A London woman who awoke with a cockroach embedded in her ear and won a provincial tribunal hearing over that nightmare is facing a repeat battle.
Recommended Videos
The city-funded landlord, the London and Middlesex Community Housing corporation (LMCH), is fighting a landlord and tenant board tribunal ruling that put the blame for the cockroach infestation on the corporation and ordered it to pay the woman $3,553.
“I’m baffled. I can’t believe they’re still trying to fight this when they clearly know it’s an issue,” the former tenant, Brandi Bulanda, said. “Is this what they’re doing to every single person? Why are people having to run through hoops to try and get their apartment clean?”
LMCH’s response to the ruling is “unacceptable,” Ward 6 Coun. Sam Trosow said.
“It’s reprehensible that for a $3,500 order, where there clearly were maintenance problems, the agency is making the tenant go through further proceedings. They should pay the $3,500, acknowledge that they need some better internal practices in terms of how they respond to complaints, and get on with it.”
LMCH may be fighting the original ruling because the victory for Bulanda might inspire other tenants to go to the tribunal, said Trosow, council’s outspoken critic of the housing corporation’s operations.
“It’s a well-known problem that tenants are very dissatisfied with the manner in which this agency is operating. This request for review sends out a strong signal that rather than try to address the problems that, (LMCH) is just going to dig in their heels.”
LMCH did not respond to questions from The London Free Press Tuesday. The corporation operates 3,282 units in 32 properties, with its sole shareholder the City of London. Rent is geared to income, in what is commonly called social or community housing.
Bulanda took LMCH to the landlord and tenant board tribunal after living in one of the corporation’s units at 349 Wharncliffe Rd. at Western Road. The tribunal heard her case in October.
In earlier interviews, Bulanda described how after living homeless, she beat an addiction, got a job and moved into her first home in years.
When she moved into her unit in December 2022, she noticed and told LMCH workers about holes in the wall and baseboards, and the presence of cockroaches, she said.
For months she tried to get help, but had to resort to spraying and patching small holes herself, Bulanda said.
She woke up one morning in August 2023 with a cockroach embedded in her ear, she testified at the tribunal hearing.
The insect had to be surgically removed “through a procedure conducted via her throat,” the tribunal said in a summary of her testimony.
She had to throw away furniture, food and other belongings and put other property, including electronics, into storage, where she sprayed them, Bulanda testified.
The spray ruined those items in storage, and she was seeking compensation for lost property, Bulanda told the tribunal.
The tribunal ruled in December LMCH failed to protect Bulanda from the cockroach infestation and owed her financial compensation.
The housing corporation “failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards for failing to adequately address the cockroach infestation,” the tribunal concluded. “It cannot be said that the landlord’s actions were timely, adequate or effective.”
The tribunal also took issue with LMCH testimony that many rent-geared-to-income units are inherently difficult to manage because of tenants’ mental illness and other factors.
“The submissions perpetuate harmful stereotypes about tenants while deflecting from the core issue: their failure to uphold their responsibility to fulfill their duties.”
The tribunal ordered LMCH to pay Bulanda $3,533, far less than the $17,562 she’d sought.
Instead of a payment, Bulanda recently received a new tribunal order putting the earlier ruling on hold.
That new order, dated Jan. 2, says LMCH asked on Dec. 31 for a stay of the ruling so the ruling could be reviewed.
The matter is now heading to a hearing to determine if the request to review should be granted or denied, based on whether there was a “serious error” in the original ruling, the new notice from the tribunal says.
If the review is granted, a new hearing will be held on the merits of the original application, the tribunal notice says.
An order that exceeds the tribunal’s legislative powers, is based on an “unreasonable finding of fact,” or provides unusual remedies with no explanation can be said to contain a serious error, Tribunals Ontario spokesperson, Veronica Spada, said.
The corporation’s decision to seek a review will only create more backlog at the landlord and tenant tribunal, Trosow added.
“The landlord tenant board is so overwhelmed right now, they can’t process petitions for landlords. They can’t process petitions for tenants yet,” he said.
City council should be paying more attention to the issue, Trosow said.
“I think the city has to recognize that, ultimately, they’re responsible for this, because they’re the sole shareholder of this agency,” he said.
At best, the original tribunal ruling and the corporation’s attempt to have it review reflects poorly on London, Trosow said.
At worst, the city could be liable for the problems and a growing number of complaints at the tribunal, he said.
“A lot of other residents are being frustrated by the inadequate protocols that the agency uses to deal with with these types of issues.”