IHM News, Volume 41, Fall 2010

Volume 41, Fall 2010

Canadian Publications Mail Agreement # 40739009

ENHANCING THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONALS

Inside President's Message

2 New Code Guidelines Beginning to Impact Landlords

3 Human Rights and No-Smoking Policies for Multi-Unit Dwellings Gaining Momentum

6 IHM Certificate in Property Management Course Completions

8 Member Profile: Helen Gawryk

9 Successful Lease Negotiations in Challenging Times

10 Bed Bugs - What are They?

11

P r e s i d e n t ’s M e s s a g e

Do You Whistle While You Work?

Have the last few weeks of summer been enjoyable or have you quickly returned to the schoolyear routine and sometimes hectic mornings with family members going in all different directions? For some people heading back to work after a great summer vacation can trigger high levels of anxiety, especially if the workplace environment is unhealthy.

Each of us has our own definition of a healthy workplace and we should ask ourselves what our personal role is in creating a positive work culture. We can critically assess our workplace to ensure it is an environment of trust where words and behaviour are consistent. Does management listen, value our ideas and foster opportunities for continuous personal growth? Is there a sense of unity among staff and a team feeling where all team members are respected for their contributions to the workplace? If you answered yes to these questions, you work in a positive atmosphere that will support productivity and promote good work wellness. But if you answered no to these questions, it is either time to influence company practices in a positive direction, or perhaps the time has arrived to consider your options and seek a more compatible job in line with your personal career objectives.

What about the people that we work with? Do you remember the image of Snow White and her forest dwelling friends working together as a team while singing “Whistle While You Work”? The lyrics were written by Frank Churchill and Leigh Harline for the animated film “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”. As with other Disney movies, the song lyrics typically convey an elemental goodness that is reported to exist in all of us. But you and I both know that there are some people who seem to lack that quality and have the unique ability to create what most of us would describe as a “toxic” workplace.

I am a firm believer that managers and supervisors play a huge role in fostering a positive corporate culture and ensuring that staff members are the right fit for the organisation. As Property Managers we must demonstrate good ethical behaviour, promote fair, consistent and respectful communication, and challenge others that sometimes seem to be on a mission to sabotage any glimmer of optimism. We can change our environment by refusing to engage in the gossip mill, we can accept the past and learn from our mistakes, and we can promote workplace wellness while doing our best to avoid negative people.

As Property Managers we have the ability to ensure our residents live in safe, clean, affordable and adequate housing. We play a critical role in facilitating opportunities for skills development, community engagement and neighbourhood development. Most importantly, we need to be happy, we need to experience personal satisfaction from the work that we do each day. We house people, we provide the opportunity to build community, and we can WHISTLE while we are doing it!!!

Regards,

Deborah Filice, FIHM President

2

IHM News • Fall 2010

Feature

New Code Guidelines Beginning to Impact Landlords

By Harry Fine Landlord Solutions

P

erhaps I am over-reacting and the sky isn’t really falling. My connection with the housing industry is narrowly defined and peripheral, doing legal work, so yes, perhaps I see the problem of Human Rights Code related issues as potentially more harmful than the facts might otherwise suggest. You decide.

It’s just over 10 months since the Ontario Human Rights Commission released its Policy Guideline on the Code and rental housing in Ontario. I’ve carefully read the 110 page Policy Guideline issued by the Commission on October 5th, 2009.

The Human Rights Code itself is nothing more than a framework, a skeleton which simply directs certain sectors of society to not discriminate or harass when providing goods, services, facilities, employment or accommodation. It further sets out 14 protected groups of persons who may seek shelter under the Code as it relates to rental housing.

The protected groups or “protected grounds” as some refer to them include sexual orientation, age, sex, ethnic origin, marital status, family status, receipt of public assistance etc., but the ones that arise in legal proceedings around housing are generally the protected ground of disability.

By its nature, any policy guideline (such as the LTB’s 17 Interpretation Guidelines) is helpful in the sense that it provides clarity with respect to the application of the law that may not be apparent when reading the legislation. But more

IHM News • Fall 2010

‘… more than providing clarity, this one is a frightening, left wing political document that could bankrupt even the most prudent landlord and serve as a hidden tax applied to a select few.’ than providing clarity, this one is a frightening, left wing political document that could bankrupt even the most prudent landlord and serve as a hidden tax applied to a select few.

Part of my role as a provider of legal services is to provide opinions and advice about how a party may thrive or at best survive within a regulatory framework. But for this recently published document, I would suggest that very few of those reading this article could adapt and survive under the fully implemented and applied policy guideline.

