Twenty South West Montreal Businesses to be Recognized at Unio 2012

Representatives from 20 companies—five from each of the Lachine, Lasalle, Sud-ouest and Verdun boroughs——will take home trophies from the Soirée Reconnaissance Unio 2012 next month.

Unio 2012 will be held at Salle Grimaldi on Lapierre Street in LaSalle on Thursday, February 16. A cocktail begins at 5:30 p.m. followed by the award presentation at 7 p.m. and a “Replay The Beatles” show at 8 p.m. Tickets cost $75.

“Unio is Latin for uniting our strengths to achieve a goal,” says Gilles Dubien, directeur-general of the Chamber of Commerce of South West Montreal (CCISOM), which organizes the event to recognize business excellence every two years. “We are not only awarding companies who are members of the chambers, we are awarding companies who have accomplished something important in their boroughs.”

While the CCISOM organizes the event every two years, it does not select the winners. That’s left to local partners: the Centre local de développement – CLD Lachine, the Centre local de développement de Verdun, Développement économique LaSalle and the Regroupement économique et social du Sud-Ouest (RESO).

In the past, the event was run as though it were a local version of the Quebec-wide Concours les Mercuriades, a contest operated by the Quebec Federation of Chambers of Commerce. To be considered, businesses in various categories had to submit proposals that registered how they achieved excellence in their field.

Dubien says that while this year’s version remained open to members and non-members alike, the process was “modified to make it more accessible for the enterprises.” Two key changes took place: the timing was changed from a traditional late November date to February and companies were nominated for particular achievement instead of within a particular category.

Then each local development council set up an internal selection process to choose seven or eight winners.

The final company submissions were turned over to a four-person jury: Jacques Fortin from Développement économique LaSalle, Marc Cloutier from the CLD Verdun, Marc Beausoleil from RESO and Ghislain Dufour from CLD Lachine. Winners could be selected based on providing employment, financial investments, sustainable development, protecting the environment or any other appropriate marker of excellence. Jury members met in a series of meetings between October and after the holidays. They handed in their selections in January.

“I’ve been involved from the beginning of this project and the format we had this year was much better than before,” said LaSalle’s Fortin. “It’s never perfect, of course, but in past years, we might have lots of companies that fit the same category and few entrants in another category. This time, we could be very flexible to choose the high performing enterprises in whatever categories we chose. We’re very satisfied that these winners reflect the best practices in each of our boroughs.”

(This story appeared on page 3 of the January 25, 2012 city edition of The Suburban.)

Continue reading

Two More Days Scheduled for Eviction Case: OMHM versus Daniel Palladini

Thirteen of the almost 200 seniors living in the Manoir Roger-Bernard low-income residence in Pierrefonds spent another day at Quebec Rental Board hearings in the Olympic Village last Thursday. They are attending hearings because the Office Municipal d’Habitation de Montréal (OMHM) is trying to evict resident Danny Palladini.

Several tenants, including Palladini, said they suffer from health problems related to stress from participating in the tribunal process. “I’ve been here five times, with lack of sleep,” said Lynda Bernard, in her testimony. “With this case and your aggression, I’m starting to have heart problems.”

Despite the tenants’ frustrations, at least two more days are scheduled for the case, which is among 575 OMHM tried at the tribunal last year. Most of the hearings concern non-payment of rent, but in this one, OMHM lawyer Marc Charland is trying to prove that Palladini continues to “disturb the peaceful enjoyment of other tenants in the residence.”

The previous owners of the residence, the Societe Immobiliere Lac St-Louis, brought a similar case against Palladini in 2008, but Commissioner Hélène Chicoyne did not approve an eviction then. Suburban reporter Ian Howarth documented the series of incidents that led to that first hearing and subsequent police charges in an article dated March 11, 2009. That process led Palladini to sign a section 810 peace bond to avoid criminal prosecution.

The current hearing began last January. Palladini describes the case as the latest attempt to discredit him by housing officials trying to avoid third-party audit of building finances. “They don’t like us asking pesky questions about financial operations in the residence,” he said. “There are no consequences after $900 goes missing from the till, but people like me are evicted because we complain.”

Most OMHM eviction hearings don’t have many witnesses, but the hearing room last Thursday was packed. The interest is due in part to a new citizen action group called “Coalition against the Intimidation of Senior Citizens,” which has taken up Palladini’s cause. “Too many people want seniors to sit back and shut up,” said Enza Martuccelli, a co-founder of the new group and director of national programs for the Canadian Centre for Ecumenism. “There’s a cultural bias against seniors who can’t be easily dismissed. This gentleman did nothing more than ask for an accounting and look what they’re doing to him.”

Group member Murray Levine, the founder of the Philanthopic Athletes Foundation, has set up a blog (http://whyevictdanny.wordpress.com/) to help build support for Palladini’s attempt to stay in his home.

