# Ontario renting laws ARE too weak



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Normally when business owners complain about rules or laws that don't favour them, I don't pay them much attention. Let's face it, everyone wants things to go their way.

Landlords are the same thing. Many times, Rachelle and others have complained about Ontario's landlord/tenant act as being too one-sided in favour of the tenant. While I don't necessarily disagree with them - my attitude has always been that if an investment doesn't give a proper return, it should be sold and the funds invested in something better.

Ie if you have a rental house in Toronto and it's not making any money - don't complain, just sell.

This article on the Star covers the tenant from hell - who I think we've discussed here in other threads:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...fails-to-pay-rent-again-violating-court-order

This situation indicates to me that the laws have to be changed. If it's this easy for someone to be a professional bad tenant, then more people will eventually do it and there won't be many landlords left in the rental market in Toronto.

What do you guys think? Is this an isolated incident or are the laws too tenant-friendly in Ontario?


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

http://www.landlord-law-ontario.blogspot.ca/2012/08/saddest-case-govt-and-ltb-should-be.html

Here's another really bad case. 

There's a definite problem but I think it's really amplified by the number of green landlords entering the business. These predators are victimizing landlords and looking for the naive ones. 

The really bad ones can trick anyone. They come fully prepared.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

far too tenant friendly. Just like the business owner or landlord, if the tenant doesn't like the terms, or if those terms are unclear, buyer beware.


----------



## Potato (Apr 3, 2009)

IMHO the _laws _are pretty good. The _enforcement_/LTB is *terrible*. It shouldn't take months to get a hearing, it shouldn't take 5 weeks to get the sheriff to enforce an eviction order. As the linked case shows, rent arrears should be by guaranteed funds (interac transfer, certified cheque, money order, cash), perhaps with the board intermediating.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

I just want to point out that if you are in legislative environment that favours the other party in the business transaction it scares away new landlords/business people.


----------



## chaudi (Sep 10, 2009)

I have simply solution bring back rent control. $800 bach, $1000, 1 bedroom. i think if people can get reasonable rent then the problems will disappear. When i first started renting i got a great apartment for $650 then few years later a better one for $800, utilise included. I even painted that place. 

The problem here is the corruption of the government and their powerful friends. First there are over 100,000 immigrants landing in Toronto in a year which is 300 a day homeless. I say homeless because it take maybe 1-2 weeks to find an apartment in TO. 
Yes their friends who own condo, their friends who own land, the banks etc. all these people have a vested interest in continuing the bubble, the fantasy. Could they provide affordable housing, rent control? Yes of course but now we are Conservative which me we don't give a rats *** about anything accept money, THEIR MONEY.
It's a type of corruption because we all will lose and the rich will get richer, it will turn our city in ghettos if they aren't already, just like in the USA. But then Con's are like that and hate Toronto too, so here we are. They seem to hate human rights too, because housing is an human right. They don't have a problem with free health care ironical or endless building permits. Our PM Harpes lives in public housing too.

On the upside we could be just into a pain full down cycle now, as the condo market crashes, the 20,000 vacant unit in TO will be the next affordable housing.
The laws you see invoked with that Nina case are more to do human rights and civil law, i think she is appealing the board rulings to superior courts, which obviously take a long time. I don't think most people want to live like that including Nina.
Right now landlords are charging too much rent, so the rights tenants have is just another form of rent control, what should be the governments job. So if they lose a month or two rent now and then so what? The entire con system is bend on pumping up their housing bubble.


----------



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

Chaudi I can't say I understand your point of view. If rent is too expense, then the renter can go buy. The buyers who rent out their places can hardly get a positive ROI, so who is to say they are charging too much?


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

I just don't understand anyone who thinks that there is any justification for a tenant not to pay rent and be allowed to stay in a private landlord's property for any period of time. If the government is going to step in and say I can't kick a problem tenant out, then it should be their responsibility to repair all the damages caused by the tenant, and compensate the landlord for unpaid rent. If someone shoplifts, they get prosecuted, if someone commits fraud they get prosecuted, if someone steals from a landlord, they get 6 months free rent...