Now that’s not to say there were no Code requirements prior to October 5th, 2009. The modern Code came into

force in 1962, but the Code dealt primarily with employment issues in its early years, and hence the case law is generally in the context of employment, easily distinguished from a tenancy context by a capable representative. But with the publishing of the policy guideline for rental housing, one can no longer argue that certain principles of accommodation under the Code should not apply.

To be clear, I’m not speaking of pretenancy Code issues. Landlords fought hard to preserve the right of landlords to do pre-tenancy screening, and nobody can argue that a person should be denied a tenancy due to their inclusion continued on page 4

3

in any of the 14 protected groups; I would walk away from anyone who suggested otherwise. My concerns are within the realm of accommodation under the Code for in-situ tenants, those who already occupy your buildings and whose conduct would otherwise warrant eviction. But just serving a conduct notice, an N5, N6 or N7, without first investigating the needs of the tenant for accommodation could be seen to be discriminatory. Reading from page 80 of the Policy Guideline, the Commission informs us that “Several decisions stand for the principle that decision makers must consider a tenant’s Code-related circumstances and needs and whether that person could be accommodated, before considering or ordering an eviction.”

First, a brief primer on accommodation.

If a tenant falls into one of the 14 protected grounds (let’s say he or she is schizophrenic) and the tenant’s inclusion in that group is preventing the tenant from adhering to what would normally be an apparently neutral

4

behavioural requirement, and the landlord becomes aware (or ought to be aware) of the tenant’s inclusion in the Code-protected group, then the landlord is required to lift up the person to assist them in meeting the requirement.

That “lifting up“ is called “accommodation“. Not too onerous so far, but how many of your staff have the time or training to act in the place of a social worker or even recognize mental health issues. But recognize and react you must, and the Code doesn’t tolerate willful blindness to what may be nearlyinvisible issues.

But the kicker is the lengths you as the landlord are required to go to in order to accommodate. The guideline says that you need to lift up the tenant to eliminate the effects of the behaviour and your responsibility extends to what the Code calls the “point of undue hardship“. The Courts say that the point of undue hardship is the point just short of insolvency, or put another way, that to further accommodate the need would substantially and permanently affect the

very viability of the enterprise. And the landlord is responsible for all the costs of accommodation.

But it gets worse. Before you can claim you’ve done all you can to accommodate (to the point of undue hardship), you must provide a Court or Board with real, direct, quantifiable, empirical, scientific and objective evidence of your claim. Again quoting, “A mere statement, without supporting evidence, that the cost or risk is too high based on impressionistic views or stereotypes will not be sufficient.” Will you be bringing your organization’s president and accounting department to the next LTB hearing, producing financial statements of your privately-held company? That’s what the Code requires if challenged by the other side.

Worse still, the new guideline mandates that landlords, large and small, may not claim undue financial hardship unless you have investigated outside sources of funding, or phase in the solution over a number of years, or seek bank financing

IHM News • Fall 2010

to accomplish the needed accommodation. Adding another layer of unfairness, the landlord will be expected to fund the required accommodation from other divisions or sources of funds within its enterprises, not just housing. That would suggest to me that a landlord should hold nothing inside a housing corporation other than housing.

age are likely contrary to the Code and therefore they should have no effect if a tenant is on a fixed income in receipt of public assistance. This because almost by definition, that person could not void an N5 notice for $6,000 worth of damage within the 7 days set out in the statute.

While I argued otherwise, I suspect he’s probably right.

The policy guideline also says you can’t use the cost required to accommodate a single tenant by postulating the universalization of the expense. So for instance, arguing “Your honour, I could afford to soundproof that one unit without the risk of insolvency, but what about the next tenant who needs the same?“ is not a permitted defence. And finally, it is a principle of accommodation, reiterated in the Policy Guideline, that a landlord is required to pay “all the costs associated with the accommodation”.

If unchecked and unchallenged, this will put some landlords out of business and cause other landlords to get out of the business. Evictions will become almost impossible to achieve and frivolous claims by the tenant against landlords will become commonplace. And I’m not blaming the Landlord and Tenant Board or the tenant bar. It’s the law, the Code itself, which is supreme to all other laws and which the Supreme Court has said is “quasi-constitutional in nature”.

The new policy guideline placed on top of the Code is the problem.

