPLE:
ARCHIVE ORG RETRIEVED SEPTEMBER 30, 2018 - DOCUMENT LISTED ON WEBSITE SCREENSHOTS - DOCUMENT REMOVED FROM WEBSITE LATER BY AKELIUS AFTER THE ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED IN NOW.
NOTE: all building permits active and closed in the city of Toronto are available online to view and if you don.t see a permit issued or closed for your unit it is because Akelius Canada Ltd have not applied for one the files are updated daily. This applies to all Toronto properties owned by Akelius. First permits issued by the City of Toronto for 111 Lawton Blvd. were obtained starting April 23, 2018. All apartment units renovated before this date were done so without building permits and inspections by the City of Toronto, 70 apartments.
Link to article NEW RENT MONSTER
EXAMPLE:
ARCHIVE ORG RETRIEVED SEPTEMBER 30, 2018 - DOCUMENT LISTED ON WEBSITE SCREENSHOTS - DOCUMENT REMOVED FROM WEBSITE LATER BY AKELIUS AFTER THE ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED IN NOW.
| Permits Issued or Not | ||||
| Street | Street | Units | Total | (4) for each unit required |
| Number | Name | Completed | Building | Plumbing, Electrical |
| Aug 31, 2014 | Units | Mechanical, Interior Alterations | ||
| 5 | Stag Hill Dr | 3 | 15 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 7 | Stag Hill Dr | 5 | 37 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 9 | Stag Hill Dr | 3 | 15 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 36 | Castle Frank Rd | 10 | 53 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 54 | Maitland St | 7 | 46 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 56 | Maitland St | 8 | 46 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 77 | Spencer Ave | 6 | 56 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 81 | Isabella St | 12 | 48 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 95 | Jameson Ave | 7 | 66 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 99 | Tyndall Ave | 12 | 70 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 127 | Broadway Ave | 23 | 60 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 150 | Fermanagh Ave | 7 | 66 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 160 | Huron St | 27 | 69 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 188 | Jameson Ave | 12 | 47 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 230 | Oak St | 0 | 327 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 260 | Gamble St | 8 | 24 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 263 | Russell Hill Rd | 12 | 50 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 265 | Russell Hill Rd | 8 | 50 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 310 | Lonsdale Rd | 5 | 17 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 312 | Lonsdale Rd | 4 | 17 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 338 | Donlands Ave | 3 | 36 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 501 | Kingston Rd | 17 | 75 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 551 | Eglinton Ave E | 24 | 54 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 778 | Broadview Ave | 26 | 39 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 798 | Richmond St W | 87 | 523 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 1420 | Kingston Rd | 0 | 36 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 2040 | Eglinton Ave W | 9 | 37 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 2367 | Queen St E | 0 | 24 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 2400 | Bathurst St | 24 | 31 | |
| 2701 | Eglinton Ave W | 15 | 49 | No Permits Issued by City of Toronto |
| 2875 | Yonge St | 8 | 17 | |
| TOTAL | 392 | 784 | ||
| Information retrieved from Archive.org | ||||
| Web page shot August 31, 2014 - hidden sub-file | ||||
NOTE: all building permits active and closed in the city of Toronto are available online to view and if you don.t see a permit issued or closed for your unit it is because Akelius Canada Ltd have not applied for one the files are updated daily. This applies to all Toronto properties owned by Akelius. First permits issued by the City of Toronto for 111 Lawton Blvd. were obtained starting April 23, 2018. All apartment units renovated before this date were done so without building permits and inspections by the City of Toronto, 70 apartments.
ORDER TO COMPLY FOR BUILDING PERMITS
LINK: Disruptive renovations intended to push us out, Outremont tenants say
QUOTE from the article:
On Thursday, city inspectors ordered the company to stop work in several apartments, after finding that renovations were taking place in 12 of the 42 apartments in the building. Akelius only has permits for work in eight, according to a spokesperson for the Outremont borough.
QUOTE from the article:
On Thursday, city inspectors ordered the company to stop work in several apartments, after finding that renovations were taking place in 12 of the 42 apartments in the building. Akelius only has permits for work in eight, according to a spokesperson for the Outremont borough.
PLUMBING PERMITS - MECHANICAL PERMITS - ELECTRICAL PERMITS
It is now being reported in some of the buildings there are major plumbing problems. Akelius for a long time has been blaming the tenants but it is the company's fault for not having their properties properly inspected by the city before beginning the process of renovating and obtaining the appropriate permits and inspections by the City of Toronto.
