The Housing Services Act (HSA) is coming into force on January 1, 2012. Repealing the earlier Social Housing Reform Act (SHRA), the HSA, its regulations and the Housing Policy Statement involve some key changes that affect the social housing business in Ontario.

Notable Changes

Many of the provisions in SHRA are reiterated in the HSA with little or no change. However it does include some key changes:

• The time line for tenants to submit information on changes to income for Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) has been extended to 30 days
• Housing providers are required to make training opportunities available for staff, volunteers and Board members for succession
• Service Managers will develop 10-year housing and homelessness plans which will be submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

There are still gaps in the legislation which the Province will continue to work on in the future with sector stakeholders. These include possible future changes to utility scales, social assistance scales, performance measures and to how RGI is calculated.

Broader Focus and Changed Roles

Unlike the SHRA, which focused just on social housing, the HSA takes into account the broader housing continuum. It encompasses homeless shelters, street homeless, private rental housing and affordable ownership.

The Act also involves changes to how housing is framed in public policy. Under HSA, the Province will focus on oversight and policy direction, rather than planning and service delivery. Service Managers will have greater decision-making powers and flexibility to meet unique community needs. It also recognizes the role of non-profit housing providers in the housing and homelessness system.

In addition, the Act changes the name of the Social Housing Services Corporation (SHSC) to the Housing Services Corporation (HSC). HSC will continue to offer the same insurance, investment, energy management and renovation and retrofits services that help providers manage and protect their building assets while reducing risk through investment, and lowering operating costs. They will also continue to help with training, research and best practices. The Act also calls on HSC to address quality of life issues for tenants. HSC partnership programs, like its financial literacy pilot in Windsor, North Bay and Ottawa with Social and Enterprise Development Innovations, are under development with the goal of supporting greater resident engagement and self-sufficiency.

Recognizing that the new legislation will involve changes for housing providers, and that some of its services have been in operation for close to 10 years, HSC is making time over the next year for feedback on the programs it offers. Consultations on its insurance program will take place in multiple cities across the province in late-January to February 2012. Click here for consultation dates and registration information.

Online Resources

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has a webpage that offers the legislation, the Housing Policy Statement and the long term strategy.

The Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association has a webpage dedicated to HSA, including a detailed guide on the legislation and its regulations

The Cooperative Housing Federation of Canada – Ontario Region is developing HSA-related tools for co-ops, such as by-law amendments, and training. Details are available on its (members only) online Resource Centre

50,000 is the number of ‘green’ jobs that is frequently used as the anticipated outcome from implementing Ontario’s Green Energy Act (GEA). 50,000 is a lot of new jobs. Given the economic gloom and doom, any province would be happy with that kind of growth. So I thought it might be a good idea to see where that number comes from and if it is, in fact, an accurate prediction.

Defining a “Green Job”

To verify that number, one can either track the number of green jobs, or determine the number of new jobs created by green policy.  To do the first, it is necessary to have a standard definition of a green job.  Which, it turns out, does not really exist. Defining environmental employment is a complex undertaking.  For example, is someone who works in a steel mill doing a green job?  What if some of that steel is used for building a tower for a wind turbine?  Not so easy, eh?

Another way to see if the GEA will be an economic engine is to estimate the number of jobs likely to be created by climate change reduction policies.  In a 2009 study, Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier compared the number of jobs created under the GEA vs. business as usual. Their conclusion was that the GEA would actually contribute to 90,442 total new jobs per year vs. 35,189 under the business as usual scenario.

Green Jobs on the Rise

While some of this may sound overly theoretical and is often debated in the media as a marketing ploy for the green movement, there are lots of positive, local examples of job growth spurred by green policy.  In a June, 2011 article in the Windsor Star, Time to set the record straight, Manish Nayar describes how in his group of solar companies alone, 27 new jobs have been created.  He goes on to say that the current estimate for new jobs created in the solar industry stands close to 18,000.

Manish also provides some other interesting information that strongly refutes claims that the commitment to GEA takes away from the real business of the economy.  According to Manish, the Independent Electricity System Operator paid $2.78 per kilowatt hour in June, 2011 to meet peak electricity demand.  So, in actuality, supporting renewable energy isn’t taking away from economic issues – it addresses it head on.