I’ve seen the floodgates open already, confirmed by my colleagues. In social housing, tenants are claiming they need larger units because they were locked in a closet as a child and suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder. Just this week, I had a lawyer on a legal aid certificate acting for a former tenant who had been evicted 7 months earlier by the Sheriff, file a review of an eviction order that was based on smoking in the unit contrary to a written lease and impaired safety related to the smoking. The claim in the review factum was that the tenant is schizophrenic and that there is a body of scientific evidence suggesting smoking may be therapeutic for schizophrenics and mental illness is a protected ground.

A few months ago, I had a legal clinic in downtown Toronto contest both eviction and a claim for $6,000 in damage done by a tenant in “for-profit” housing.

The basis of their claim is that the tenant has a disability (never disclosed) that we ought to have been aware of, and therefore we ought to have assisted the tenant to take measures (we did) and that whatever the cost of these measures, it must be borne by the landlord, not the tenant. That same clinic in a case last year argued that the voiding provisions of a Board N5 notice for dam-

IHM News • Fall 2010

Without a ballot vote, without input by the legislature, and without serious and open consultation, you have all been made un-funded replacements for the mental health institutions systematically closed by successive governments since the 1970s. If you want to preserve the stability of this industry, it is imperative that you speak to your MPPs, write letters to the Premier, demand a policy position and commitment now from the opposition Conservatives, and do anything else you can to stop this offensive and unjust application of human rights legislation. If the Liberal government wants to put it to a vote and campaign on making landlords the unpaid social workers, facilitators, support workers and guardians of anyone requiring accommodation under the Code, then they should have the decency to come out and say so rather than hide behind an ideological commission that appears to me to be completely out of control.

Harry Fine is a Toronto paralegal specializing in residential landlord and tenant law. In addition to representing landlords at courts and tribunals, he enjoys teaching and writing, and his opinions can be found on his blog through his website at www.landlord solutions.ca. ■

CALLING ALL PROPERTY MANAGERS ...with stories to share!

We know that a Property Manager’s job can be both challenging and interesting.

How often have you come to work with your day all planned in your head only to have something unexpected come along …

We are looking for some stories to share with your colleagues in the Property Management field.

If you have an interesting story that you would be willing to author, please contact the Newsletter Committee at ihm@taylorenterprises.com

5

Feature

Human Rights and No-Smoking Policies for Multi-Unit Dwellings Gaining Momentum

By Pippa Beck, Policy Analyst, Non-Smokers’ Rights Association/ Smoke-Free Housing Ontario

T

he smoke-free multi-unit housing trend in Canada is gaining momentum as more landlords and housing providers realize the many benefits of a no-smoking policy. However, some stakeholders in the housing sector are under the mistaken impression that no-smoking policies are discriminatory, believing that because smoking tobacco is an addiction, it therefore constitutes a disability.

The Ontario Human Rights Code protects people from discrimination on protected grounds such as disability, family status, age, race, sexual orientation, income, etc. in areas of provincial jurisdiction such as housing and education. Although smoking in itself is not an enumerated ground for protection anywhere in Canada, there are a few Canadian legal cases where no-smoking policies have been challenged on the basis that smoking is a disability. However, there are two sides to the smoking and discrimination story, and case law is emerging in which residents of multi-unit dwellings cite discrimination because of chronic health conditions made worse by involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke in their own homes.

Is smoking a disability?

The question of smoking being recognized as a disability has been considered a number of times in recent years. Judges and arbitrators have consistently ruled, with one exception, that smoking is not a disability. The one exception is a 2000 arbitration decision made by the British Columbia Labour Relations Board with respect to that province’s Labour Relations Code. At issue was an employer’s decision to ban smoking on company property inside and out. Cominco is a nickel

6

smelter with property that exceeds 450 acres—a size that makes the average 15 minute smoke break off property impossible. The Union argued that nicotine addiction and the related effects of nicotine withdrawal constitute a disability within the meaning of the BC Human Rights Code.

Further, the Union’s position was that the company’s no-smoking policy discriminated against smokers because, if they couldn’t control their addiction and refrain from smoking for an 8 or 12 hour shift, the end result would be their dismissal.

Although the arbitrator agreed, he also recognized that there is no inherent right to smoke and that the employer’s no-smoking policy was reasonable and was adopted to protect non-smokers from a known hazard. The matter was referred back to the parties to resolve how to accommodate employees, subject to undue hardship by the com-

pany. Cominco’s smoking ban remains in effect today.

Are no-smoking policies in multi-unit dwellings discriminatory?

