Thoughts on Ontario's Landlord & Tenant Law

Wait Time for Rent at LTB Getting Shorter?

2012-02-01T16:24:00.012-05:00

While I've not written about it here, the Landlord and Tenant Board has undertaken an initiative to reduce the backlog for rent applications, which was in some cases, six, seven even eight weeks from filing date to the hearing. In a nutshell, the busy regional offices are now taking one day a week (or two in one location) and loading up hearing blocks, morning and afternoon, with a huge load of L1, rent arrears applications. In fact, their stated policy is that at each regional office, rent applications would ONLY be heard on those special assigned super-block days. That would leave the other 4 days of the week available for conduct applications, tenant applications etc., cases that are more complex and which require more time. Often those cases were getting sent home after the parties had waited through a block of rent applications which took up all the available time.

Now it's too early to claim success, but over the last two weeks, I've seen a number of my own rent files where I was able to get a date within 3 weeks, which I think is the stated objective. Tenant applications and conduct applications are also getting to hearing faster. I was in Newmarket this morning, which is notorious for long times between filing and the hearing date. It's also famous for hearing blocks so large, they are unmanageable. Much to my surprise, there were only 15 files in the block, and better still, they had all been filed in January.

So perhaps it is working. If this really is getting the wait times down, my hat goes off to the staff and Members who I know have put in a lot of extra effort to make this work. I hope this Herculean effort doesn't result in burn-out of Members who have these large blocks foisted on them. Some of these blocks have upwards of 60 files. However about 60% of the L1 arrears files are unopposed, that is, the tenant does not show up. The system of using a case update sheet provided to the Member on the morning of the hearing is effective in speeding things up.

The system isn't yet perfect, and frankly it concerns me that some of the crowds in the smaller locations overwhelm the room. Sometimes it's standing room only. There are pictures in my previous blog post that will astonish you. It's also difficult for practitioners if they have clients with properties in Guelph, for instance, which is always held on Monday, but have most of their files at the Toronto South location, which has it's super-block on Monday. It becomes tricky to find time to get to Guelph, even once a month, when every Monday you are guaranteed to be tied up at the Toronto South location. Perhaps every regional office location should have these super-blocks on two days, not just one, which would cut down the crowd size and allow more flexibility for booking.

Don't you think there is something wrong with these pictures at the LTB?

2012-01-23T20:00:00.009-05:00

I was at the LTB today at the Yonge and St. Clair location. It was shocking. I took a few pictures. The Board so grossly over-books blocks. I understand the motivation; they want to get people to their hearings with minimum delay. But there has to be a better way than this, such as hiring more adjudicators, and renting more space.

Or...and here's a thought for the Minister...don't make the legislation so seductive to tenants looking to not pay their rent or raise issues lacking in merit to slow the whole process down!

Here's a few shots of today's lineups, both outside at security, and again in the actual hearing room.

Lineup in the hall prior to hearing

In the hearing room, every seat taken

Standing room only in hearing room

Why Do Governments Not Fix Their Own Obvious Legislative Shortcomings

2012-01-06T15:08:00.002-05:00

I read a consumer protection column today in the Hamilton Spectator regarding deposit interest payable under the Residential Tenancies Act. Read it here:

Hamilton Spectator Article on Rent Deposits

The question, asked of a Ministry official, was whether interest on the LMRD (last month's rent deposit) was payable with a calculation using simple or compound interest. The Ministry's answer was..."We don't know". All that the Ministry was willing to confirm was that interest paid on a rent deposit was usually calculated with simple rather than compound interest.

Not a terrible answer, as the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) doesn't say. But it did strike me as to why it is so difficult for government lawyers to draft legislation with clarity. A more troubling concern is that once an ambiguity is found, why is it so difficult to resolve it by way of an amendment to the statute or regulation.

Now those who have worked in government affairs will tell you that making legislative change is not easy; governments have a number of priorities, and to try and get the attention of a Minister who may have bigger fish to fry is not always easy. Again, a fair answer, but it's utter nonsense.