REDY Graduates Finding Success

I would like to share one other local story, which has to do with GLOBE’s 2011 REDY (Reducing Energy Demand with Youth) program.  Just launched this year, this green jobs program connects the dots between youth unemployment, energy retrofit work, housing and the green economy.  Of the 53 2011 REDY youth graduates, almost 90% have found at least temporary employment. That’s got to be good for the environment and economy, not to mention the REDY graduates.

So for any green sceptics out there, whether you worry or not when you see a lonely polar bear on a melting ice floe, the GEA is good for Ontario. Now, all of this does presume that the Government of Ontario stands behind its commitment to direct public dollars towards climate change solutions, including energy conservation and the transition to new skills development. Let’s hope they do.  Because after all, what could be better than policy that addresses climate change, improves the liveability of housing and generates strong, new job growth?

On March 4, 2011, the Canadian Senate marked the one year anniversary of the release of its report In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness with a symposium. Led by Senator Art Eggleton, the key proponent of the report, the symposium focused on reviewing the progress made on its recommendations – which call for all levels of government to take an integrated, “housing first” approach to homelessness and poverty.

In From the Margin Report (PDF)

The housing first model advocates addressing housing and homelessness as a single, integrated issue rather than two separate issues that require completely different approaches. In both the report and at the symposium, it was reflected in Eggleton’s main suggestion for housing, which is that housing provision should be a system that focuses broadly on supplying everyone in need with affordable and adequate housing. Taking such an approach, Eggleton contends, would give rise to dramatically improved health and educational outcomes and would better enable the self-sufficiency of poor Canadians.  It would also reduce the excessive social and financial costs of poverty, a theme highlighted in the report.

The primary recommendation in the report (which was reiterated at the symposium) was the need for Canadian income support programs to do more to actively lift people out of poverty by targeting the root of poverty. A key element in addressing this would be a national poverty reduction strategy, which Senators have called for.

A corresponding national housing strategy, according to Eggleton, is also part of the solution. When asked from an audience member about the amount of funding needed to improve the state of social housing, he emphasized the need for a federal housing strategy, and called on all levels of government to increase their levels of leadership and commitment to Canada’s affordable housing sector through the support of Bill C-304 The Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act.

Eggleton stressed the importance of continuing to build on the report’s findings; he stated that “This symposium keeps the momentum going as we work to strengthen the engagement of the federal government to adopt comprehensive strategies on poverty, housing and homelessness.”

The report and its recommendations were the result of a two-year Canada wide consultation.

Further Reading:

• In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness
• Bill C-304 The Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act
• Senator Art Eggleton’s website featuring:
  • A poverty fact sheet
  • Commentary on the recent United Way report, Poverty by Postal Code (partially funded by SHSC)
  • Statement on the need for a national housing strategy

The release of the Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy (LTAHS) brings with it winds for big change in the affordable housing sector. Likely to pass in the spring, the Housing Services Act has yet to write the regulations that it will bring. The regulations, which won’t be known for at least another year, will have an effect on Service Managers and housing providers.

Among the changes outlined in the LTAHS, is the potential for more flexibility and decision-making for municipalities when it comes to delivering affordable housing. A way in which authorities will be able to exercise this newfound flexibility is in how they use provincial resources.

Margie Carlson, Director of Policy, Research and Networks at SHSC, explains that the LTAHS states that it will consolidate 20 provincial housing and homelessness programs. The structure of this program has yet to be determined, but presumably the idea is that people can pick and choose which program they want.

Read the full article in Social Housing Times newsletter.

Bill 122 the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act was recently fast tracked through Queen’s Park and has reached royal assent. While this Bill appears to be directed at hospitals and local health integration networks, it casts a broader net that may impact some housing providers in Ontario’s social housing sector.

Expanded Definition of ‘Broader Public Sector Organization’

Introduced by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the aim of Bill 122 is to ensure financial accountability within the broader public sector concerning the use of lobbyists, consultants, expense claims and procurement standards. What may cause issues for social housing is Bill 122’s definition of a “Broader Public Sector Organization” which includes any non-profit organization receiving funding from the Government of Ontario.

The expanded definition means that any organization that receives more than $10 million from the Province is considered a “broader public sector organization”. This Act requires that these organizations to be subject to the government’s own complex procurement policies. Organizations must also report on use of lobbyists, consultants and expense claims.

Organizations that receive under $10 million are less impacted but still would need to follow yet to be determined provincial guidelines.