Landlords and housing providers have the choice to adopt a no-smoking policy. Such a policy could prohibit smoking in private units, could include a ban on smoking on balconies, patios and in common-use outdoor areas, or could even extend to the entire property. To clarify, a nosmoking policy: Smoke-Free Housing Ontario / The Non-Smokers’ Rights Association is not currently aware of any Canadian legal case where a landlord’s no-smoking policy has been challenged on the basis of dis-

IHM News • Fall 2010

crimination. Furthermore, given the existing case law on smoking and discrimination, it appears highly unlikely that any future challenges would be successful. Even the Cominco case is unlikely to influence future decisions, as it focused on the disabling effects of nicotine withdrawal during shift work. Residents of smoke-free multi-unit dwellings are free to step outside for a cigarette any time they choose—thus avoiding the potentially disabling effects of serious nicotine withdrawal.

Landlords and housing providers should also note the successful adoption of smoke-free policies at many hospitals in Canada, including facilities like the Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene, Ontario’s only maximum-security psychiatric hospital. The smoking rate among people with mental illnesses is much higher than in the general population, and secure-facility patients are not permitted to smoke at all.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) is an independent statutory body, providing leadership for the promotion, protection and advancement of human rights. In 2007 the OHRC published a report on human rights and rental housing which expressed concern that no-smoking policies could have the effect of indirectly discriminating against marginalized families by creating a barrier to affordable housing.

This seems unlikely. At present, there are only a handful of smoke-free choices in the affordable housing market for low income Ontarians. In fact, it is arguable that the lack of smoke-free choice is in itself discriminatory, given the disproportionate burden of chronic disease and disability faced by low income Ontarians.

The duty to accommodate Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, landlords and housing providers have the duty to accommodate residents who have been discriminated against up to the point of undue hardship. In 2009 the OHRC published guidelines to help improve equal access to rental housing in Ontario. The document, Policy on Human Rights and Rental Housing, is “Canada’s first comprehensive look at how barriers to housing can be identified and eliminated.”

Section 6.1 of the report deals with smoking in rental housing, and reaches the following conclusion: A housing provider has a duty to explore accommodation requests from tenants with any form of

IHM News • Fall 2010

disability. Tenants may also be asked to cooperate and help facilitate the provision of accommodation for themselves, and where appropriate, for their fellow tenants as well.

However, given the inherent risks associated with smoking, a housing provider may have little or no obligation to accommodate a tenant’s need to smoke when to do so would amount to undue hardship, for example, by negatively affecting the health and safety of other tenants.1

At present, there are only a handful of smoke-free choices in the affordable housing market for low income Ontarians.

For the sake of argument, it is possible that a judge or arbitrator might accept that a landlord’s no-smoking policy is discriminatory. However, facilitating an addiction to nicotine by simply striking down a no-smoking policy and allowing other residents to continue being involuntarily exposed to second-hand smoke would not generally be regarded as reasonable accommodation of the smoker. Reasonable accommodation could potentially involve the creation of an outdoor designated smoking area or access to the provision of smoking cessation resources. There are many ways of managing an addiction to nicotine that do not pollute the air and involuntarily expose others to second-hand smoke.

Discrimination cuts both ways Residents of multi-unit dwellings with health conditions made worse by exposure to second-hand smoke are beginning to speak up and protect themselves using human rights legislation. SmokeFree Housing Ontario / The Non-Smokers’ Rights Association is aware of five such cases, all from British Columbia, where residents have claimed that their landlords or condominium corporations have discriminated against them by failing to provide smoke-free housing.2 One case, involving a tenant living in social housing provided by the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation, has been settled.3 Unfortunately, a gag order was put into

place and very few details are available except that the complainant is still living in her original unit and the building is now 100% smokefree. The other cases have either been settled or are awaiting a hearing and no other details are available.

Conclusion Access to smoke-free housing remains extremely poor in Ontario. Concern that no-smoking policies may be discriminatory will hamper an increase in supply. Canadian case law suggests that it is unlikely that smoking would be considered a disability in the context of a landlord’s no-smoking policy. Further, facilitating an addiction to nicotine by simply striking down a no-smoking policy and allowing other residents to continue being involuntarily exposed to second-hand smoke would not generally be regarded as reasonable accommodation of a resident smoker.

Moreover, there is emerging human rights case law involving residents of multi-unit dwellings claiming that their housing providers have discriminated against them for failing to provide smoke-free housing. Canadians are starting to demand smoke-free housing and landlords should pay attention. The risk of maintaining the status quo and not providing a smoke-free choice appears far greater than the risk of possibly discriminating against smokers. There are two sides to this debate and future legal challenges will help to clarify and guide the discussion.

