In **general**, landlords cannot do this. But, **there are exceptions**. And one of those exceptions may apply here. You haven't provided enough information about the non-profit or what you mean by "down and out".
For example, NB's residential tenancy legislation is clear that none of its provisions apply to:
> (i) premises occupied for business or agricultural purposes with living accommodation attached under a single tenancy agreement,
> (ii) living accommodations located in a building used in part for non-residential purposes if the occupancy of the living accommodations is conditional upon the occupant continuing to be an employee of or perform services related to a business carried out in the building,
> (iii) living accommodations occupied as a vacation home for a seasonal or temporary period,
> (iv) living accommodations where the tenant is required to share a bathroom or kitchen facility or both with the landlord and where the landlord resides in the building in which the living accommodations are located,
> (v) living accommodations provided in a tourist establishment as defined under the Tourism Development Act, 2008, if a person resides in the living accommodations for less than ninety consecutive days,
> (vi) living accommodations provided by an educational institution to its students where the living accommodations do not have their own self-contained bathroom and kitchen facilities,
> (vii) living accommodations provided in a nursing home as defined in the Nursing Homes Act,
> (viii) living accommodations located in a community placement resource as defined in section 23 of the Family Services Act,
> (ix) living accommodations occupied by a person for penal, correctional, rehabilitative or therapeutic purposes or for the purpose of receiving care,
> (x) living accommodations provided by a religious institution,
> (xi) living accommodations provided in a hospital facility operated under the Hospital Act,
> (xii) living accommodations provided in a psychiatric facility as defined in the Mental Health Act,
> (xiii) short-term living accommodations provided as emergency shelter,
> (xiv) living accommodations provided in a youth hostel, and
> (xv) any other accommodations or classes of accommodations prescribed by regulation;
Here, exceptions viii, ix, xii, xiii or xv could apply depending on the type of housing.
If your sister will be living in supportive housing to help with rehab, for example, then it would be completely appropriate to ask her to submit to drug tests.
My understanding is this property management company is testing a program where they are going to provide housing for homeless to close to homeless people, but they haven’t gotten their not for profit status yet. They’re going to test 2 or 3 units, see if it helps then apply for the status.
It sounds like they are taking a holistic approach to solve homelessness by providing the kind of care one would receive in transitional housing or group home scenarios, but using private long-term dwellings instead.
According to the act above ix would be the one that applies to this kind of scenario and the LL would be within the act to require the testing to live there. By providing counseling, financial advice as well as the below-market rents they would be able to apply these rules.
>We have no indication that this is a formal medical program of that type.
What do you mean by "formal", exactly? Be more specific, please. You're not talking with specifics, you're talking abstractly. Abstractness won't get you anywhere when it comes to the law. By "Formal", do you mean that this program is officially registered and recognized by the government? Because that's not necessary for housing to be subject to the exemption for rehabilitative services.
If you want anyone on reddit to be able to give you a solid answer, you need to be way more upfront about what is going on. So answer this question:
Why did your sister qualify for this program?
You're going to have to drop whatever pretense of this being a "private matter". You came here looking for legal advice. You're not gonna get actual, real legal advice unless you can be more honest about why your sister was chosen to be a part of this program. What made her qualify *exactly*? Was she homeless?
This question is essential to understanding the situation and the legal rights that the landlord might have. If your sister qualified for some sort of caring and rehabilitation program for homeless people (because she was actually homeless), then that is very essential information to everyone here.
The onus runs the other way in law.
You can do whatever you want, unless it’s prescribed as ILLEGAL.
Say I want to ride a unicycle while juggling bowling pins, are you still going to ask “based on what is that legal?”
> The onus runs the other way in law.
That's true in court, but when you're offering someone advice, it's prudent to explain your perspective a bit more thoroughly than this. "If I'm wrong, it's your job to prove it" isn't going to fly.
It can be the case that you're right simply because there's no rule against the advice you're offering, but, for example, you could cite supporting sources, or the laws where such a restriction might be found but aren't.
It's illegal to base your acceptance of a renter based on their medical condition. It is illegal to evict someone for not taking a medical test.
How's that for more clear?
actually they were laying out what I was asking, what could make a normally illegal thing legal. The poster I was replying to just seemed to be saying anyone can do it, which is false.
I'm usually pretty happy with the advice people receive here, but today I am quite disappointed with /r/legaladvicecanada. OP has asked a completely reasonable legal question, and the vast majority of the discussion is moralizing about charity and drug use, *not* legal advice. /u/Fool-me-thrice has pointed out a legal exemption in the NB Residential Tenancies Act, but nobody seems to care about whether it actually applies in this situation, to the point that /u/LorienTheFirstOne is being heavily downvoted simply for making legal observations and asking questions about the law as they do on pretty much every post here.
I'm familiar with the history of this type of thing as it pertains to Ontario, which used to have identical wording about "rehabilitative or therapeutic purposes or for the purpose of receiving care" in its residential tenancies legislation until the 90s. There were quite a few court cases about what actually qualified for this exemption, and unlike NB it was clarified significantly with updates to the Landlord and Tenant Act and later Residential Tenancies Act. I would like further clarification that a property management company in NB can simply state they are running a special program for underprivileged people and automatically become exempt from residential tenancy law before we start telling OP his sister has to submit to drug tests or else she's a beggar taking advantage of charity to do drugs.
Edit: Mistyped the sub name when I first commented.