This government has made numerous amendments to the RTA, some related to a certain issue, and others in omnibus bills. Since the Residential Tenancies Act came into force in January of 2007, there have been a number of amendments. Just this past week, an amendment came into force allowing the Board to send respondents a copy of the application and notices of hearing rather than the applicant having to do so. In 2011 section 206(1) was added, allowing Board officers to hold hearings and issue orders. These two provision sneaked in as part of the government's Strong Communities Through Affordable Housing Act.

Sections 137 and 138 of the Residential Tenancies Act which were not proclaimed back in 2007, were proclaimed last year along with a new Regulation controlling sub-metering and apportionment of utility charges. Changes were made after the HST came into force so that landlords would be stuck holding the bag for HST costs on utilities, and couldn't pass these through to tenants on above guideline applications. There were changes to s.108 about direct debiting of bank accounts and s.185 to recognize the licensing of paralegals. In 2010, there were 4 private members bills related to the Residential Tenancies Act, none passed. This current year, there is a government bill to amend the way the provincial guideline governing rent increases is calculated.

So if the government can use specific or omnibus legislation to fix errors and resolve ambiguities, why isn't it done more often to fix up some of the known ambiguity and provide clarity on issues while you are passing other amendments into law? This should be done to address issues such as:

How long can a tenant go back with an application to collect unpaid interest (Dollimore v. The Azuria Group)?;
How are rent deposits calculated?;
At a hearing on a tenant's void motion (after sheriff), must the tenant have paid everything owed to the date he filed the motion, or the amount owed to the date of the hearing, which is usually in the next month;
How does a landlord stay "safe" when entering a unit with notice, in light of the Wrona v. TCHC decision?;
How do the voiding provisions of an N5 conduct notice work in terms of voiding, when you have breaches of commission, and breaches of omission, both of which require different techniques?;
Clarifying whether lease-breaking parties or tactics are an effective, legal way to get out of lease term and avoid having to give proper notice;
Clarifying how the "new rentals" (condominiums) can exist within a statutory framework that doesn't anticipate their unique distinctions;
Clarifying whether or not a tenant is entitled to an opportunity to fix something they have damaged before being served with an N5 notice rather than have the landlord fix it to its standards and with its expertise;
And finally, the most serious unexamined flaw lurking in the Residential Tenancies Act needs to be fixed. There needs to be clarification on what is the effect going forward of a defective rent increase notice after one year has passed. Here's the text of s.136.

Rent/Increase deemed lawful
136 (1) Rent charged one or more years earlier shall be deemed to be lawful rent unless an application has been made within one year after the date that amount was first charged and the lawfulness of the rent charged is in issue in the application. 2006, c. 17, s. 136 (1).

(2) An increase in rent shall be deemed to be lawful unless an application has been made within one year after the date the increase was first charged and the lawfulness of the rent increase is in issue in the application. 2006, c. 17, s. 136 (2).

This section was rendered meaningless by a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2007 called Price and Turnbull's Grove. This obviated any protections that were intended to be afforded a landlord who might have forgotten to raise the rent with an N1 notice, or perhaps an investor who bought a property where the previous landlord didn't give proper notices. This section had provided them with a limitation period, an amnesty for past sins. My understanding from speaking with my elders in the industry was that the real estate bar had argued for and received that concession to protect clients buying rental properties.

I had a meeting with Donna Cansfield, the then Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Housing, about two years ago. She assured me that her government wished to deal with landlords and tenants evenhandedly. I spoke with her about the injustice of s.136 in light of the Price decision. I described the situation, and she agreed it was unfair and that she would look into it with Ministry staff. Of course I never heard from her again.

It seems that a law firm, Iler Campbell in Toronto, has made the effort to have the government take another look. I've attached a link to a paper recently submitted to the new Minister, Kathleen Wynne written by this respected firm.

Submission on s.136 of RTA

I pray it gets the attention it deserves. If you read the submission, you will see that landlords, primarily small, unsophisticated landlords, are at terrible risk because of the Court's wrong (in my opinion) decision. This Minister can change it with a stroke of the pen by adding the three words "Despite s.116(4)" to section 136. Would it be so hard?