Potential Impacts

The majority of housing providers in Ontario likely receive $0 or less than $10 million from the Province. Some providers however, receive funding from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care or the Ministry of Community and Social Services and are caught under this Act.

What has not yet been clarified is whether all types of provincial funding are included. For example, some providers receive funding from the Ontario Power Authority. Sector organizations are in the process of getting clarification about this funding to determine if this constitutes “public funding” under this new Act.

Bill 122 may ultimately be not particularly relevant to most housing providers in Ontario, which are typically one building operations of less than 100 units. The conditions surrounding procurement intended for large government organizations might result in administrative complexities that exceed staff capacity. Furthermore, while larger housing providers may have the capacity to follow government processes they usually have their own set of best practices and procurement guidelines, thus making transitioning to a different set of practices challenging.

Regardless of whether Bill 122 impacts housing providers right now, what it does indicate is a further movement within the current trend of fulfilling the public’s expectation of corporate and government transparency and responsibility. If this trend continues the social housing sector may be subject to similar bills in the future.

Bill 122 reached royal assent on December 8th. For the current version of the Bill, visit Broader Public Sector Accountability Act.

For more information on the many ways Bill 122 will affect not-for-profit corporations, check out the Ontario Non-profit Network website.

On May 12, 2010 the Ontario government introduced Bill 65, the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 (the Act). Bill 65 is the result of consultations that have been taking place between the government and non-profit organizations across Ontario since 2008. As of October, the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act has entered third reading debate in the House.

How it will affect non-profits

The purpose of Bill 65 is to modernize the existing Ontario Corporations Act, which deals with non-profit corporations. Last updated in 1953, the proposed new Act accounts for new technologies and permits the use of electronic notifications instead of requiring newspaper announcements to alert board members of upcoming meetings.

Bill 65 will apply to any non-profit housing corporation incorporated under the Ontario Corporations Act. It will not affect co-operatives or local housing corporations that are incorporated under different acts.

What non-profits will need to do

Non-profit housing corporations will need to be aware that when it comes into effect, Bill 65 will make it necessary for current letters patent, by-laws, and supplementary letters patent to be amended within a three year period. If a non-profit corporation does not amend these documents within three years, Bill 65 states that they will be deemed to be amended to the extent necessary to conform with the new Act.

This may create some confusion if a non-profit hasn’t actually amended their documents. It is in a non-profit’s best interest to amend their current letters patent and by-laws to conform to the Act in order to avoid confusion. To assist with this, the government will be making available information guides and standard organizational by-laws to help non-profits comply with the new Act.

Benefits of Bill 65

While Bill 65 will mean changes for non-profits, it contains many positive safe guards that will benefit not-for-profit organizations across Ontario, such as:

• Clarifying the liability of directors by replacing common law duties of care with an explicit statutory standard of care, introducing due diligence and good faith reliance defences, expanding the rights of directors to indemnification and allowing unrestricted liability insurance coverage;
• Allowing not-for-profit corporations to engage in commercial activities where the revenues are reinvested in the corporation’s not-for-profit purposes; and
• Enhancing corporate governance and accountability in that persons who enter into contract with a not-for-profit corporation will generally be entitled to presume that the contract has been properly authorized.

For more information on the many ways Bill 65 will affect not-for-profit corporations, as well as information on upcoming consultations and submissions check out the Ontario Non-profit Network’s website .

You can also view the Bill, its current status and review background information on the website of the Ontario Legislative Assembly.

Much of what we do as housing providers will be influenced in the coming months by three key pieces of legislation: the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) and the Ontario Building Code (OBC).

What this alphabet soup of rules and regulations have in common is that each will affect the relationships that housing providers have with their applicants, residents and employees. In all likelihood, many housing providers will also see a financial impact resulting from the new laws.

For now let’s focus on the AODA

Ontario has had accessibility legislation in place for some time, not to mention the fact that the Human Rights Code has been in place since 1982. So why the sudden focus on disabilities?

Actually it’s not so unexpected. Quite frankly, Ontario has a pretty poor track record as far as protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA), which immediately pre-dated the AODA, lacked the legislative clout required for proper enforcement. Businesses, employers and others who discriminated against the disabled risked a complaint being filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, or even a lawsuit. However, given the expense and time required to carry out such actions, many folks who were allegedly targeted by discrimination simply gave up.