For more information, including a legal opinion, case law examples, and a guide to adopting a no-smoking policy, please visit www.smokefree housingon.ca

1 Ontario Human Rights Commission, “Policy on Human Rights and Rental Housing”, July 21, 2009, http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/Policies/ housing.

2 Abraham v. Greater Vancouver Housing, 2008 BCHRT 41; Borutski v. Kiwanis Club of White Rock, 2009 BCHRT 46; Kabatoff v. Strata Corp. NW 2767, 2009 BCHRT 344; two other cases filed in 2010 but not yet heard.

3 Abraham v. Greater Vancouver Housing, 2008 BCHRT 41. ■

7

Education

IHM Certificate in Property Management & Course Completions Human Relations for Property Managers Robert Ac Allister Andrews Veronica Batu Daria Berezowska Harmony Brown Viorel Cabaua Yadollah Eshaghpour Cherrill Fleming Dianne Lampi Doriana E. Marsili Carl Moore Carmen Oltean Nadia Peca Kim Quach Darren Shaw Bujar Sinaj John Skouse Alicia Smith Christine T. Valido Laura Vivas Luxin Wang Debbie Watters Jack Wong

Strategic and Financial Planning for Property Managers Robert Ac Diane Andoseh Veronica Batu Sabine Behnk Frances Cullinane Diana A. Decsei Petrina Fraser Nikola Grozdanov Lesley A. Hamilton Michael Mains Luiza Manaj Remus Neagoe Bardha Oka Patricial Price Eduart Reci Jorge Rivas Vallejo Anastasia Sharkova Bujar Sinaj

8

Bogdan Somcutean Luminita Stroe Paul Stroe Rodrigo Sunga Roman Tsonev Jonathan Van Viegen Aurora Voicu Tatiana Vostrikov Debbie Watters Weishi Zhu

Property & Building Administration Hassan A. Abdi Reuven Abrahami Robert Ac Erica Bannister Veronica Batu Daria Berezowska David B. Berholz Viorel Cabaua Elizabeth Castillo Jennifer Chandler Kathiresu Cheliyan Chiyan (Jessica) Chung David Chung Bebiano Dasilva Diana A. Decsei Susan Dimartino Ana Duma Aferdita Firaj Mario Gambelic Natassia S. Gayle Alicja Gzowska Fabian Jardim Taylor Kelley Raywattie Kissoon Gezim Kolaj Carole Kozlowski Seyfi K. Kulabuga Jose Martin Leon Pamela Leung Marlane Liebusch Doriana E. Marsili Melanie Martin Alicia R. Mitchell Contantin Moldovan

Carl Moore Hazel Morgan Yana Nile Luca Panetta Nadia Peca Vicki Perrault Jolanta Puclacher Kim Quach Bryan Quezada Ayyal Raj Ravi John Skouse Roxana Stanciu Eric Tan Sorin Tarbujaru Ivor Savio Traynor Dorian Turdiu Esteban Vergara Laura Vivas Tony Volpe Benjamin Walton Somayeh Walton Glendene Yearwood

Building Maintenance for Property Managers Reuven Abrahami Sugumar Balasingham Veronica Batu Vincent Bennett Daria Berezowska Andy Blomberg Josh Browne Tina Buono Viorel Cabaua Lesley-Ann Campbell Agnes Cheung Melissa Colitti Antonia David-Yap Ana Duma Yadollah Eshaghpour Stacey Ferguson Antonio Figola Anne Marie Fobert-Poirier Natassia S. Gayle Kathy Grant Alicja Gzowska Amanda Horn

Nadine Jones Ambica Kalpatoo Mary Ellen Kelloway Donna Kirchknopf Raywattie Kissoon Gezim Kolaj Paul Kordish Lyne Labelle James LeConte Jose Martin Leon Michael W. Mahoney Luiza Manaj Elena Maximova Contantin Moldovan Irina Montolova Hazel Morgan Edina Mulic Remus Neagoe Carine Nind Alexandra Paduraru Joe M. Pereira Jolanta Puclacher Kim Quach Jacqueline Rosettani Anastasia Sharkova Nicoleta Sima Bujar Sinaj Jivko Slavenov Arlene Smit Bogdan Somcutean Ingrid Stan Dan Stevens Michele Stewart Sorin Tarbujaru Bob Theisz Ivor Savio Traynor Jason Tremblay Roman Tsonev Aurora Voicu Lauren Walmsley James Zournto

Program Completion Certificate Nicoleta Sima

IHM News • Fall 2010

Member Profile

Helen Gawryk

H

elen is the Program Coordinator for the IHM Certificate in Property Management at Humber College. She has been coordinating the Property Management program since 1991. In this role Helen works very closely with IHM to ensure quality delivery, assist the instructors in any capacity, and work with students to ensure a positive learning experience, and complete satisfaction with their experience at Humber College.

