Renegade Posted October 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 (edited) What implications? The one's you're making up on the fly? The ones I get but obviously you don't. If you haven't got it by now I don't have the patience to explain it to you. In the case of an election, yes. Why is an election a special case? For example if a tenant posted a sign "I am Pro-life" would that be permitted? Official party election content should be permissable, Good Eats at Joe's shouldn't. why? Edited October 3, 2008 by Renegade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted October 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 What it was in the window? I guess putting a flag up as a curtain would be a no no also. Put it this way - If the tenant stood on his balcony and yelled out to passer bys " Vote liberal" - would the land lord go get a gag order from the courts?...I don't get it. Yes obviously you don't. The issue is can the tenant agree to restrictions to his right of free expression, and if he agrees to that restriction, should the landlord be allowed to enforce it. If for example, in his lease agreement a tenant agreeded not to harrass passers by, and the landlord felt that shouting "Vote Liberal" was harassment in contrevention to the lease, why wouldn't a landlord have the right to enforce those provisions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 3, 2008 Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 Yes obviously you don't. The issue is can the tenant agree to restrictions to his right of free expression, and if he agrees to that restriction, should the landlord be allowed to enforce it.If for example, in his lease agreement a tenant agreeded not to harrass passers by, and the landlord felt that shouting "Vote Liberal" was harassment in contrevention to the lease, why wouldn't a landlord have the right to enforce those provisions? So this is about contractual consent. To hell with the lease agreement. It seems that the tenant agreed to be nuetral. I would sign such a consent - but I would not honour it. Call me bad - The land lord should not have had such a clause in the lease. Why and what is the purpose of such a restriction of free expression? Explain to me why it is important to the landlord..I still don't get the purpose of the action....there is a purpose correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 3, 2008 Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 The ones I get but obviously you don't. If you haven't got it by now I don't have the patience to explain it to you. Oh I get what you're trying to say, I just don't agree is all. Why is an election a special case? Because its a temporary case that's related to the freedom to associate with a political party during an election, as opposed to hanging with your buddies down at Joe's Cafe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 3, 2008 Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 You left an unpaid bar tab at Joes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted October 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 (edited) So this is about contractual consent. To hell with the lease agreement. It seems that the tenant agreed to be nuetral. I would sign such a consent - but I would not honour it. Call me bad - That's essentially the point isn't it? If one doesn't honour a contract they have signed, then can they be held to that contract? Maybe you can explain what the use of a contract is if one cannot be held to the terms of it. The land lord should not have had such a clause in the lease. It's his property. In an ideal world, he can offer it for rent under whatever terms he so chooses. It is up to the tenant to negotiate satisfactory terms or refuse the lease. Why and what is the purpose of such a restriction of free expression? Explain to me why it is important to the landlord.. Who knows? I can't read the landlord's mind. It is irrelevant whether he has a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason. The issue is whether he can impose a restriction, and if agreed to can it be enforced. I still don't get the purpose of the action....there is a purpose correct? Contracts don't generally require that you understand the reasons why terms were put in, simply that you follow terms you agreed to. Edited October 3, 2008 by Renegade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted October 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 Oh I get what you're trying to say, I just don't agree is all. Then why ask it as a question? Because its a temporary case that's related to the freedom to associate with a political party during an election, as opposed to hanging with your buddies down at Joe's Cafe. Sorry I posted an update after you responded. Let's leave aside the question of signs with commercial content. What about signs of personal positions such as being pro-life? Am I correct to assume by your response that such a sign can be restricted because it may not be temporary and is not associated with a political party during an election? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted October 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 You left an unpaid bar tab at Joes! I thought it was you who said that you wouldn't honour contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 3, 2008 Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 I thought it was you who said that you wouldn't honour contracts. OK - I do honour agreements. If the tenant agreed to it he must adhere to it...I was trying to be provocative...Your word is your word...for instance as I have moved recently and was using another tenants mountain bike - He said to me that I could take the bike when I left - so I did and now he is asking why - well - he created a contract with me - so I held him to it. Your word on paper or air is the only thing of value you have when dealing with others - case closed - the tenant with the sign was dishonourable - he loses this one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 3, 2008 Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 Sorry I posted an update after you responded. Let's leave aside the question of signs with commercial content. What about signs of personal positions such as being pro-life? Am I correct to assume by your response that such a sign can be restricted because it may not be temporary and is not associated with a political party during an election? Yes. This should strictly be about authorized election signs during an election. The question about the legailty of the rental agreement has been raised and has progressed to the point that a legal ruling or decision is required of officials. New rules will probably have to be made or existing ones worded differently. In any case the fact that Elections Canada can't decide means the issue will likely end up in court, no doubt with lots of intervenors weighing in from every direction. I think the tenant is in the right and I think the landlord is being an idiot. Idiots of course deserve their day in court too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 3, 2008 Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 If the tenant is so inclined to want to participate polically let him go out and work for a party. This is not surpressive but restrictive on the part of the land lord. It's a tempest in a tea pot that is not worth the time of the court. Close lines are now considered an eye sore..slowly they are reappearing out of need...maybe we eventually will need more participation in our democratic process...posting a sign is nominal participation and a bit lazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted October 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 The question about the legailty of the rental agreement has been raised and has progressed to the point that a legal ruling or decision is required of officials. New rules will probably have to be made or existing ones worded differently. In any case the fact that Elections Canada can't decide means the issue will likely end up in court, no doubt with lots of intervenors weighing in from every direction. Actually I don't think there is any question about the legality. The Election Act says that the prohibition is clearly illegal and cannot be enforced. Election Canada was simply ignorant of the law and later once they realized their mistake back-tracked. I think the tenant is in the right and I think the landlord is being an idiot. Idiots of course deserve their day in court too. I think the landlord would lose if went to court because the law is not on his side (unfortunately). Idiocy would only occur if he persued an unwinnable case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 3, 2008 Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 I guess that settles it then. Case closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.