On the blog, Francis Dupré, the son of former tenant Camille, wrote that it was clear from his father’s hearing years ago that Palladini would be targeted for eviction next. Rental board records confirm that Palladini did indeed serve as a witness for Camille Dupré in an eviction hearing on February 15, 2007. Dupré was evicted and died a year later.

(Note: This story appeared in the West Island and city editions of the Suburban yesterday.)

Continue reading

Was LaSalle owner taxed twice during basement survey?

The LaSalle property owner who complained about being charged for a non-existent apartment last month now believes he was double-billed him for water and garbage as well. Ioan Ruxanda now wants his money back, but so far no one from Montreal’s tax department has returned his calls.

Patricia Lowe, an agent with Montreal’s communications department, assured us he was not charged twice.

“Mr. Ruxanda is definitely not being billed twice,” she wrote in emails prior to the holidays and again last Friday. “He does not need to worry on that account. The Finance department and the LaSalle borough have worked hard to correct the misunderstanding. Mr. Ruxanda is not being billed twice. He will not be billed for the non-existent apartment. The tax account has been corrected.”

Lowe says that the employee from the tax department handling Ruxanda’s file was on vacation last week, but will call him by the end of this week to explain everything.

Ruxanda’s problems come from begin among 2000 people who were identified as possible tax evaders in a basement survey last summer. He and several of the others got their letters in the fall; others will be billed in February as the operation continues.

“Over the summer, inspectors looked at properties that might possibly house a basement apartment,” explained Lowe. “When they found what seemed to be an apartment, whether or not it had a civic address, a finance employee would call the owner for more information. If the information indicated that there was a bathroom and kitchen, or a kitchenette in the unit, only then was a letter sent out to the taxpayer.”

Ruxanda’s letter arrived with two bills in a brown envelope that made the package look like a normal tax invoice. He could either pay $280 ($140 for his own home and another $140 for the basement apartment) or he could visit the borough of LaSalle and pay $5 to sign an affidavit.

According to Salle communications officer Pierre Dupuis “since the Service des Finances started this update operation in July, we have had around 350 owner-occupants come to the LaSalle borough hall service counter to fill in an affidavit, so as to get the exemption because they use the bachelor for their own purposes.”

Ruxanda did not have a basement appartment at all, so he searched for a way to remove the charge from his account permanently. The package contained no contact name, and though it did have an email address and a fax number, it had no phone number. A phone number within the contents was always busy and couldn’t be identified by 311 operators.

After many useless phone calls, Ruxanda complained directly to Mayor Manon Barbe at the borough council meeting. He also decided to pay the $140 tax to cover water and garbage services for his own home prior to the December 19 due date.

A few days later, a borough inspector arrived to confirm that Ruxanda’s building does not have a third unit. When he asked why water and garbage taxes came in November when they’re usually sent in April, the property owner started searching for his April invoices, which he eventually found. Now Ruxanda’s waiting for an explanation.

He doesn’t think he’s alone. “If I got the same $140 bill for water and garbage service in April and then again in November, the same thing probably happened to all those other people too,” he said. “No one’s taking responsibility to make sure citizens are treated fairly.”

December 31, 2012

Resident receives extra tax bill for non-existent basement apartment

A LaSalle resident attended the borough meeting on December 3 to complain that he received a tax bill for a basement apartment that doesn’t exist.

“Thank you for the gift of this extra number 1319A, but I don’t have a basement apartment,” said Ioan Ruxanda. “My taxes doubled. Who invented this situation?”

The situation stems from an administrative desire to find people with unofficial apartments, said Mayor Manon Barbe. Officials decided to hire inspectors—some of whom were students—to travel around various neighbourhoods and find them. “We’re only discovering that this happened now as taxpayers like you complain,” she said. “You just need to visit the borough and sign an affidavit confirming that you don’t rent out a basement apartment.”

That message had already been explained to Ruxanda by borough officials, he said, but filling out that form would cost $5.

“I’m not paying $5 or anything else,” said Ruxanda. “I’m not paying anything. This is your problem. You fix it. This extra $5 fee is just theft.”

The problem may already be fixed. When Montreal’s finance department was contacted about the situation, they couldn’t find any extra bill in the resident’s property account. The only bill Montreal sent was in January 2012, and no basement apartment appears on that bill.

Meanwhile, at the borough level, officials compounded the resident’s frustration first by telling him that fixing the error would cost him $5, then by refusing to let him speak to Manon Barbe to tell her about the problem personally.

“I voted for you,” he said. “I’ve lived here for ten years and I always pay my taxes. I’ve lived in Canada for thirty years. Who is this woman who won’t let me speak to you? So I don’t have a mayor; police officers assume that I’m lying. Who’s working for me?”

Note: This article appeared in the Suburban on Wednesday, December 19.

