Q: What is the issue involving Mayor Andrea Horwath’s rental property?
A: The issue concerns a residential property on West Avenue North in Hamilton that is personally owned by Andrea Horwath and occupied by her former common-law partner. The property has been the subject of emergency orders issued by the City of Hamilton due to concerns about its structural condition and safety.
Q: Is this a personal dispute or a municipal enforcement matter?
A: It is both, but through separate processes. There is an ongoing civil dispute between the property owner and the occupant. Separately, the City has taken enforcement action under the Building Code Act based on safety concerns. The court has emphasized that these processes are legally distinct.
Q: Why did the City issue an emergency demolition order in early December?
A: The City issued an emergency order citing serious structural deficiencies that it believed posed an immediate risk to occupants and the public. The initial order required the property to be vacated and demolished.
Q: Why did a judge overturn the first emergency order?
A: The Ontario Superior Court invalidated the first order because the City relied on a private engineering report rather than an inspection conducted by a municipal building official, which the judge found did not meet the procedural requirements of the Building Code Act. The ruling focused on process, not on whether the building was safe.
Q: Did the court say the house was safe to live in?
A: No. The court did not rule on the safety or habitability of the property. It ruled only that the City had not followed the correct statutory process when issuing the first emergency order.
Q: Why did the City issue a second emergency order so quickly?
A: Following the court decision, the City issued a new emergency order requiring the occupant to vacate the property. Unlike the first order, the second one does not mandate demolition and allows for repairs or demolition at the owner’s discretion.
Q: Is the second emergency order legally valid?
A: As of publication, the second order remains in effect. Whether it meets all statutory requirements has not yet been tested in court. The City has not publicly detailed the inspections or assessments supporting the new order.
Q: Has Mayor Horwath used her position to influence the City’s actions?
A: There is no public evidence establishing that the Mayor directed or influenced City staff in their enforcement actions. The Mayor’s office has stated that she is acting as a private property owner in this matter. However, the overlap between personal ownership and municipal authority has raised public questions about transparency and process. The Hamiltonian frowns on those who are casting judgment without evidence.
Q: Why is this matter drawing so much public attention?
A: The case has attracted attention because it involves a sitting mayor, municipal enforcement powers, and housing safety issues. For some residents, it raises broader questions about how rules are applied when elected officials are personally involved in enforcement matters.
Q: Has the Mayor commented publicly on the situation?
A: Mayor Horwath has declined to comment publicly on the specifics, citing ongoing legal proceedings. Media inquiries to the City Manager and building officials have also received limited response.
Q: What happens next?
A: The occupant is required to comply with the second emergency order or challenge it legally. Separately, the civil dispute between the property owner and occupant continues. Additional court proceedings or further municipal action remain possible.
Q: What are the key unresolved questions?
A: Outstanding questions include what inspections underpin the second emergency order, how compliance will be enforced if resisted, and whether clearer public disclosure will be provided by the City regarding process and safeguards when elected officials are involved as private property owners.
