Some residents of 235 Gosford Blvd. are worried about where they’ll live nearly four months after a fatal fire forced them out of their North York apartment building.

At least 29 units in the residential tower hit by the five-alarm fire last November won’t be habitable for at least a year, according to a letter from Ronkay Management, the building’s landlord.

The letter, sent to residents in the affected units on Jan. 29, advised “tenants that have not already planned to relocate permanently to commence the process of seeking out replacement rental accommodation immediately.”

Vanessa Watkins was “devastated” when she received the letter.

Watkins has rented for the past 16 years in the building near Jane Street and Shoreham Drive. She pays less than $1,300 a month for a two-bedroom apartment that she shares with her daughter.

They’ve been staying with a relative since the Nov. 15 fire. Finding a permanent place that fits her budget has proven difficult.

“We’ve been looking around and rent now is anywhere between $1,800 to $2,500 for a two bedroom,” Watkins said. “Who can afford to pay that?”

“I don’t know what to do next.”

The fire displaced about 354 residents and left one person dead and six others injured. Many stayed at community centres in the area, as well as a shelter at York University, until they were moved on Nov. 29.

Ronkey Management said the building has a total of 131 rental units, and the majority of people who were originally displaced by the fire have already been welcomed back. For the families in the 29 units that remain uninhabitable, only seven have either found a new home at other locations run by the company or moved on by their own accord.

Management also said displaced people are given “first priority” if any rental spaces become available at the same building or other properties under the same ownership and management, and stay at their current rental rates for comparable units.

Selina Manu, another displaced resident from one of the affected units, has been staying in a hotel since the fire. She has lived in the building for the last 15 years with her children, mother and two siblings, in a two-bedroom apartment they rent for $1,200 a month.

She was among the residents who saw last week’s letter about seeking new accommodations notice from management, but she’s determined to keep her lease.

“You can’t just kick me and my family out, I have no place to go,” she told the Star.

Ronkey, in a statement to the Star, “emphatically” denied seeking to terminate anyone’s tenancy.

“The letter was sent to ensure that they had all the information they needed to make the best decision for themselves and their families,” the statement said, clarifying the letter was not an eviction notice.

“We feel that the work will take too long to wait for the units, and that clients should have the opportunity to find a permanent housing solution.”

Landlords have a legal obligation to provide and maintain housing for their tenants, and that responsibility doesn’t go away just because there has been a mass evacuation, said Geordie Dent, executive director of the Federation of Metro Tenants’ Associations.

He said landlords can force only their way out of a tenancy agreement if a building is completely burned to the ground, which was not the case at Gosford.

In this case, as long as the landlord hasn’t gone out to issue eviction notices, tenants should know “it’s not serious,” Dent noted.

Advising tenants on how long the reconstruction process will take and giving them the option to break the lease is common practice for landlords dealing with mass displacement. Property management at 650 Parliament St., where about 1,500 residents have been out since a six-alarm fire in August 2018, has also advised people to consider breaking their leases and moving on if they can’t wait for the completion of repairs.

As a return date nears for the St. James Town residential tower, management has said that residents in nearly 100 units have taken up the offer and moved on.

But Dent said the line between “advice and coercion” can be a thin one in these matters.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“The law doesn’t allow landlords to coerce people. That’s a violation of the Residential Tenancies Act,” he said, urging Gosford residents to get legal opinion on whether what the landlord is doing is simple advice or veiled coercion.

“If your landlord is trying to coerce you, you can take them to court for that.”

There’s no word on how long exactly the reconstruction process will take at Gosford, but management estimates it will cover all of 2020 and possibly beyond, and the cost will be in millions.

“There are still many unknowns but we are doing our best to make sure our community has all the information we have,” the building’s management said in its statement to the Star.

“As we move forward, and more details become clear, we will continue to share them, as we have throughout this process.”

Toronto lawyer Caryma Sa’d, who has been representing the displaced residents at the Landlord and Tenant Board, said last week’s letter was unsettling for tenants who are already going through difficult times.

“It’s possible to read that and think that it’s already a final decision, in fact nothing formal has happened yet,” she said, noting only the board can approve a decision on tenant evictions.

At the board, Sa’d hopes to negotiate a rent abatement for all the displaced residents — including those who have since returned in their units — as well as alternative accommodation for those still fending for themselves.

Meanwhile, a number of health and safety concerns were raised after tenants of 26 units were allowed to move back into the complex in late December. For that reason, Sa’d and the residents are demanding the disclosure of the investigation into the cause of the fire and subsequent restoration process, as well as a another inspection of the building to ensure it’s safe to live in.

“Many tenants who moved back into the residential complex were dismayed to find that their apartments had not been cleaned. There were reports of soot on walls and the distinct smell of smoke. Tenants had to clean their units themselves, at their own expense,” a pending application for a hearing at the board indicates.

“Tenants have observed contractors appearing to paint over smoke-stained walls and charred ceiling, as well as plaster new drywall on top of damaged surfaces. This presents a latent but potentially severe health risk. Similarly, some tenants have reported seeing mould beneath the parquet flooring that was simply covered up.”

The application also notes that some air quality tests were taken after tenants had moved back in.

But a letter management sent out ahead of the move-in last December indicated the tenants were made aware of “hazards” in the building.

“Tenants acknowledge that they are entering a property that has been the subject of a serious fire and that there may be hazards and other as yet unknown health and safety risks,” read part of the letter. “Tenants acknowledge that they are entering and being permitted entry to the property wholly at their own risk.”

With files from Margaryta Ignatenko and Ilya Bañares