LTB Process Provides Most Unfair Outcome for Unsophisticated Small Landlords

2012-01-05T12:36:00.001-05:00

I was at a hearing this morning in Newmarket acting for a landlord, where the tenant had, in November of 2011, breached the terms of a mediated agreement made at the Board in October. At the hearing date back on October 11th, the tenant had owed four months rent, $5,370, but the parties agreed to a payment plan accomplished through LTB mediation with the option of a s.78 re-application, normally an ex parte process, should the tenant fail to comply with the terms of the repayment agreement.

By mid-November, the tenant had failed to pay the mid-month arrears payment of $1,458. So the landlord filed an L4 re-application, which is supposed to have the Board issue an eviction order without a hearing, and without notice to the tenant. That's why landlords are willing to mediate...because they feel that any deals they make in mediation will have the force of law, and that on a breach, the Board will take swift action upon the landlord advising them of the breach.

In this case, the duty adjudicator decided to send the matter to a hearing which to be fair, is their right. This will often happen on an "ex parte" L4 application if there is an error or some confusion in the L4 that requires clarification. This small landlord was furious to find that after the November 15th breach, and November 17th application, that a hearing was to be held on January 5, almost 6 weeks after they filed. They had a mortgage to pay, and rent wasn't getting paid.

So they waited for the hearing. December came and went. No payment, either of the arrears or new rent. January came and went. No payment, either of the arrears or new rent.

So as not to get deeper into the hole, the small landlord retained me, but not before writing the Vice Chair expressing their bewilderment and their belief that the process was unfair. They also indicated to the Vice Chair that the mediator had never advised them of the risks of delay or set aside during the mediation session. They claim that they were told that if the tenant breached, they would get an eviction order. The Vice Chair was sympathetic, but quite rightly said that he could not interfere with a matter that was under adjudication.

So the hearing was held this morning. Remember the tenant owed $5,370 at the original hearing? Well today, they owe $7,370, a full $2,000 more. All because the duty adjudicator sent the matter to a hearing rather than issue the order on an ex parte basis.

At the hearing this morning, I asked the Member (not the same one who had sent the matter to hearing) if he could tell from the file notes why the Member had not simply issued the order. He replied as best he could, that the notes in the file indicated that the original Member making the decision was confused about the details.

Now I spent three years at the LTB as a Member reviewing L4 applications and signing them if they looked OK to me. I've spent another 8 years drafting L4s when my client report a breach of a condition. And I swear to you readers that the L4 was perfect. The Member this morning didn't see any issues with it either, and he issued the order that will arrive next week. Eviction by the Sheriff is certainly at least another month away.

So my client has their eviction order, and an additional $2,000 in unrecoverable debt. How is that fair, consider that the Residential Tenancies Act says the Board has an obligation to resolve matters expeditiously?

As I tell all my small landlord clients after I get them out of trouble, "Get out of the business. It's too onerous and unfair to landlords in Ontario". But this all-too-common story today raises three questions that should be put to the Board.

Why, if the duty adjudicator has a simple question, could staff not be instructed to call the applicant for clarification?
Why, if the L4 is being sent to a hearing rather than an ex parte order being issued, are these hearings based on a breach not given scheduling priority?
Why, on the boilerplate of the mediated agreement, does it not include a paragraph after the s.78 verbiage regarding breaches, advise the landlord that the matter might go to a hearing, but even if it doesn't, the tenant has a right to file a set aside motion resulting in a hearing down the road?

Could it be that the Board is anxious to get matters off the hearing docket even if it means giving less than perfect information to the landlord?

Liberals Start New Legislative Session by Dumping on Residential Landlords Again

2011-12-06T15:27:00.014-05:00

In the summer of 2011 Minister Bartolucci reacted in mock horror to the announcement of the 3.1% provincial rent increasefor 2012, saying his government would re-vamp the system if the Liberals were re-elected. And so they have! Today a Bill was introduced at Queen's Park which will cap the guideline at a maximum of 2.5%, and will create a floor of 1%.

