Tell me this is not true
- Thread starter ToSlow
- Start date
Ashtonator
Well-known member
It's true. Happened a while back.
I heard the guy was going in to make repairs. What kind of *** does that in socks?
No he wasn't. He was showing the place to potential tenants. He says he had worn shoes while doing repairs previously... There was also some comments made or something written somewhere that played into the board's decision.
I'll never understand homeowners that say "oh, just leave your shoes on" when I enter their home.
Why? Is there dog ****, phlegm or spilled gasoline on your floor that I need to protect my socks from? Because there's a good chance that it's already on my shoes...
Why? Is there dog ****, phlegm or spilled gasoline on your floor that I need to protect my socks from? Because there's a good chance that it's already on my shoes...
I have three dogs. They walk in all the time without taking theirs off.
Kinda kidding as they sit on the mat until they are told not to, but my floors are all hard on the main floor and never truly clean. That is where my guests would be.
"Leave your shoes on, the dogs do" is my usual greeting. I don't worry that much about a little dirt, but your white socks won't be white anymore if you dont
Followed this one for a bit and in my opinion the Tribunal went a little too far, 12k....really?.
The couple had asked to be notified before showing the apartment 5 min before so that the wife could be "presentable" even though in Ontario you are only required 24hrs notice, landlord did this and was texting them to inform but began not receiving any replies so he stopped doing it. The landlord made a comment about "welcome to Ontario Canada" in reference to the different rules we have since the family came from Quebec and the tribunal took that as a racist remark. The thing that really got me too was they "suffered" because the landlord made loud noises that scared and traumatized them, in the winter, while shoveling snow on the property.
Even if he did walk in their prayer room with his shoes on; was it disrespectful, yes; was it in violation of someones human rights? no.
The couple had asked to be notified before showing the apartment 5 min before so that the wife could be "presentable" even though in Ontario you are only required 24hrs notice, landlord did this and was texting them to inform but began not receiving any replies so he stopped doing it. The landlord made a comment about "welcome to Ontario Canada" in reference to the different rules we have since the family came from Quebec and the tribunal took that as a racist remark. The thing that really got me too was they "suffered" because the landlord made loud noises that scared and traumatized them, in the winter, while shoveling snow on the property.
Even if he did walk in their prayer room with his shoes on; was it disrespectful, yes; was it in violation of someones human rights? no.
Last edited:
Meme, I would still never assume I can walk right into your home with my shoes on, but it's good that you make it clear to your guests.
This really all boils down to a lack of respect or ignorance in this instance.
1 large dog, tile and laminate floors. She comes in from outside and waits on mat by doors, waits a bit longer if it's raining out. Go through a lot of Swiffer pads, sticky brushes and vacuum filters. Best I can do...
This really all boils down to a lack of respect or ignorance in this instance.
1 large dog, tile and laminate floors. She comes in from outside and waits on mat by doors, waits a bit longer if it's raining out. Go through a lot of Swiffer pads, sticky brushes and vacuum filters. Best I can do...
His house, his rules.
If he doesn't want to take off his shoes on HIS property, then why should he.
This country is turning into a pile of cry babies where everyone is offended by everything.
Hardly a human rights violation as well.
Shocked the courts didn't award them 7 figures as well...
If he doesn't want to take off his shoes on HIS property, then why should he.
This country is turning into a pile of cry babies where everyone is offended by everything.
Hardly a human rights violation as well.
Shocked the courts didn't award them 7 figures as well...
Last edited:
JP0160
Well-known member
Yep, whiny little children. Can't look at some people without them getting offended.
It is generally considered the tenant's property for reasons of trespass etc so he is considered more as a guest.
Who's law calls the shots?
A common scenario:
XYZ Furniture Company is delivering a heavy bed or dresser and workers must wear safety boots to prevent the crushing of toes if someone loses their grip. The resident says to take off shoes.
A toe gets crushed, XYZ gets a WSIB rate increase and a fine from the Ministry of Labour. The worker loses some pay after hassle with WSIB and may have permanent damage. WSIB doesn't compensate you for lost vacations, overgrown lawn etc because you can't walk for a month.
Some companies give workers disposable booties to go over their work boots. It saves the floors from scratches but does this meet the religious restrictions since the person is still wearing shoes?
It sounds like a jerk around by the tenants and the owner got sucked in. $12K??? Seriously???
IIRC a member here posted about following the "No shoes" rule and then stepped on a nail.