Welcome to Our New Members New Candidate Members Allister Andrews Michael Mains Hazel Morgan Yana Nile Vicki Perrault

Helen has been at Humber College in a number of roles since 1982. She is also an honours graduate of the Business Administration program from Humber College. Although she has worked at Humber in a number of positions, she finds her current position the most challenging and rewarding. As a full-time student and thereafter a part-time student, she admires those who come back to school to either upgrade their skills or to pursue a new career. Helen understands the unique challenges of those who take a part-time program and the same time are juggling a full-time job, families, and re entering the education system after a number years. She understands that being a part time student is much more difficult than being a full time student.

Michele Stewart

Helen thoroughly enjoys working with the staff at IHM and any of the Board members with whom she deals. She finds this to be a very cooperative relationship that is focused on the student and the program. â–

www.ihm-canada.com

IHM News • Fall 2010

9

Feature

Successful Lease Negotiations in Challenging Times

By Kim Arnott, Lowe’s for Pros

fter a tumultuous previous year, 2010 is expected to bring some stabilization in vacancy and rent rates in the office, commercial and industrial market sectors. However, new capacity coming on line over the next few years will continue to put downward pressure on rents in most markets across Canada, predicts Scotia Economics. The research company's Global Real Estate Trends report released in May notes, “Overall market conditions are moving back in favour of tenants for the first time in years.” Its report on the first quarter of 2010 notes that the national vacancy rate for downtown office buildings stood at 7.4%, while 6.4% of industrial properties were vacant.

negotiated in five-year increments, MacPherson suggests shorter term leases are also now more negotiable. “The downside, obviously, is that your tenant is a free agent at the end of the lease, and they can move.” Even in difficult times, however, property managers need to be smart about what they negotiate and who they lease to. While no one wants vacant space, filling it with a tenant who can’t pay the rent is clearly not the answer.

More challenging economic times require property managers to pay particular attention to the financial viability of potential tenants, says Stack. “If you are prepared to negotiate a lower rate, you want a solid client with the ability to pay over the long term.”

During more challenging times, it’s clear that leases may be subject to greater negotiation. As Peter J. Macpherson, senior director, leasing for SITQ in Montreal puts it, “In a tenant’s market, the landlord will have to sharpen his pencil.”

It’s also important to make sure the deal makes good business sense for the long-term. “The land-

A

Property managers who may have enjoyed the upper hand in negotiations in the past may find they need to exercise greater flexibility in today’s market. Landlords may need to be prepared to negotiate more aggressive incentives like rent-free periods and increased lease-hold improvement allowances to entice potential tenants, says Peter Stack, director of office leasing with Cadillac Fairview in Calgary. Items like additional parking or potential tenant expansion options can be nonmonetary ways to entice or retain clients.

“Because of all the space that’s available, a landlord may have to be more flexible on some tenant issues,” says Stack. “So long as the requests of the tenant are reasonable, the landlord should be open to consider them. In the past, landlords were not as amenable to change but current market conditions may call for greater flexibility.”

lord has to live with the consequences of the lease,” says MacPherson, who advises property managers not to rush into deals that could haunt them down the road in terms of leasing remaining space in a building.

Once a deal has been agreed to, ensure the understanding is crystal clear in the final lease document, says Deborah Filice, a property and building management instructor and president of the Institute of Housing Management (IHM). Details need to be spelled out to avoid any future doubt, confusion or hard feelings. “That lease agreement is really the document you should be referring to throughout the whole tenancy,” says Filice. “If you don’t get it right in the beginning, certainly you’re going to pay in one way or another down the road.” ■

IHM Job Posting and Resources Whether you are looking for a job or looking to hire a Property Management professional, this webpage has lots to offer. Separate sections have been designed – one for job postings and the other for resources and links to other websites. And remember – posting a property management related position is completely free of charge to IHM members.

Just supply us with a copy of the job posting along with the closing date for submissions in either a ‘Word’ or ‘PDF’ format and we will have it posted online – usually within 24-48 hours. Send your job postings via email to ihm@taylorenterprises.com

Although commercial leases have historically been

10

IHM News • Fall 2010

Feature

Bed bugs - What are they?

