I didn't mention the engine because I fail to see how it is relevant. My landlord didn't even see the engine. Her issue was with the chassis. The engine is a hunk of cast iron and aluminum. Do the internals have traces of oil? Probably, but I have gallon jugs of cooking oil in my cupboard. Again, I fail to see how any of that is relevant. I cook only with cast iron. I have several cast iron pots and pans. Should I remove them from my apartment as well due to the combination of iron and oil? Or do these things need to be in the shape of an engine?
IF I reassemble the entire bike, that might be a different story. But I still don't see how it is UNLESS I fill it with oil and fuel, and it becomes a danger, or very likely to be dangerous. I have a stereo system capable of being very loud. Do I need to remove it because I CAN turn it all the way up, interfering with the enjoyment of my neighbors? It is only a problem WHEN and IF it violates a regulation as outlined in The Residential & Tenancies Act.
I fail to see the problem unless any item being stored in my apartment causes damage, is very likely to cause damage, or poses a significant danger to anyone in the rental complex, or interferes with the reasonable enjoyment or rights of the landlord or other tenants. Neither my landlord nor anyone in this thread has shown that having these parts in my apartment do any of these things.
We're talking about a legal matter, and legal matters are not informed by your opinion. I am not saying that you are wrong, only that you failed to show how your opinion is valid in terms of laws and regulations as it relates to this issue.
The law, as I understand it, generally states the tenant cannot use the rental unit or the residential complex in a manner that is inconsistent with use as a residential premises and that has caused or can be expected to cause significant damage. This second part is the key. As previously stated, I have had a professional engineer confirm that any suitable dwelling unit must easily be able to withstand the weight of 300 lbs. indefinitely. Of course, building codes go far beyond this. The engineer is willing to provide his expert opinion. As mention above, yes, these item will most likely remain in place, but structural building code does not require that weights of 300 lbs. be moved from time to time. For example, most kitchen appliances, which are often side-by-side, weigh far more than 300 lbs. collectively. It is not a requirement that these be regularly shifted and moved to prevent structural collapse. Once again, after the removal of the small jerry can of fuel (which I didn't realize had fuel in it), there is no oil, gas or combustibles associated with these motorcycle parts. Therefore, I fail to see how it can be shown that having these parts stored in my apartment "have or can be expected to cause significant damage". This, in my opinion as informed by my understanding of the law, is what must be demonstrated and proven.
Unfortunately part 1 AND 2 go together in their wording you can't magically exclude part 1 as it doesn't support your contention. The landlord will be able to EASILY prove that you are using the premises for a purpose which IS inconsistent with it's intended use, (residential, not a garage, which is where one normally parks a vehicle). Doesn't matter what YOU fail to see, it ONLY matters what the LTB is likely to interpret, what the regs "suggest." Much like the HTA, (Highway Traffic Act), and the CCofC, (Criminal Code of Canada), the Residential Tenant Act, is purposely written in vague general terms, leaving MOST of the regs open to interpretation. That interpretation, is VERY likely not to go the way you would think, nor consider. I would put it to you, that "most" reasonable people would find it "unreasonable" for a tenant, to store a vehicle, (weather fully assembled and functional, or in various forms of disassembly), within, a residential unit, in a multi unit complex.
You keep asking which tenancy law is being violated. If I were the landlord, I would state to the LTB, that I am not seeking to have you evicted, solely upon tenancy regs alone but rather that you have contravened portions of the Residential Tenant Act, as well as the FIRE CODE, which would clearly advise that storing an engine within the premises, are contrary to any reasonable expectation of use, and fire safety.
If you don't believe me contact TFS, and ask them if it would be considered a fire hazard, to store a functional engine inside of a residential complex, (Again as stated by someone previously, your house your rules), but given this is a residential complex with more that two rental units, (believe it or not the regs differ between units which house 2 or less rental units, as opposed to those that house more than 2 rental units.
I would also point out, your story, about the 75 year old lady, and the landlords deal, in regards to snow removal, while perhaps interesting, will have NO bearing on a hearing about your refusal to remove the vehicle from your unit. It is a deal that both parties, have seemingly entered into willingly, the old lady has two choices, (as egregious as it may seem to you), continue with the current arrangement, or terminate, the agreement, and deal with the consequences of that decision. The tribunal would rule in a heartbeat that ti has no bearing on the landlord's eviction notice to you.
As for your "silly" contention that you have cast iron pots and cooking oil in your unit, which are NO different than a cast iron engine with oil in it, therefore, they should be viewed equally. The pots and cooking oil are items which are routinely and expected to be found within a residential unit. A motorcycle engine is NOT routinely stored and found within a residential unit. If you insist upon going before the LTB, you better have a MUCH better argument than that. That would be akin to stating that many people have a .22 calibre rifle in their residences, therefore, your landlord should have no objection to you having a functioning and armed Howitzer artillery piece within your residential unit...lol Following your twisted logic, should a landlord have no issue if I wanted to store a fully function CF-18, (with the engine sitting beside it, in my unit, after all it is only iron, and some "other parts"...GMAFB
Lastly, as a former copper, who not only dealt with courts ranging from Traffic courts, to provincial appeals and Superior courts as well as various quasi judicial tribunals, this is not something you want to go before a hearing on. Despite what logic would seemingly dictate, doesn't mean it will prevail.
See above.
I'm not saying that I am right, and I am open to having my mind changed. Unfortunately, I have failed to hear any sort of reasonable argument against my position. Like my landlord, I have only heard people react viscerally, making statement such as "vehicles are not meant to be kept in apartments", or "you shouldn't be using your apartment as a garage". To me, these are merely statements - opinions not backed up by any reasonable or rational argument. Like I said, I could be wrong, but, in order to change my mind, I need to be presented with a reasonable argument. If I am correct, this also doesn't necessarily mean that I will win this case if it does go to the Landlord & Tenant Board. These institutions are run by people, and people are often irrational, regardless of their position in society.
Here is the MOST reasonable and logical "opinion" (which obviously you have never before appeared before a tribunal, otherwise you would understand the ruling of said tribunal is based upon the OPINION of the members on that tribunal). Storing a vehicle, regardless of it's state of assembly is NOT a normally accepted practice, within a multi unit residential unit. Therefore, it should be disallowed, otherwise a precedent, would be set permitting this practice going forward. In this case, it would be wise of you to consider, that you have been advised by virtually every poster in this tread that they believe your in the wrong, yet you still continue to persist, that you are right. Therefore I will ask, in that scenario, who is it that is most likely the irrational, the majority, or the one? Right there you should have your answer, if the majority here holds that opinion, how likely is it that the members of the tribunal, will hold the opposite opinion? It would be nice if in life we are always the one with the right opinion, but more often than not, this is not the case, and this appears to be a textbook example.
