GANG-RELATED EVICTIONS ASSUME COLLECTIVE GUILT

Toronto police struck a welcome blow against one of the city's most
vicious street gangs last May when they rounded up more than 100
people with alleged connections to the "Jamestown Crew."

The sweep garnered a vast arsenal of weapons, large quantities of
illegal drugs and $400,000 in cash. More important, it and other
anti-gang raids have helped to curb violence in some troubled Toronto areas.

Despite the police action, Toronto Community Housing says it still
has problems in some of its buildings.

So, in a bid to clean them up and protect other tenants, the
city-owned social housing agency has served eviction notices on 13
families it claims have links to street gangs. Eight of the families
are challenging their removal before the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

No one disputes the agency's duty to keep its buildings safe, or the
right of tenants to demand such an environment. But evictions in
these circumstances would be exceedingly heavy-handed, especially in
cases where no one has been convicted of any criminal charge.

Under Ontario law, tenants can be evicted even if there is only a
reasonable suspicion that they have committed or permitted another
person to commit an illegal act in the unit.

This type of eviction amounts to collective punishment, because it
unfairly forces innocent family members, including seniors and young
children, out of their apartments or townhouses due to the alleged
misconduct of a single person in the unit.

Surely, blameless people should not be tossed out of their homes and
into the street.

It is unreasonable for a landlord to assume an entire family is
guilty because one member has committed a crime. That assumption is
even more dubious when the alleged offender has been charged but not
yet found guilty in a criminal court.

For its part, the Toronto housing agency is working with problem
tenants to avoid evictions. Depending on the case, families might be
asked to move to a different housing complex or agree to have the
member who is accused of illegal activity removed from the home. That
seems reasonable.

It also says taking these 13 leaseholders to the tribunal does not
constitute a "mass eviction," but is a process used whenever it has
reason to believe tenants have committed or permitted serious
offences in their rental units.

The agency still hopes to reach a deal with some of the families.

That would be good because the housing agency has an obligation to
protect its 164,000 tenants from illegal activity.

But that goal is better served by calling the police to deal with
suspected law-breakers than by evicting entire families who may not
have known what was happening under their noses, or were powerless to stop it.