The company is deceptive in taking out permits now after tenants contacted the city. Instead of informing the city the company plans to renovate the entire apartment building they apply only for permits pertaining to the vacant apartment unit, this is misleading. The city should be informed upfront as to what renovations will be occurring within the property and take an assessment of the entire building to decide whether the building.s current plumbing and electrical systems will accommodate all the changes and added appliances.
The city of Toronto is also at fault for not overseeing these corporate landlords and their renovations properly. There have been numerous complaints to the City of Toronto 311 line and still they have done nothing including our city politicians who have been contacted about these problems.
EXAMPLE: Building 152 units built 1956 - electrical and plumbing systems
EVENTUALLY ADDING THE FOLLOWING-
152 soaker tubs using more water.
152 dishwashers using more water plus electrical
152 clothes washers using more water plus electrical
152 clothes dryers using more electricity
In this example, 70 units have been completed in the building without the appropriate renovation permits, plumbing permits, electrical permits, and HVAC permits. Now there are constant problems with the plumbing. Will there be problems with the electrical in the future?
The company is deceptive in taking out permits now after tenants contacted the city. Instead of informing the city the company plans to renovate the entire apartment building they apply only for permits pertaining to the vacant apartment unit, this is misleading. The city should be informed upfront as to what renovations will be occurring within the property and take an assessment of the entire building to decide whether the building.s current plumbing and electrical systems will accommodate all the changes and added appliances.
The city of Toronto is also at fault for not overseeing these corporate landlords and their renovations properly. There have been numerous complaints to the City of Toronto 311 line and still they have done nothing including our city politicians who have been contacted about these problems.
EXAMPLE: Building 152 units built 1956 - electrical and plumbing systems
EVENTUALLY ADDING THE FOLLOWING-
152 soaker tubs using more water.
152 dishwashers using more water plus electrical
152 clothes washers using more water plus electrical
152 clothes dryers using more electricity
In this example, 70 units have been completed in the building without the appropriate renovation permits, plumbing permits, electrical permits, and HVAC permits. Now there are constant problems with the plumbing. Will there be problems with the electrical in the future?
AKELIUS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES
EXAMPLE: - see sections Renovation Permits and Suite Entry
EXAMPLE: - see sections Renovation Permits and Suite Entry
Sending notices for non-payment of rent when the rent has been paid. Here is a case where Akelius Canada went one step further against a tenant. (Many tenants since Akelius Canada Ltd. came to Toronto have received these notices.)
CASE: TEL-76447-17-RV
LINK: Late payment of rent
Reason for mentioning this case is to show how uneducated and unprofessional the Akelius personnel is in dealing with tenants and reading monthly accounting print out sheets.
QUOTES from the case sections 6-10
AKELIUS CANADA LTD ATTEMPTS TO PASS ON THEIR MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY TO THE TENANTS.
Example: Laundry room machines.
Every time there is a problem with laundry room facilities Akelius informs the tenant to contact the company in this case Coinamatic to come in and repair the equipment. This is a NO-NO AKELIUS. It is the company's responsibility to contact this supplier directly. The tenant should stop calling the supplier and inform Akelius to do so. The tenant should also follow up their phone call to Akelius with an email notice. Please keep copies and dates of marked calls to Akelius for future reference.
MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY
EXAMPLE:
IGNORING TENANT COMPLAINTS
EXAMPLE: Is this any way to treat a lady? There are many complaints against Akelius Canada Ltd. but this one stands out as the dumbest of all. CASE FILE NUMBER TST-92915-18 Property Manager at the time Mr. Adam Kitchener.
LINK: 260 Gamble Avenue - Body of a deceased tenant being left unattended for two weeks.
REMOVING OF FLYERS FROM APARTMENT DOORS CONCERNING TENANTS ASSOCIATIONS AND MEETINGS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF ONTARIO TENANT LAW.
EXAMPLE: Staff has been informed by management to remove all flyers pertaining to tenant associations and meetings as they make their daily rounds throughout the various buildings. Tenants have witnessed property custodians performing this task along with direct conversations with workers.
It is your legal right to have a tenants association. That is the law! Under Ontario's Residential Tenancies Act, Section 23: A landlord shall not harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a tenant.