----------



## Mall Guy (Sep 14, 2011)

Had a friend who rented out a house and got stuck with a professional renter. He did the dance with LTB, got nowhere and of course no money going on for almost a year. So he tells his tenant that he has assigned the arrears to a (very) religious organization, who now considered the the outstanding rent to be "God's money". Members of the congregation met every night on the public sidewalk in front of the house (maybe in front of the driveway . . . details are sketchy) . . . for as long as it took to get God's money . . . in less than a month the tenant was gone, the friend had a tax receipt, and was rid of the problem!


----------



## chaudi (Sep 10, 2009)

"I just don't understand anyone who thinks that there is any justification for a tenant not to pay rent and be allowed to stay in a private landlord's property for any period of time."
Immigrates are funny they have no idea about the law, they come here from some 3rd world dump and want to change Canada into the same thing. They have no idea about human rights or even Canada's history. No one forced them to become a landlord, maybe it was the bank or the re agent, but it was not the tenant. 

Do you think it is someone right to be greedy and exploit others? What kind of world do you think we would have if we could legally enters someones house beat them up and then throw out their stuff onto the road? If you want that world please buy a one way ticket to China, Russia, India etc. There you can do that. There you can open a factory that grids up children everyday and spits out $5 widgets. You don't need to be a landlord anymore with all these silly human rights in Canada.

When you buy goods you own them, it's yours. When you buy a property you have a piece of paper that give you rights to the land, you don't own it. The Queen owns it. When you take a tenants cash you are transferring that right to them. So when you say the LT laws are unfair your talking about the wrong laws.

Ultimately the government is there to help Canadians not exploit them and enable the rich to get richer by stepping on people. I guess this is the hard part for some of you to understand.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Chaudi rent control makes it WORSE for tenants especially young, new, poor tenants.

First thing happens, building of rental units stops immediately. 

Rental houses get sold to owner occupiers

Apartments get turned into condos

Next, people who were in before rent control, keep their old apartments as they get cheaper and cheaper. I know of a widow living alone, who kept the same 4 bedroom apartment for years because it was cheaper than moving to a 1 bedroom - she had been there so long, she was paying hundreds of dollars under market rent. A young family could have used that apartment, too bad for them.

With lots of tenants and a shortage of rentals landlords can be very picky. In fact they have to be very picky, under the law they can't get rid of a bad tenant if they let one in. They just can't afford to take that chance.

This is if everyone obeys the law as they did back in the seventies. Today I think "key money" and other forms of graft would be a much bigger problem.

You can't make rentals cheaper by rent controls, you can only make them worse and harder to get. That is why rent controls have been a failure wherever they have been tried. You will never see an economist stick up for rent controls, not even a Communist economist. They are just bad business, bad all the way around.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

When I started working in this business rent control was the order of the day. I was also a renter back then and the less than one percent vacancy rate made it impossible to get another apartment. The pest control in the building was non existent. 

In fact many people became home owners because of the horrible treatment they received from landlords under rent control. In fact rent control was the genesis of these laws we see today. If you create a system in which the only way to make a profit is to cut back on maintenance and repair then that's what you'll end up with. If you create a system in which the landlord can be financially rewarded for bring a nice new clean apartment to the market, then you'll get that. 

I'm not sure what's up with Chaudi tonight. No one owes anyone a free life. The landlord provides a service just like tons of other businesses do. Is it exploitation to take money and rent you a house that's warm and dry? I think not. 

I think on of the things that really does hurt affordable housing is that the maintenance standards for a $700 one bedroom in Parkdale with heat and hydro included are the same from a legislative standpoint as a brand new downtown condo.

Also for every tenant who rips off a landlord for thousands of dollars, other good tenants do not receive well deserved services. Plus these troublemakers don't just not pay their rent, for the most part they are surrounded by a whole host of social problems and antisocial behaviour that also disturbs other good tenants.

Rent control is not the answer...