Continue reading

Evicted OMHM Tenant Appeals Rental Board’s $5 Eviction

The tenant evicted from a low-income seniors building in Lasalle, and forcibly removed as we went to press last week, asked the Court of Quebec for permission to appeal Monday, thanks to the efforts of attorney David Ghavitian.

“It’s on the eve of the holidays and they’re putting my client on the street,” said Ghavitian. “My client never even got an opportunity to present proof of payment.”

Although he’s only been on the case for less than a week, Ghavitian has already submitted an eight-page brief to the court outlining several questions about the judgement. Key among these is why the case wasn’t dropped when the tenant paid the amount due in full, including the contested $5 parking fee that served as the original grounds for eviction.

The Suburban brought the same questions directly to three OMHM leaders: directeur general Denis Quirion, directeur general adjoint a l’exploitation Michel Perreault and communications director Louise Hébert on Monday morning. All three stand behind the OMHM decision to evict this particular tenant, despite the person’s good faith in paying rent by money order or bank draft 38 times.

“This tenant had a history of paying late,” said Perreault. “Every time that happens, we have to make phone calls and send letters. Do you know how much time we have to spend in these situations?”

Yet no phone call appears in this file to ask the tenant to replace a crucial document. A Caisse Populaire money order was dated May 31, 2011 and cashed by the OMHM at the Banque Nationale on June 23. This payment, which doesn’t appear on the tenant’s computerized account, covers the entire amount specified in the rental board claim printed as part of last week’s story. Hébert and Perreault said they couldn’t find any record of this payment so The Suburban forwarded a copy of the receipt by email.

The file doesn’t indicate how the document reached the OMHM, who handled it, and whether employees held it for an unspecified amount of time before depositing it.

Perreault also said that tenants are taken to the rental board as soon as payments are delayed for any reason, but no one can do so without approval from superiors. In this case, Patrizia Del Vecchio would have sought permission from Christian Martel and Antonio Requena.

According to Quirion, the OMHM evicts tenants who have been brought to the rental board multiple times. “There’s a process we have to follow to be equitable to everyone,” he said. “There are 20,000 people waiting for a spot in these buildings, so if we have to evict 100 people or so a year, it’s reasonable.”

Meanwhile, the tenant in question faces a $1,700 moving and furniture storage bill that keeps growing daily and the frustration of looking for an apartment on a limited pension.

(This article appeared in the Suburban city edition yesterday.)

Continue reading

Tenant Evicted For $5

LaSalle—A bailiff handed another eviction notice directly to a tenant at the low-cost seniors’ residence at 760 Gamelin last Tuesday. This time, the notice came with an English translation.

“Eviction notices come from the bailiff, but our policy is to send a translation with the French version,” said OMHM spokesperson Louise Hébert. “Normally, that’s the way we do things, but this time we made a mistake and so we had to correct it.”

The tenant prefers that the OMHM simply revoke the $5 claim that led to the eviction.

Since last week, the Suburban has obtained the claim form signed by OMHM representative, Patrizia Del Vecchio and submitted to the Quebec rental board on June 9. The claim covers June’s rent and a $5 unpaid parking fee in May. Since the parking fee was more than three weeks late, the tenant faced eviction.

The tenant bought a bank draft for$412 (covering the $346 plus a $66 rental hearing fee) on May 31 from the Toronto Dominion Bank, which sent it to the OMHM. It wasn’t cashed until August 15.

The tenant had receipts to prove payment in May, June and July, but didn’t attend the hearing on July 18, as we outlined in our story last week. Since then, the Suburban has obtained a 12-page copy of the OMHM official notes of telephone calls. No calls appear in June and only one entry shows for July 12. Every single entry shows calls created and modified on the same day save one. The note for July 12 was created on July 12 and modified on September 20, when Hébert says Del Vecchio added a period to one of the sentences.

A nine-page computer print-out of the tenant’s OMHM finances was obtained by the Suburban. It shows a June 28 payment on July 8, prior to the rental board hearing in July. Hébert says that the hearing wasn’t cancelled when this payment was received, because the tenant in question frequently pays late.

The financial record does show a few late payments, but it also shows advance payments.

Other than the July case, only one rental board decision has appeared against this tenant. At a hearing in February, housing officials claimed $341 in back rent. The tenant proved the account was paid in full, save for a $13 discrepancy less than three weeks old. Since then, the tenant has purchased money orders to be sent to the rental board by the bank.

Similar incidents have occurred before. Another LaSalle resident living in the 1509 Shevchenko building successfully fought eviction in August 2007 by proving that he owed only $363, which was a portion of his then current month’s rent, rather than $704 over two months as OMHM employees claimed.

The bailiff still holds an order to forcefully evict the tenant.

(This article appeared in the city edition of the Suburban yesterday.)

Continue reading
1 146 147 148 149 150 151