Safety employees housing foundation comes first!

Landlord, a housing association, claims eviction in summary proceedings after a tenant uses violence against one of its employees. In the first instance, the preliminary relief judge dismisses the claim. The Court sets aside the order of the preliminary injunction judge and grants the claim: the tenant must vacate and leave his home.

Facts

A foundation rents a number of housing units in an apartment building. The building is being renovated, and upon completion of the renovation, all tenants are invited to the completion of the apartment and to take delivery of the keys. One of the tenants does not show up for this. A few days later, an employee of the foundation is present in the apartment building for work when there is a loud banging on the door. It is the tenant who has not shown up to pick up the keys. He demands, under threat of kicking the door in, to be let in because he wants his key. When the foundation employee refuses this, he forces his way in, grabbing the employee by the neck. The employee sustained a wound to his face and bruises to his neck.

After this incident, the foundation informs the tenant that it will initiate eviction proceedings against him. This completely displeases the tenant. He asks several people in the apartment if they know where the employee of the foundation lives and shouts that he will set the apartment on fire if it comes to eviction.

Judgment of Court

The Court assesses the violent incident as so serious that it has no doubt that dissolution of the lease will be ordered in a case on the merits. The Court's main consideration is as follows: "A landlord must be able to rely on tenants not assaulting and threatening her staff. Without adequate security for its employees, the landlord cannot do its job, which affects not only the landlord's internal organization, but also the service provided to the landlord's tenants."

This is followed by a balancing of interests. The judges state that they realize that eviction is a very drastic measure for the tenant. For example, it is uncertain how quickly the tenant will find new housing again, while the eviction may also have adverse financial consequences for the tenant.

However, the Court finds that all these negative consequences of the evictions do not outweigh the seriousness of the incident committed by the tenant. It then orders that the tenant must vacate and vacate his rented home within fourteen days.