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

chaudi said:


> "I just don't understand anyone who thinks that there is any justification for a tenant not to pay rent and be allowed to stay in a private landlord's property for any period of time."
> Immigrates are funny they have no idea about the law, they come here from some 3rd world dump and want to change Canada into the same thing. They have no idea about human rights or even Canada's history. No one forced them to become a landlord, maybe it was the bank or the re agent, but it was not the tenant.
> 
> Do you think it is someone right to be greedy and exploit others? What kind of world do you think we would have if we could legally enters someones house beat them up and then throw out their stuff onto the road? If you want that world please buy a one way ticket to China, Russia, India etc. There you can do that. There you can open a factory that grids up children everyday and spits out $5 widgets. You don't need to be a landlord anymore with all these silly human rights in Canada.
> ...


It could be because it's late and I'm tired, but this is really hard to understand. 

I don't think I read about anyone wanting to beat people up and throw their stuff on the road. If a person walked into a store, and consumed an item without paying, they would be arrested and charged, as this is called stealing. They person who stole the item would be immediately taken off the premise. I don't understand why a person who steals the service of living in someones else place, should not be treated the same way. In fact, the law says that not only does the person who steals the service with out paying, not get in trouble, but in fact they get to continue stealing. 

I don't know how one can say that they should go to a communist country, and then in the next breath complain that the government doesn't do enough. Canada is supposed to be a Capitalistic society, so the government should really stay out in terms of rent control. Ever live in NY? Look at the how well rent control worked there.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Yes, there really is no moral justification for our current tenant protection laws. Housing is a basic necessity of life, but so is food, and we don't force grocery stores or restaurants to feed those who refuse to pay. If people can't afford food, they go to a food bank or soup kitchen. If they can't afford housing, there are shelters. Either way, it is a social problem, not the responsibility of business.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Agree that the laws generally speaking are too favorable for residential tenants. For commercial tenants...don't pay rent, the LL will put locks on your doors.

I also do not agree with rent control. I do agree with free markets.


----------



## Xoron (Jun 22, 2010)

Another annoying thing, why there is a two tiered system on rent increase guidelines? 

http://landlordrescue.ca/ontario-landlord-rent-increases/

Anything built before 1991 can only increase rents as much as the guidelines permit. Most times that amount is significantly less than inflation, let alone increases in taxes and utilities every year.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

Chaudi, you should thank immigrants for keeping the rent low. Think of all the Fraud money from 3rd world countries and think of them flowing to Canada, a convenient place to launder money through real estate and casinos.

Then think of all those empty houses they bought and decided to rent out, creating supply and lowering rent.

On average, each corrupt official buys 4 houses. The less wealthy corrupt officials send their kids over and buys a house, which also supplies student housing for their friends. 

I only dread the day when USA catches on and enables their E2 visa to allow housing investment. That's the day Canada RE drop like a stone.


----------



## chaudi (Sep 10, 2009)

In Canadian law all lands are subject to the Crown, and this has been true since Britain acquired much of Eastern Canada from France by the Treaty of Paris (1763).


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

Chaudi, I can also copy and paste from Wikipedia, but where are you going with this? What does an archaic treaty have to do with current tenant/landlord laws?

What I see in Ontario's laws is landlords having no immediate way of ridding themselves of non-paying tenants, while at the same time having to fulfill all of their obligations (taxes, mortgage, insurance). If one party breaks the contract, the other party should immediately be able to break the contract as well... Tenant stops paying, landlord changes the locks. 

If you don't pay your cable bill, no more cable. Same with any other service. 

What ends up happening is that no one will rent to the vulnerable, because they know it's a losing proposition. Before letting a tenant in, landlords now do thorough checks on employment, credit, past landlords and so on, and demand several months of rent up front. The vulnerable won't pass these tests, and can't come up with 6 months deposit. In the end a few bad tenants ruin it for those who really are struggling.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

Speaking of good tenants.

I personally am leaning towards renting out to new immigrants only. I don't know about others, but I've never had any problems with immigrants. My guess is because 1: they don't know the law, hence less likely to become the tenant from hell. 2: When first landing in a new country, they are in need of good contacts, therefore will more likely to be pleasant. 3: some of them are from workaholic countries so money is usually not a problem.

