The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

published every Wednesday by Fairway Press, I a division of Kitchenerâ€"Waterloo Record Ltd., owner 225 Fairway Rd. S., Kitchener, Ont. â€" address correspondence to Waterioo office: 92 King St. South, Waterloo, Ont., telephone 886â€"2830 Waterioo Chronicle office is located on2Zndfloor of the O.Wâ€" Sports building opposite Waterioo Square. FMmmsumunwm&mn.Ounmm Fnday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 .p.m Waterloo council recently voted to note and file another municipality‘s legislation designed to tighten up the court system and stiffen punishment of persons found guilty of crimes. Having noted the ‘‘numerous delays in Ontario courts ... caused by unnecessary remands," and an apparent tenâ€" dency on the part of the courts toward leniency in assessing punishment, the town of Seaforth passed a resolution last month calling for a petition of the Attorney General to conâ€" duct "an aggressive and thorough study of courtroom proceâ€" dures ... and further, to analyze sentences being handed down from the bench for various crimes."‘ Three members of Waterloo council voted to endorse the action, four voted to have the matter filed. o â€" There is no denying the fact that unneccessary delays and timeâ€"consuming remands take place in the Ontario court system. But the Law Society of Upper Canada, the regulatâ€" ing body that controls the behaviour of bar members has been investigating the problem for over a year. And accordâ€" ing to Ald. Richard Biggs, a Waterloo barrister, the courts are under scrutiny from within the system. There is no denying that the victims of many crimes do not receive any form of restitution for their loss. In the majority of .cases the person found guilty of the crime is not in a financial position that would permit restitution. Page 6 â€" Waterioo Chronicle, Wednesday, June 20, 1979 The tone of the Seaforth resolution seems to be calling for stiff punishment to eliminate an offensive social problem. If that is the sole motivation then I find the implications equalâ€" ly offensive and certainly following a path that has statisâ€" tically been proven impractical and ineffective. As the crime becomes more severe, what would the Seaâ€" forth council have us do, return to capital punishment or merely jam the convicted culprits back into our maximum security correctional institutions? Surely as a society we have progressed past that kind of ‘‘*an eye for an eye‘‘ philosophy to the point where revenge is of lesser importance than the moral and practical benefits to be derived from rehabilitating the trespassers in our soâ€" cial system. By Geoff Hoile submitted for the WDRA by Bob Rowell Would you believe a city spaces, which the developer that has a commercial zone insists is sufficient, but which allows multiâ€"storey â€" which many ieople feel is office buildings but does not not enough to provide for require the developer to both the office tenants and supply adequate parking for _ staff, and clients and custâ€" same? omers of the various offices That is a fact that city â€" and stores. That is a fact that city council is facing as they conâ€" sider the problem of Allen Square, the new building being erected on the comner of King and Allen Streets The present design only allows for 43 underground parking spaces, for a buildâ€" ing that will be at least six and perhaps 10 stories high As a step towards providâ€" ing more parking. the deâ€" veloper has bought the house at 11 George St.. and the house presently ocâ€" cupied by the Montesori School on Allen St. E.. and is proposing to tear them down and construct a twoâ€"level garage. This would provide an additional 116 parking An eye for _an eye? subscriptions: $14 a year in Canada. $16 a year in United States and Foreign Countries. If this is true, it will place tremendous pressure on the surrounding areas, a presâ€" sure which is in direct conâ€" tradiction to one of the goals of the secondary plan. This goal stated that areas desigâ€" nated GR2, which include the area behind the subject development, are to be conâ€" verted towards stable faâ€" milyâ€"residential areas. In order not to apply this presâ€" sure on the GR2 areas. it may become necessary to convert sections of King St to parking lots, which is also an ugly prospect in as much as this part of King St. is a major entrance to our city established 1854 ‘About 15 months ago the General Government Commitâ€" tee, of which I am a member, began discussions on two imâ€" portant pieces of legislation. One was the "Landlord and Tenant Act‘‘ and the second was the Rent Review Act. Landlord and Tenant legislation has been with us for many years but rent review came into effect in 1975 after provinâ€" cial pary leaders stressed its need during the spring election campaign. There is no doubt in my mind that serious abuses were evident particularly in Toronto in 1975 and that something had to be done to curb "rent Gouging."‘ As a result legislaâ€" tion was quickly drawn up and passed into law. With pressures on the Provincial Government to come forward with more comprehensive legislation, public hearâ€" ings were held across Ontario after the release of a green paper on the subject. During last summer the Government drew up a Bill 163, ‘"An Act to reform the Law respecting Residential Tenancies‘‘. Again public hearings were held with hundreds of briefs presented to our committee and this was followed by clause by clause discussion of the Bill. Soâ€" metimes it took days before one clause was passed. < One such example was House Rules. Delegation after deâ€" legation of tenants opposed any form of House Rules beâ€" cause they argued that landlords would have too much conâ€" trol with them and secondly it could easily lead to abuse Tenants could be intimidated if these rules were arbitrarily established and enforced. Landlords argued in favour of their retension. Eventually the section dealing with House Rules was deleted but not without a lot of soul searching Although I had the opportunity to participate in the discusâ€" sion and voting in all sections, there are a few I took special interest in. One of these was the sharing of a copy of an agreement for lease when such is made. When a person wishes to lease a unit, an agreement is signed but only the landlord keeps a copy until the references of the leasee are checked. It has always been my contention that when anâ€" yone signs an agreement. he should be able to walk away with a copy of that agreement and not have to wait a few Report from Queen‘s Park Herb Epp, MPP F, HAPPY BIRTHOAY KIT(HENERD Comment weeks before he receives a copy. After thé new act is passed in the Legislature, receives Royal Assent and is Proâ€" claimed, each prospective tenant will receive a copy of their agreement at the time they first enter into that agreeâ€" Another contentious issue has been that dealing with the problem of a landlord not making necessary repairs and the tenant having little recourse. Under an amendment to the act a tenant can give the landlord and Residential Tenancies Commission 10 days notice and if the repair has not been made, the rent can be directed to the Residential Tenancies Commission which will then arbitrate between the two parâ€" One of my great disappointments about the Committee‘s report to the Legislature is that there is no decontrol meâ€" chanism for Rent Review. The date for the expiry of Rent Review has been removed and what I and my Liberal Colâ€" leagues wanted was a geographic decontrol mechanism. Esâ€" sentially it would work in areas which had a vacancy rate of 3% or higher and was recommended for decontrol by the Residential Tenancies Commission. Both the NDP and Conâ€" servatives voted against that provision. There may be some changes to the Committee Report on Bill 163 when it goes to the Legislature but these are not exâ€" pected to be substantial. If all goes well we will have an imâ€" portant new piece of legislation affecting thousands of tenâ€" ants and landlords which will come into effect this fall Speaking of the Residential Tenancies Commission this is a new tribunal which among other things will do two things, 1) avoid going to the small claims court except only in a few instances when either the landlord or tenant wish to appeal the decision of the Residential Tenancies Commission and 2) render a decision almost immediately (within one or two weeks) rather than wait up to six months to go to court only with the decision be made faster (justice delay‘ justice denied) but being able to go to the Residential ancies Commission will also avoid the expense of lawyers. Schec