Welcome Home?

Open Letter to Mayor John Tory: (Rushed) Re-Occupancy at 235 Gosford Blvd

Dear Mayor Tory,

I am writing on behalf of residents at 235 Gosford Boulevard whose units have been deemed available for reoccupation. On Christmas Eve, several such tenants received notice to check out of their hotel suite “immediately.” They were informed Ronkay Management Inc. could no longer provide payment for lodging because their unit was cleared for re-occupancy.

Residents are justifiably uneasy about returning home so soon after the deadly fire. Nobody has detailed the restoration process, meaning people are left to speculate about what work has (or has not) been done. There are genuine concerns about residual smoke and soot from the fire, and whether adequate measures have been taken to curtail exposure to carcinogens and/or other contaminants.

In a fire, danger does not get extinguished with the flames. There are many chemicals in flammable substances such as plastic, carpet, wood products, and synthetic fabric. These materials do not burn cleanly, resulting in smoke and soot that poses a threat to health. Toxic soot particles can cause asthma and other breathing issues, bronchitis, coronary heart disease, and even cancer. Infants, the elderly, and those with weakened immune systems are the most affected.

Fine soot particles can cling to surfaces such as walls and ceilings, as well as building contents. During a fire, hot air creates pressure that can push soot into unexpected places. This is particularly true in older buildings with porous separation between floors and aged HVAC systems. Surface sampling should be taken from areas proximate to the fire source, and then within air systems or building cavities that might have allowed soot to migrate to other parts of the building. Soot may not be visible to the naked eye. It can be difficult, sometimes impossible to remove.

It is my understanding that Toronto Buildings, the Ontario Electrical Standards Authority, and Toronto Fire have approved 235 Gosford Boulevard for re-entry. With respect to re-occupation, Toronto Buildings provides clearance if a unit is deemed safe and suitable in accordance with the Ontario Building Code. The criteria and standards for clearance have not been disclosed to residents. It is unclear whether (or to what extent) air quality and surface testing has been done, and if so, how the results inform the restoration action.

Phase one of the Return to Occupancy Plan was launched merely 35 days after the fatal five-alarm fire. Everyone is grateful the landlord is moving quickly, but the community needs reassurance things are being done properly. There is no ruling from the Ontario Fire Marshal at this time. While residents are eager to return home, they should not be expected to do so in unknown conditions. They are entitled to transparency about the cause of the fire and the safety of the building.

Residents are currently required to sign a waiver to access their unit, acknowledging that “there may be hazards and other as yet unknown health and other safety risks.” The document purports to release the landlord from liability, loss, or damage. The enforceability of this release is doubtful. Still, it is unconscionable to effectively force residents to wager their health for shelter. To demand they return without full disclosure about air quality is to deprive them of making an informed decision to re-occupy the building.

I note that some people have already been living at 235 Gosford Boulevard for about a week. I visited the complex on Christmas Day. I was informed that units did not appear to have been professionally or industrially cleaned prior to reoccupation. One family (who speaks English as a third or fourth language) was given less than 24 hours of notice to check out of the hotel. The parents are worried about air quality but feel their only option is to stay at the building. They are not the only family with a compelling set of circumstances. Many residents are socially and/or economically vulnerable. These individuals feel strong-armed into compromising their health to maintain housing, which is not a choice anyone should have to make.

REQUEST FOR ACTION:

Residents want to see a comprehensive report from an environmental engineer and/or indoor air quality hygienist before returning to the building. Specifically, they want to know (1) the scope of the investigation, including any limitations; (2) the process used to determine the terms of reference; (3) the results of the initial air quality and surface testing; (4) how many “man hours” were billed during the cleaning exercise; (5) the results of the final inspection. Once this information is made available, residents need an opportunity to consult with an independent third party.

Nobody should be living at the building until air testing and surface sampling is conducted and the results shared. Until then, the landlord must pay for temporary accommodations in excess of what rent would normally cost. This assistance should be provided to all displaced tenants, not only those who are presently at the hotel. Seeing as several units from the building are subsidized by public agencies, including Toronto Community Housing Corporation and the Canadian Mental Health Association, it may be appropriate for the City to provide some funding to support carrying costs.

David Strashin, counsel for Ronkay Management Inc., fairly points out that the City is responsible for authorizing clearance to the building. He says the landlord is committed to undertaking all work required by the City, as well as to meet the criteria established by the City.

As mayor, you have the power to ensure things are done according to best practice. Residents are counting on you to be diligent. Their health and well-being depend on it.

NEXT STEPS:

There will be a press conference on Saturday, December 28 at 11:30 a.m. at the Staybridge Suites in Woodbridge. This is the date some tenants are expected to vacate the hotel, which was extended from December 25. A few others have until around December 30.

Unless smoke damage testing and restoration has already been conducted, the Return to Occupancy Plan potentially exposes residents to hazardous soot. This is unacceptable. Residents are calling for the exercise of caution. I hope to advise media outlets that the landlord and City will continue working together to ensure that residents are not hastily moved back into the building. Safety is paramount.

Respectfully, this will be part of your legacy. I urge you to remain on the right side of history.