Anyway, just in case, I want to see if anyone have had bad experience with new immigrants and what percentage of them are like that?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Just be careful to get enough damage deposit. We had a lovely Persian family across the hall from us rent another penthouse. It was newly renovated. After one year, the hardwood floors and walls had to be redone be when they moved out. They allowed their kids to do whatever they wanted.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

I wonder why anyone would choose to be a landlord when you can make more money with much less hassle/risk in the markets?


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

There are still opportunities for double-digit un-levered cash flows, add in leverage and 20%+ annuallized returns aren't unheard of. Sure, it can be done in the markets as well, but sometimes the hands-on investment approach results in fantastic results.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

Diversification and a poor man's option leverage strategy that pays you to hold it. It is the exact same deal as GS when they held the other side of the synthetic MBS. Except of a perpetual income that self sustains and pays you when things fall, it is a perpetual income that self sustains and pays you when things rise. 

This is why I love discussing ideas on this forum. Through just throwing out stupid ideas I often realizes insane money making strategies. Buy house + sell MBS of equal value = interest income on both side while protected against any directional movement.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Sherlock said:


> I wonder why anyone would choose to be a landlord when you can make more money with much less hassle/risk in the markets?


It depends on what floats your boat and what you're good at. Don't forget there's plenty of people who lose money in the markets as well, last I checked there's no shortage of people willing to take advantage of "fools" 

The real estate market has been good to specuvestors for the last 10 years. The money's not in the rent you collect but in the house prices going up. Until a few years ago investors didn't even need any skin in the game...0% down id pretty hard to beat.


----------



## canabiz (Apr 4, 2009)

Causalien said:


> Speaking of good tenants.
> 
> I personally am leaning towards renting out to new immigrants only. I don't know about others, but I've never had any problems with immigrants. My guess is because 1: they don't know the law, hence less likely to become the tenant from hell. 2: When first landing in a new country, they are in need of good contacts, therefore will more likely to be pleasant. 3: some of them are from workaholic countries so money is usually not a problem.
> 
> Anyway, just in case, I want to see if anyone have had bad experience with new immigrants and what percentage of them are like that?


Causalien: It also depends on the type of immigrants. Yes they are new to the country and may not know the laws but they do have a pretty good network support here in terms of community and students associations and can quickly pick up tips and tricks, especially in diverse areas like GTA.

My friend used to rent houses to international students but is no longer doing that as the students quickly realize they can move in together and save quite a bit of money, creating turnover, among other issues. A recent article here for your perusal

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...n-north-york-where-rooming-houses-are-illegal


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

Nah, students aren't my cup of tea. I am talking about adult professional immigrants who already has a job lined up.

I guess things also depends on the landlord. One of my startup friend gave me a word of wisdom: "Your network is the biggest contributing factor to the type of clients you get." A landlord focused solely on profit will most likely net you something like what the article has. I prefer high quality, low turn over and repeat customers.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Sherlock said:


> I wonder why anyone would choose to be a landlord when you can make more money with much less hassle/risk in the markets?


You are overlooking the leverage. I got into real estate investing with essentially NO money. The first property I ever bought, was a nothing down deal in 1972, before any of the Nothing Down books and seminars were even written. I also used money borrowed from friends and relatives, they would happily loan money for real estate but the stock market, not a chance. 

By the way all my investors did very well over the years and so did I.

Now that I have made my pile I want to get out of real estate and into the stock market. Become a totally useless parasite, sit on my duff with my feet up on the desk and let the spondulix roll in.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Now that I have made my pile I want to get out of real estate and into the stock market. ..


What is your motivation? Is it too hard, too risky, or just too much like a job?


----------



## chaudi (Sep 10, 2009)

Cowan you know you can't get damage deposits right? Maybe you can answer you own question...

BTW Folks, the tenant for Hell i hear has paid her rent! Let see if the Tostar picks up this story.


----------



## rookie (Mar 19, 2010)

I agree with cause.

when i rented my first place, a condo, i had paid a deposit for the remote opener. at the end of hte contract, the owner did not return the deposit citing a couple of scratches on teh bath tub which were so minor that I had not even noticed. although i did not like the way she put things out, i still let it go as i was not aware of the rules and regulations.


----------

