On January 31, we, the tenants of the Mont-Carmel seniors’ residence (RPA), received an eviction notice from the new owner, Henry Zavriyev, well known for his abusive practices. Since then, we have fought tirelessly against the violence of this procedure, not only for the defense and respect of our rights, but also for the rights of all seniors living in RPA in Quebec.
We denounce the all-out conversion of our residence and of so many others who suffer the same fate. Our struggle has taken various forms. Media, political and legal means have been favored so that Mont-Carmel retains its RPA status, as stipulated in the notarized deed of sale. The order issued on July 26 by the Superior Court was a particularly significant first victory. This ordered the owner to take the necessary measures to maintain the certification and operation of Résidence Mont-Carmel as an RPA.
To do so, he had to act in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation respecting the certification of seniors’ residences and the Act respecting health services and social services (LSSSS), until September 19, at when we return to court to discuss the merits of the dispute. However, RPA must still exist at this time. However, what characterizes it is gradually disappearing!
Indeed, from the days following the ordinance, several of its obligations were not observed, starting with the acceleration of the rental to people under the age of 65, to such an extent that the RPA is no longer occupied mainly by seniors, when this should be the rule. In contravention of this order, troubling facts are piling up. Long time slots are left without a receptionist, which compromises the security of the premises.
The general lack of maintenance raises fears in terms of sanitation and has notably led to the recurrent closing of the swimming pool. The disappearance of furniture in the common areas, such as the hallways and the television lounge, as well as the closure of the convenience store and the hairdressing salon are affecting both safety and quality of life.
Renovation work has even begun, which cannot be compatible with an order to save the place as it is. This work could lead to the closure of the community hall, which is essential for the meetings and social activities of the tenants. Even more disturbing, managers are again encouraging residents to leave the RPA, which many have already done in recent months, despite their desire to stay.
A widespread evil
Faced with so much intimidation, harassment and non-compliance with the order of the Superior Court, we put the owner on notice, but he continued his actions which affect so much our well-being on a daily basis.
Believing that our fight was part of a much broader perspective than the safeguard of our RPA, we launched a petition asking the government to act on the whole problem. Signed by 6,671 people, it was tabled in the National Assembly last May by MP Manon Massé. The requests made are still just as necessary and urgent for tenants of all RPAs. This is to prevent RPAs from freeing themselves so easily from their certification and the services to be offered, to regulate the rental costs of this type of residence and to facilitate the appropriation and community or public management of any RPA in risk of closure.
A sign of the great scope of the issues raised, the petition also demanded that the Civil Code of Québec ensure the protection of tenants’ rights and prohibit the change of use of an apartment building, all the more so in the case of a RPA.
The government has still not responded to these requests or reacted to the revelations of the problems we experience daily. However, the levers are within reach.
Disclaimers
It is totally unacceptable that seniors are at the mercy of delinquent owners, as the media proves with regard to Henry Zavriyev. Since the MSSS is ultimately responsible for RPAs, an abundance of rules and steps must be followed to hold RPA certification, while an owner can terminate it with a simple notice. How is it that the MSSS is not responsible for protecting the rights of seniors, by preventing them from losing the living environment that ensures their health and safety?
On September 19, we will return to the Superior Court more indignant and determined than ever. We will then again be accompanied by many people and organizations allied to our situation and in solidarity with the struggles of the senior tenants of all the RPAs in Quebec.
Prime Minister François Legault and his government should feel challenged by the situation, the health and housing issues in question even falling under the responsibilities of four ministers. But nothing happens. At the dawn of the start of the election campaign, which party will commit to resolving the situation, both in the face of the denials of rights that we experience daily and with regard to the structural changes that can prevent their repetition?