B

ed bugs have an oval broad, flat body and a short, broad head. Shaped similar to an apple seed, unfed adults are around 6 to 10 mm long and brown and wingless. After feeding, they swell slightly in size and darken to a bloodred colour. The nymphs are shaped like the adults, but are yellow-white in colour.

Itchy welts on skin and/or black or brown spots on mattresses sheets, bed frames or walls often indicate that there is a bed bug infestation.

Bed bugs are also known by several names: wall louse, house bug, mahogany flat, red coat, crimson ramblers as well as others.

Responsible Pesticide Use The bed bug eggs are white, about 1 mm long (1/25 inch), and are almost impossible to see on most surfaces. The female bed bug lays at least 200 eggs in her lifetime, at a rate of about two or four per day. The eggs have a sticky coating and are deposited in cracks and crevices, behind woodwork and similar hidden locations. They usually hatch in six to 17 days.

Newly hatched nymphs feed as soon as food is available. A bed bug goes through five moults before it reaches full maturity. Adults usually live for around 10 months, but can live for a year or more in a home where the environment is good for reproduction, with temperatures ranging between 21°C and 28°C, making it ideal for breeding year round.

Bed bugs can live from several weeks up to roughly a year and a half without feeding. Older bed bugs can go even longer without feeding.

What can they do?

Bed bugs can cause allergic reactions and itchy welts. Allergic sensitivity can increase if exposure is prolonged. They do not however pose a major health risk and are not known carriers of bloodborne diseases. Bed bug bites may not be noticed

IHM News • Fall 2010

immediately because bed bugs typically feed at night when people are asleep.

Bed bugs are wingless and cannot fly or jump, but are able to hide in extremely small locations because of their flattened bodies - under wallpaper, behind picture frames, in electrical outlets, inside box springs, in mattress pads and in night tables. Long considered eradicated in most metropolitan areas, bed bugs are making a comeback.

People now travel more than ever before, and bed bugs are hitching rides on clothing and luggage. They can now be found everywhere there is a high turnover of people, from homeless shelters to five-star hotels. They can also be accidentally transported around the house on objects. Bed bugs do not indicate a lack of cleanliness.

How can I manage them?

Because bed bugs are hard to get rid of, a pest control operator is a simple solution. Alternatively, you may decide to control them yourself. Usually more than one chemical treatment is required, and must be done in addition to physical control.

Be thorough in addressing bed bug infestations, because bed bugs travel easily, you may have to treat nearby rooms. Remove or reduce any clutter that might transport bed bugs.

Bed Treatment Infested mattresses should be steam-cleaned. Take care to use steam that is hot enough, and avoid excess moisture which could lead to mould.

Inspect your bed thoroughly by examining the seams, tufts and crevices of the mattress as well as the box spring, bed frame and headboard. You may have to remove the cloth underside of the box spring to determine if there are bugs inside.

Mattress pads and sheets should be washed in hot water and dried on the high setting. Infested areas should be vacuumed carefully with a brush attachment. Afterwards, dispose of the vacuum bag immediately and inspect the brush attachment for bed bugs. Bed bugs cannot easily climb metal or polished surfaces and cannot fly or jump. Treat the legs of beds to keep them away. Coat the legs with double-sided carpet tape or petroleum jelly, you can also place the legs of the bed inside glass jars or metal cans.

You may have to discard your bed. Holes or worn spots in the fabric may allow bed bugs to lay eggs in areas not easily reached, and there are restrictions on how insecticides can be used on beds.

Treatment of Other Items Carefully examine all night tables, baseboards, dressers, headboards (especially padded ones), continued on page 12

11

electrical outlets, any items stored near or under the bed, any nearby carpeting or rugs, picture frames, switch plates, inside clocks, phones, televisions and smoke detectors - in short, anything and everything that is in the room where the infestation has been noted. Upholstered chairs and sofas can also harbour bed bugs and should be treated with careful vacuuming and laundering of all possible parts (cushions, slipcovers, skirts, etc.).

Smaller items that cannot be laundered can sometimes be treated by heating (temperatures greater than 50°C) or freezing. Some items can be wrapped in plastic wrap and placed outdoors on a hot sunny day or in sub-zero temperatures in the winter. However, the freezing temperatures must be maintained for a prolonged period of time (e.g., four days of cold exposure at 0°C) to ensure that the bed bugs are killed.