230 OAK STREET A BROWNFIELD PROPERTY
EXAMPLE: Not paying closer attention to the brownfield land and construction of a new apartment tower in front of the current building.
Video on brownfield property problems and not following the guidelines for owning a brownfield property, as pointed out by the previous owner Akelius knew about the problems.
LINK: Akelius 230 Oak Street Global News
LINK: Permanent solution still not in place for Toronto’s Don River fuel spill
QUOTES from the case sections 6-10
6. The Tenant usually pays her rent by dropping a cheque into a drop-box in the residential complex on the first day of the month when it is due. Since the residential complex was sold to the current Landlord about two years ago, there is no full-time on-site staff. Instead, the Landlord sends someone to the residential complex to pick up rent cheques.
7. The Tenant says that for the months of March 2016 through to August 2016 she dropped her cheque off as usual on the first of the month. But she acknowledges that in September of 2016 she fell behind in the rent and did not catch up until January 14, 2017.
8. The Landlord filed into evidence its ledger which does not accord with this testimony of the Tenant.
9. I should note at this point that with the review request the Tenant provided the Board with a copy of two money orders she purchased on January 14, 2017. Those two money orders paid off all of the arrears of rent as well as February’s rent in advance. They are both dated January 14, 2017. The Tenant says she dropped them into the Landlord’s dropbox immediately after returning home the same day she purchased them. I see no reason to disbelieve the Tenant in this regard. But the Landlord’s ledger indicates these payments were received on January 19, 2017. I took this evidence to mean that the ledger reflects posting dates instead of delivery dates.
10. It may well be that the Landlord sends an employee to the residential complex on the first day of each month to collect cheques from the dropbox. This is a standard practice in situations like this. But if the employee attends at 5 p.m. and the cheque is dropped off at 11 p.m. then the Landlord will not receive that cheque on time through no fault of the Tenant.
Akelius property managers should learn to read their monthly print outs better and check the tenant's file before sending out eviction notices. No one from Akelius wanted to testify in this case after being informed about their mistake.AKELIUS CANADA LTD ATTEMPTS TO PASS ON THEIR MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY TO THE TENANTS.
Example: Laundry room machines.
Every time there is a problem with laundry room facilities Akelius informs the tenant to contact the company in this case Coinamatic to come in and repair the equipment. This is a NO-NO AKELIUS. It is the company's responsibility to contact this supplier directly. The tenant should stop calling the supplier and inform Akelius to do so. The tenant should also follow up their phone call to Akelius with an email notice. Please keep copies and dates of marked calls to Akelius for future reference.
MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY
EXAMPLE:
UNDER THE PREVIOUS OWNER
Under Akelius Canada Ltd. for the past five years the front lawn has turned into a dog park for tenants with dogs. Tenants are too lazy to take their dogs to the park and give them some proper exercise. Dog lovers take their pets out to the front lawn to do their business and lock them inside for the rest of the day. Tenants should be aware they can be held responsible for the damage to the front lawn and charged for the repairs as your actions substantially interfere with all tenants and their reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex.
IGNORING TENANT COMPLAINTS
EXAMPLE: Is this any way to treat a lady? There are many complaints against Akelius Canada Ltd. but this one stands out as the dumbest of all. CASE FILE NUMBER TST-92915-18 Property Manager at the time Mr. Adam Kitchener.
LINK: 260 Gamble Avenue - Body of a deceased tenant being left unattended for two weeks.
REMOVING OF FLYERS FROM APARTMENT DOORS CONCERNING TENANTS ASSOCIATIONS AND MEETINGS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF ONTARIO TENANT LAW.
EXAMPLE: Staff has been informed by management to remove all flyers pertaining to tenant associations and meetings as they make their daily rounds throughout the various buildings. Tenants have witnessed property custodians performing this task along with direct conversations with workers.
It is your legal right to have a tenants association. That is the law! Under Ontario's Residential Tenancies Act, Section 23: A landlord shall not harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a tenant.
230 OAK STREET A BROWNFIELD PROPERTY
EXAMPLE: Not paying closer attention to the brownfield land and construction of a new apartment tower in front of the current building.
Video on brownfield property problems and not following the guidelines for owning a brownfield property, as pointed out by the previous owner Akelius knew about the problems.
LINK: Akelius 230 Oak Street Global News
LINK: Permanent solution still not in place for Toronto’s Don River fuel spill
Comments