Mr. P, the owner of a rickshaw company, came to our office to talk about an unfair application of licensing standards. In about 2003, the City changed the by-law that regulates rickshaw operations, out of concern for safety and to prevent the drivers from hustling tourists. Then another competitor came on the scene, but their cabs were pushed by pedal, not pulled by the torso. They got around the by-law.
Ms. B had a complaint about Municipal Licensing and Standards (MLS). One day, she was awakened by knocking at her door. Since she was resting after a medical procedure, she did not answer. She then heard chainsaws in her backyard. She found that workers contracted by the City had pruned her tree and left the debris piled in her yard.
Mr. N lives in a condo development with 14 units. Because they use the smallest garbage bins, the 14 units were each to receive a refund for solid waste. However, Revenue Services credited the refund (about $2,600) for all 14 units to Unit #1’s account. Ongoing credits were set to go to Unit #1 as well.
Ms. H, who was nearing retirement age and on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), moved from Markham to her own apartment in Toronto. Her ODSP benefits stopped after the move, and she needed compression socks, which are expensive. Ms. H’s daughter stepped in to help. However, no matter how hard she tried, she was unable to find out how to obtain coverage for the prescribed socks.
Mr. V lives in Toronto Community Housing (TCHC) in a rent-geared-to-income apartment. In August, TCHC told him he would have to pay market value, even though they had his income tax return documents indicating his income warranted a rent-geared-to-income unit.
In March, the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) recommended in a report the sale of several houses. Some of these buildings had been home to senior tenants for a long time, and several of these seniors had received re-location exemptions for reasons of age or health.
Mr. and Mrs. E, who do not speak English, were visited by a municipal officer who told them that they had to clean up debris in their back and side yards. Mr. and Mrs. E could not understand the officer, so she left them a card with a phone number. Their daughter placed several calls to the number on the card but received no response to any of her messages.
Mr. C called us in January to talk about an unreasonable delay in getting a building permit from the City. According to the City’s website, the usual length of time for a permit is 10 days. He had made his submission on November 23. Mr. C and his partner were in touch with a zoning examiner by phone and email. The examiner told them to pick up the permit on Friday. They went to the office on Friday, but the permit was not ready.
Mr. T and his neighbours were missing their bus shelter. It was removed in September and Transportation Services told Mr. T in October that it was going to be replaced. A few weeks later Mr. T emailed Transportation Services asking for an update — no response. Near the end of November, Mr. T emailed our office about the missing shelter.