1 Year Lease Agreement Ontario

27 nov 1 Year Lease Agreement Ontario

Hello: As far as I know, there is no definitive answer to this question. Some things are « real » – that cameras can`t have sound and that cameras should certainly be so « targeted » that they don`t see in rental units when tenants come and go (i.e. no random input from inside the camera when the door opens). When I looked at this problem, there are very few instructions on surveillance cameras. The Federal Data Protection Officer has a few articles on the subject: www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/landlords-and-tenants/02_05_d_66_tips/ (cut and paste this link and consult #6 for comments on surveillance). In a building, surveillance cameras are a little different from outside cameras – but they also cause a lot of controversy between struggling neighbors. There is an idea of cameras as « surveillance camera » and then the camera as a tool for a peeping tom. Obviously, no one can be « packaged » or their privacy for the titillation of an invisible camera observer. Some tenants will also be interested in privacy as people who leave their unit, and they do not want to be monitored that way. For example, constant monitoring that comes and goes from a unit can reveal a lot about a person`s life (health, relationships, business, etc.) and also his routines about when they go to work, go home, go out, etc. One would think that this type of information could be obtained simply by sitting and looking, and that there is no right to data protection in this type of information. On this point, I do not agree because the camera allows you to monitor the doors remotely by recording and then quickly relaying a tenant`s activity for a week/month in 30 minutes or less.

I think that is a mistake. As a result, I am a big fan of what the data protection delegate calls a « surveillance policy. » It seems to me that an appropriate directive would control access to records and comfort tenants who could be registered when the data is posted. For example, I would be happy to have a directive confirming that the recordings will never be watched, unless an incident requires the recording to be accessed. I would also be pleased that the directive requires notification to each tenant in condition (who is watched in a video) to be informed that they have been caught in a video and that it has been checked with a « right » for the tenant to see the video. Perhaps this should include the tenant`s clients who also enter the rental unit. In terms of policy, I think a camera in the main lobby is different from a camera that monitors a hallway. Data protection rights under the Housing Act are little discussed or discussed. I think there`s little chance that LTB will order the removal of the surveillance cameras. However, if the owner does not have a reasonable policy and has no explanation as to the need for cameras (I assume there are crimes or other problems?) and does not comply with the data protection delegate`s instructions (which I think is reasonable), I think the BST could conclude that the cameras interfere with the tenant`s reasonable enjoyment and could therefore be made of « orders, » including the receipt of the cameras. Michael K. E. Thielewww.ottawalawyers.com As mentioned above, a tenant may break the tenancy agreement under certain circumstances authorized by the Housing Act.

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.