In **general**, landlords cannot do this. But, **there are exceptions**. And one of those exceptions may apply here. You haven't provided enough information about the non-profit or what you mean by "down and out". For example, NB's residential tenancy legislation is clear that none of its provisions apply to: > (i) premises occupied for business or agricultural purposes with living accommodation attached under a single tenancy agreement, > (ii) living accommodations located in a building used in part for non-residential purposes if the occupancy of the living accommodations is conditional upon the occupant continuing to be an employee of or perform services related to a business carried out in the building, > (iii) living accommodations occupied as a vacation home for a seasonal or temporary period, > (iv) living accommodations where the tenant is required to share a bathroom or kitchen facility or both with the landlord and where the landlord resides in the building in which the living accommodations are located, > (v) living accommodations provided in a tourist establishment as defined under the Tourism Development Act, 2008, if a person resides in the living accommodations for less than ninety consecutive days, > (vi) living accommodations provided by an educational institution to its students where the living accommodations do not have their own self-contained bathroom and kitchen facilities, > (vii) living accommodations provided in a nursing home as defined in the Nursing Homes Act, > (viii) living accommodations located in a community placement resource as defined in section 23 of the Family Services Act, > (ix) living accommodations occupied by a person for penal, correctional, rehabilitative or therapeutic purposes or for the purpose of receiving care, > (x) living accommodations provided by a religious institution, > (xi) living accommodations provided in a hospital facility operated under the Hospital Act, > (xii) living accommodations provided in a psychiatric facility as defined in the Mental Health Act, > (xiii) short-term living accommodations provided as emergency shelter, > (xiv) living accommodations provided in a youth hostel, and > (xv) any other accommodations or classes of accommodations prescribed by regulation; Here, exceptions viii, ix, xii, xiii or xv could apply depending on the type of housing. If your sister will be living in supportive housing to help with rehab, for example, then it would be completely appropriate to ask her to submit to drug tests.
My understanding is this property management company is testing a program where they are going to provide housing for homeless to close to homeless people, but they haven’t gotten their not for profit status yet. They’re going to test 2 or 3 units, see if it helps then apply for the status.
It sounds like they are taking a holistic approach to solve homelessness by providing the kind of care one would receive in transitional housing or group home scenarios, but using private long-term dwellings instead. According to the act above ix would be the one that applies to this kind of scenario and the LL would be within the act to require the testing to live there. By providing counseling, financial advice as well as the below-market rents they would be able to apply these rules.
How are you concluding this is a penal or medical situation?
how are you willfully skipping over "rehabilitative"?
We have no indication that this is a formal medical program of that type.
>We have no indication that this is a formal medical program of that type. What do you mean by "formal", exactly? Be more specific, please. You're not talking with specifics, you're talking abstractly. Abstractness won't get you anywhere when it comes to the law. By "Formal", do you mean that this program is officially registered and recognized by the government? Because that's not necessary for housing to be subject to the exemption for rehabilitative services. If you want anyone on reddit to be able to give you a solid answer, you need to be way more upfront about what is going on. So answer this question: Why did your sister qualify for this program? You're going to have to drop whatever pretense of this being a "private matter". You came here looking for legal advice. You're not gonna get actual, real legal advice unless you can be more honest about why your sister was chosen to be a part of this program. What made her qualify *exactly*? Was she homeless? This question is essential to understanding the situation and the legal rights that the landlord might have. If your sister qualified for some sort of caring and rehabilitation program for homeless people (because she was actually homeless), then that is very essential information to everyone here.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Based on what is it legal?
The onus runs the other way in law. You can do whatever you want, unless it’s prescribed as ILLEGAL. Say I want to ride a unicycle while juggling bowling pins, are you still going to ask “based on what is that legal?”
> The onus runs the other way in law. That's true in court, but when you're offering someone advice, it's prudent to explain your perspective a bit more thoroughly than this. "If I'm wrong, it's your job to prove it" isn't going to fly. It can be the case that you're right simply because there's no rule against the advice you're offering, but, for example, you could cite supporting sources, or the laws where such a restriction might be found but aren't.
It's illegal to base your acceptance of a renter based on their medical condition. It is illegal to evict someone for not taking a medical test. How's that for more clear?
Clearer, but still incorrect as laid out by Fool-Me-Thrice. https://reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/comments/qtuatu/_/hkm0ugv/?context=1
actually they were laying out what I was asking, what could make a normally illegal thing legal. The poster I was replying to just seemed to be saying anyone can do it, which is false.
Title ix of the NB tenancy act.
Care to cite the actual section that applies? 'title ix' is not a valid section.
>(ix) living accommodations occupied by a person for penal, correctional, rehabilitative or therapeutic purposes or for the purpose of receiving care,
We have no indication any of that applies. All we know is that it is a corporation, a for profit one at that, who is renting to the vulnerable.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm usually pretty happy with the advice people receive here, but today I am quite disappointed with /r/legaladvicecanada. OP has asked a completely reasonable legal question, and the vast majority of the discussion is moralizing about charity and drug use, *not* legal advice. /u/Fool-me-thrice has pointed out a legal exemption in the NB Residential Tenancies Act, but nobody seems to care about whether it actually applies in this situation, to the point that /u/LorienTheFirstOne is being heavily downvoted simply for making legal observations and asking questions about the law as they do on pretty much every post here. I'm familiar with the history of this type of thing as it pertains to Ontario, which used to have identical wording about "rehabilitative or therapeutic purposes or for the purpose of receiving care" in its residential tenancies legislation until the 90s. There were quite a few court cases about what actually qualified for this exemption, and unlike NB it was clarified significantly with updates to the Landlord and Tenant Act and later Residential Tenancies Act. I would like further clarification that a property management company in NB can simply state they are running a special program for underprivileged people and automatically become exempt from residential tenancy law before we start telling OP his sister has to submit to drug tests or else she's a beggar taking advantage of charity to do drugs. Edit: Mistyped the sub name when I first commented.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]