I'm confused by this comment at the Ministry web site when speaking about the Bill:

Tenants wouldbenefit from greater certainty that would ensure affordable and stable rents sothey have safe and affordable housing. For landlords, this would ensure a fairreturn so they can properly maintain rental properties.

So if inflation is set at 7%, and the guideline is capped out at 2.5%, that would ensure a fair return to the landlord? How does that math work? The methodology will remain the same; Minister Wynne said today that using the CPI is fair and transparent. So it seems that the government believes that the mathematical calculation is fair....that is until the resultant increase would be greater than 2.5%. How then does the landlord "properly maintain their rental housing".

But let’s look at the facts around the 2012 guideline that was set at 3.1%. Prior to theLiberals enacting the Residential Tenancies Act in 2007, the annualguideline was based on a 3 year rolling average of eight building operatingcosts. This blending of 3 years was used to smooth out the bumps of anyone given year that may have been atypical. It was Minister Bartolucci’sgovernment that changed it to the current system which looks at only the mostrecent year of the Ontario Consumer Price Index.

The rentguideline years of 2011 and 2012 were an aberration, and must be looked attogether and in context. This larger-than-normal increase for the 2012 calendar year exists because of the effect of the HST which came into force July 1^st, 2010, affecting the “sample year” that was used to determine the 2012 guideline. Landlords collect no HST on residential rents, and therefore there are no input tax credits available to them. Nor can they pass on their cost of HST, as the rents they charge are strictly controlled. Every cent of HST landlords paid was an added cost to them. So adding thenatural true inflationary forces with the new HST, you have a 3.1% increase for2012, which I concede is more than 4 times greater than the .7% allowed for2011.

But let’s goback and average the aberrations of 2011 and 2012, using a methodology closerto that used pre-Residential Tenancies Act. Adding the 2011and 2012 allowable percentages, we come up with 3.8% over two years, or 1.9%annualized. If you look back all the way to 1990, there have only been 3years that were less than the 1.9% (1.5% in 2005, 1.4% in 2008 and 1.8% in2009). Interestingly the last two were under the current Liberalgovernment. So how is 1.9% averaged over two years unfair to tenants anda windfall to landlords?

The Liberals were happy to take credit when theincrease was .7%, pandering to their core constituency. But they areaghast when the low number from 2011 caught up with them in 2012. Theywant to take credit when their formula produces numbers that look good on them,but disavow the formula when it produces a result fair to everyone. Typical of the left, always picking winners and losers instead of allowing anysort of market forces to prevail.

Auditor General Slams Legal Aid Ontario. Lots of $$$ Wasted in Landlord & Tenant.

2011-12-05T19:27:00.003-05:00

I was not surpised to see Auditor general Jim McCarter report on the way LegalAid Ontario handles it’s money. As aparalegal working primarily in the area of landlord and tenant law, I routinelysee 3 staff lawyers paid for by LAO through the Advocacy Centre For Tenants,Ontario, giving assistance to tenants who can’t or won't pay rent. And these are NOT the destitute ormarginalized, they are every tenant who arrives for a hearing and signs up fortenant duty counsel. Parties aresupposed to come prepared to proceed, but instead the tenant duty counsel programoperates as an adjournment generator slowing down the Landlord and TenantBoard. It seems that the most frequent advice given to tenants entering the LAO office is how to get an adjournment which ratchets up the arrears owed and delays the time to eviction.

I have acted for landlords on a number of files over theyears where the legal clinic system, also LAO funded, has taken on the mostflawed and hopeless cases, some of which have gone on for over a year with overten appearance, only to have the Landlord and Tenant Board rule against thetenant. There appears to be no oversightas to which cases have a reasonable expectation of success, a criteria that shouldbe a part of the publicly funded system. Many of my clients are non-profit landlords, and frankly they are oftenbeaten down by the legal costs while the other side uses the machinery ofgovernment to overwhelm.

It’s one thing to have criminal duty counselwhen incarceration or a criminal record might be the outcome. But to spend millions annually to provide supportfor tenants who don’t pay their rent is unnecessary and wasteful. There are lots of ways to trim down our deficitforecast for $16 billion, but the government doesn’t seem interested in making thehard decisions.