With the proclamation of the AODA in 2005, and the more recent focus on the Act’s Customer Care Standard, businesses and individuals are now concentrating on ensuring that the service they provide is compliant with the legislation. Most of the legislative changes have come about as a result of the Act’s sweeping and comprehensive definition of disability; in fact, the definition of disability in the AODA now mirrors that of the Human Rights Code.

And it’s a long list. According to Section 2 of the AODA, “disability” means:

any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, a brain injury, any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of physical co-ordination, blindness or visual impediment, deafness or hearing impediment, muteness or speech impediment, or physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device,

a condition of mental impairment or a developmental disability,

a learning disability, or a dysfunction in one or more of the processes involved in understanding or using symbols or spoken language,

a mental disorder, or

an injury or disability for which benefits were claimed or received under the insurance plan established under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997;

So what does all of this mean to housing providers? Well, for one thing we have to make sure that our ducks are in a row, so to speak.

The requirements for the Customer Service standard cover nine areas. Only the first seven apply to private sector or not-for-profit organizations with 1-19 employees. If your organization employs 20 or more individuals, you will also be required to document and report compliance to the Ministry:

• Policies, practices and procedures
• Training
• Feedback process
• Communication
• Service Animals
• Support Persons
• Notice of temporary disruption of service
• Documenting your compliance with the regulation
• Reporting

In addition to the Customer Service Standard, benchmarks are being developed in four key areas of daily living:

• Built Environment
• Employment
• Information and Communications
• Transportation

Not-for-profit organizations will need to be in compliance with the Customer Service standard by January 1, 2012. The goal is to have standards in place for all 5 areas of the AODA by 2025. So for now the focus is on ensuring that EVERYONE receives equal service predicated on recognizing individual independence, dignity, integration and equality of opportunity.

Eventually, as additional standards are entrenched in law, providers will undoubtedly receive requests for accommodation, which will include everything from widening doorways for wheelchairs and scooters, to installing fire alarms equipped with strobe lights for the hearing impaired, to allowing for the smoking of medical marijuana and creating barriers between those who smoke it and those who don’t.

More information:

• Ministry of Community and Social Services website
• The current and forthcoming issue SHSC Insurance newsletter Risky Business have articles on OHRC and medical marijuana
• SHSC Training has developed a full-day workshop, Ontario Human Rights Code Amendments – To be Forewarned is to be Forearmed! It provides an in-depth overview of the specific changes in the Ontario Human Rights Code. For further information, contact SHSC Training Manager Lisa Kotsopoulos at 416.594.9325 ext 242 or email lkotsopoulos@shscorp.ca

Although Ontario’s ban on hand-held devices while driving became effective on October 26, 2009, there was a three-month transition period during which the government and the police focused on educating motorists about the ban rather than imposing fines. This has now ended and police started to issue tickets on February 1, 2010.

What does this mean to you?

While the use of hand-held cell phones and communications devices is banned, hands-free devices are still permitted. What does this mean to you? If you allow your employees to use hand-held devices while driving, you could be held vicariously liable in the event of an accident. This means that a Court could rule that you must pay damages resulting from your employee’s distracted driving.

The best way to protect yourself as an employer is to create and implement a clear and concise policy regarding the use of hand-held electronic devices, and to enforce it consistently across your organization. For information on the Government of Ontario’s ban on hand-held devices, you may refer to their website: www.ontario.ca. For more risk management tips, watch for our Risky Business newsletter.

In November 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeals decided that landlords cannot require tenants to complete snow removal tasks as a condition of their leases.

The situation began when a tenant commenced a legal action against a respondent landlord for damages after she slipped and fell on the premises. The tenant claims that she slipped on ice on the walkway leading to her basement apartment. But in his defence, the landlord argues that the tenant is “responsible for keeping their walkway and stairway clean (including snow removal)” based on the Condition of Lease.

Well, Ontario Court of Appeals made a decision on the case, Montgomery v. Van. The Court found that landlords cannot require tenants to complete snow removal tasks as a condition of their leases as it violates the Tenant Protection Act. The Residential Tenancies Act Regulation 517/06 seems to impose similar maintenance obligations on landlords. If landlords want them to clear their own walkways, driveways, etc., they must enter into a separate contract with the tenants for snow removal.

Feel free to leave a question or comment below regarding this court decision.