Prevention To prevent future bed bug infestations, mattresses must be completely enclosed. They can be wrapped in zippered bed encasements available

from allergy supply companies, with duct tape over the zipper. Mattresses can also be wrapped and sealed in plastic film. Be cautious about taking in second-hand furniture, bedding, mattresses or beds. Inspect and clean them before bringing them home. When you travel, inspect the mattress and headboard in the hotel room, do not bring your pillow from home, and do not put your suitcase on the bed.

NOTE: Bed bug infestations can be extremely difficult to treat, and repeat applications may be required. Always follow the pesticide label directions to

Products Domestic class products available to homeowners will generally contain the active ingredients pyrethrin or diatomaceous earth.

minimize exposure and maximize efficacy of the product.

Between applications of pesti-

Several commercial class products are available to professional pest control operators. These may include low-odour sprays, dusts or aerosols; your pest control operator will select the best product for your particular situation.

trol ongoing and prevent future

Source: Health Canada ■

infestations.

cide products, keep monitoring the situation to physically con-

2010-2011 Board of Directors www.ihm-canada.com PRESIDENT:

SECRETARY/TREASURER:

Deborah Filice, R.S.S.W, FIHM City Of Brantford Manager, Municipal Housing, Public Health, Safety, Social Services - Housing 220 Colborne Street (Office) P. O. Box 845 Brantford, ON N3T 5R7 Tel: (519) 759-3330, Ext. 6365 Fax: (519) 759-1932 Email: dfilice@brantford.ca

Harry Popiluk, FIHM Victoria Park Community Homes 155 Queen St. N., Hamilton, ON L8R 2V7 Tel: (905) 527-0221 Ext.215 Fax: (905) 527-3181 Email: hpopiluk@vpch.com

VICE-PRESIDENT Kevin O’Hara, AIHM, D.P.A. Conference Committee Region of Waterloo Waterloo Region Housing 235 King Street East, 6th Floor Kitchener, ON N2G 4N5 Tel: (519) 575-4800, ext. 1218 Fax: (519) 893-8447 Email: kevino@region.waterloo.on.ca

IHM OFFICE:

12

DIRECTORS: Lynn Alexander, AIHM Communications Chair Region of Durham Housing Services P.O. Box 623, Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 Tel: (905) 666-6222 Fax: (905) 666-6225 Email: lynn.alexander@durham.ca Terry McErlean, FIHM Education Committee Social Housing Division, County of Simcoe 136 Bayfield Street, 4th Floor Barrie, ON L4M 3B1 Tel: (705) 725-7215 ext. 1846 Email: terry.mcerlean@simcoe.ca

Lynn Morrovat, Administrator Carolyne Vigon, Operations Manager Josee Lefebvre, Administrative Assistant

Deborah Parker, AIHM Marketing/Membership Co-Chair Girl Guides of Canada 50 Merton Street Toronto, ON M4S 1A3 Tel: (416) 487-5281, ext. 209 Fax: (416) 487-5570 Email: parkerd@girlguides.ca

Kathi Zarfas, AIHM, MPA Education Committee Chair Social Housing Services Corporation 390 Bay Street, 7th Floor Toronto, ON M5H 2Y2 Tel: (416) 594-9325 ext 215 Fax: (416) 594-9422 Email: kzarfas@shscorp.ca

Doug Rollins, AIHM Education Committee City of Toronto, Shelter Support & Housing Administration Metro Hall, 55 John Street, 6th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3L6 Tel: (416) 392-8638 Fax: (416) 392-0548 Email: drollin@toronto.ca

CANDIDATE REPRESENTATIVE

Connie Van Sickle, AIHM Education Committee County of Lambton Housing Services Department 150 North Christina Street, 2nd Floor Sarnia, ON N7T 7H3 Tel: (519) 344-2062, ext. 2040 Fax: (519) 344-2066 Email: connie.vansickle@countylambton.on.ca

Sennan Vandenberg Marketing/Membership Co-Chair St. Lawrence Youth Association P.O. Box 23003 Amherstview RPO Kingston, ON K7N 1Y2 Tel: (613) 384-4869, ext 110 Fax: (613) 384-8873 Email: svandenberg@slya.ca Michelle Waye Marketing/Membership Co-Chair City of Toronto Policy Planning & Project Consultant Shelter Support & Housing Administration Division Metro Hall, 6th Floor 55 John Street, Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Tel: (416) 392-0601 Fax: (416) 338-1144 Email: mwaye@toronto.ca

2175 Sheppard Ave. East, Suite 310, Toronto, ON M2J 1W8 Tel: (416) 493-7382 / 1-866-212-4377 • Fax: (416) 491-1670 • Email: ihm@taylorenterprises.com

IHM News • Fall 2010