On the landlord side, there is but one clinic funded to help small landlords with summary legal advice. They have no funding for test case litigation, no lawyers on staff and no legal workers to give advice at the LTB. I think the government needs to look at whether tenant duty counsel is a necessity in these times of huge deficits, when the legal clinics are available to tenants for advice prior to the hearings, and when tenants who qualify can get a private bar lawyer on a legal aid certificate.

So Much Delay at LTB....So Many Frivolous Tenant Applications

2011-11-16T19:27:00.007-05:00

The Landlord and Tenant Board is experiencing unprecedented backlogs. They are currently experimenting with a system to deal both with the time to get rent matters to hearing, and the difficulty in hearing the more complex conduct applications and tenant claims in a timely fashion. The motivation for the program is sincere, but they are under-resourced.

Many of the adjudicative appointments are expiring, one Scarborough Member had his appointment expire this week along with two from the Hamilton region and one from Lively. And so far, new Members are not being added. Between November 15th and December 31st, there are 10 Members up for renewal or replacement, with no resolution in sight. For you insiders, here's the current list:

http://www.pas.gov.on.ca/scripts/en/BoardDetails.asp?boardID=121296

The Board's experiment in scheduling started in earnest this week. I've heard nothing but bad comments about long lineups, delays and nightmarish crowds on the Board's new "Arrears Only" days.

What's also pushed the numbers up is the large volume of complex applications, both conduct claims by landlords and applications by tenants seeking compensation and other remedies.

The problem is in part legislative, as the law has changed radically since 1998 when the Tenant Protection Act came into force. Liberal initiatives such as the dreaded and draconian section 82, along with the elimination of default judgments have been two big contributors. But so are decisions from the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal that have added nuances to the law making it more complex to interpret, and difficult to comply with. Add to this the Liberal's 2009 Ontario Human Rights Code Policy Guideline for Rental Housing and the Human Rights Code. This new set of rules has made eviction based on conduct twice as complicated, half as likely to succeed and hearings far more lengthy than they were prior to those changes. Here's the 110 page tome, a remarkable piece of social engineering that should have landlords running to sell their properties:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/housing/en/resources/Policies/housing

Another factor causing high volume and hence delays is costs...or rather lack of proper cost Rules and the application of the Rules. The Ontario Small Claims Court now has sensible rules about costs, and it makes a person think twice about filing a frivolous claim. The loser pays. But at the LTB, the Rules ensure that costs are rarely assessed, and the practice on costs means that they are almost never assessed against tenants even when costs seem entirely appropriate.

My own belief is that one of the single biggest factors creating delay is the number of frivolous and vexatious tenant applications filed by tenants looking for a windfall. For all those who tell you "it's not about the money", I can tell you that it's ALWAYS about the money. So why are there so many applications filed? Well why not?

What's the difference between a tenant filing an application at the LTB and that same tenant betting on a horse race? To win at the horses, they would have to risk some money. At the LTB, tenants can make claims about enjoyment, harassment, illegal entry etc. for no fee and ask for up to $25,000. So what's the downside? Why not go for it! Well they do, and in large numbers. Besides, filing a meritless tenant claim can prevent eviction, or delay eviction the many months it takes to dispose of the tenant application.

Just yesterday I was at the LTB for the 3rd time with a tenant who was seeking $55,000 in compensation over three different applications against my client, a social housing landlord. The claims are completely without merit, but it will likely take about 7 full hearing blocks to hear all three applications. What did it cost him to file. Nothing!

Today I received a hearing order from the LTB on a tenant application filed against another client claiming maintenance and harassment issues. There were 5 different hearing dates in all, 4 of them full "special" blocks running from October 2010 until the conclusion in October 2011. Today's order dismissed all the tenant's claims in their entirety. I was thrilled.

Now this was a special case. This tenant was a serial litigant. In the Ontario Courts one can be found by a judge to be a vexatious litigant. Certain sanctions flow from that finding. While that remedy is not available to a Member of the Landlord and Tenant Board, certainly assessing costs can do the trick, both party-party costs, and costs levied by the Board against the offending party.

If there was ever a case for costs, this was it. The tenant was savvy. He had been to the Board and its predecessor organizations many times with this same landlord. He was making groundless claims as far back as the days of the Residential Rent Review Board under the RRRA. In two different hearings over the decades, Members found he had acted badly. In 2003 a Member (by the name of Harry Fine) found that Mr. C. had given false and misleading evidence about a rent receipt. In 1995 another Member found he was acting unreasonably, still another that his behaviour was frivolous and vexatious. At a recent hearing for an above guideline rent application, Mr. C. was the only tenant who sought to overturn the decision, and was the only tenant not to enter into a consent with the landlord. Of course his review was dismissed.

His first words of greeting to the new superintendent when she started in the building a few years ago were "I'm Bud C. I sue this landlord".

But back to 2010. In this present-day application, all his claims were about things of which the landlord had no knowledge. His allegations went back 4 years filled with lies about the landlord knowing of these issues and doing nothing. In reality, once the tenant filed his T2 and T6 applications, any legitimate issues were corrected immediately. But it's all about money, so the tenant went to the Board seeking thousands in compensation. On the first date, October 18th, 2010, the tenant did not come prepared, and asked for an adjournment on his own application. The adjournment was granted.

At later hearings, he admitted that he never put any maintenance complaints in writing, says they were all verbal requests, and claimed that a previous adjudicator at the Board had told him he didn't have to put work order requests in writing. So on the final hearing day in October of 2011, I asked the Member to dismiss the application and consider costs in light of the Board's own Rules and Guidelines on costs. I reviewed the Rules and Guidelines with her, and reviewed the tenant's behaviour that I thought should attract cost consequences. I suggested she look at LTB costs as well as costs in favour of my client.

So the order arrived today in the mail, and yes, I was pleased to see that the Member got it right and dismissed his application in its entirety. But on the issue of costs, she says:

"I do not think that Board costs are appropriate because there is insufficient evidence before me that the tenant's conduct was improper or unreasonable in these proceedings".

I'm not sure what would have convinced this Member to award costs. This was a case that screamed out for them. It cost my client about $3,000 in legal fees, and took up five mornings of staff time plus preparation. I would have been just as happy if the Member had awarded costs to the Board and not to my client. I just wanted Mr. C. to know that he can't waste the Board's time and my client's time with impunity, and do it again and again.

So while Mr. C. got nothing this time, there is probably already another T6/T2 combination filed as he spins the wheel or rolls the dice without having to pay for the privilege.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished at the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board

2011-10-20T18:33:00.005-04:00

Remarkable case today at the Board. Shows how perverse the whole system is. Shows how poorly the LTB operates in its tenant-centred focus.

I attended at the Board with a landlord in March of 2011 with a tenant who had mental illness. It was a social housing landlord with an eviction application. The tenant had trashed the rental unit, causing $30,000 worth of damage. The tenant had caused a small fire, and when the fire department arrived, she was found to have disconnected the smoke detector. Her room was cluttered to the extent that the fire department got involved. Remember 200 Wellesley?

So we took the tenant to the Landlord and Tenant Board after giving her the appropriate notices for her illegal act and impairment of safety. But this is a good, compassionate social housing landlord, and instead of going into the hearing room seeking eviction, we went to mediation. In mediation, the landlord agreed to give her a new, refurbished unit, waive the damage claim and assist her with reducing her possessions and moving them across the hall. We signed the mediated agreement, but with a carefully worded provision included whereby both parties acknowledged that the tenancy was not ending with a new one being created, but instead all rights and obligations were being transferred with the tenant to the new unit, with all security of tenure, history and rental provisions intact. We did this of course in case we had to file an L4 re-application if the tenant breached the conditions. The conditions of the agreement were basically that the tenant would not bring the new unit out of conformance with the Fire Code, not tamper with smoke detectors, and allow frequent inspections. I might add that this agreement was made using LTB mediation. Section 194(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act says that:

194. (1) The Board may attempt to mediate a settlement of any matter that is the subject of an application or agreed upon by the parties if the parties consent to the mediation. 2006, c. 17, s. 194 (1).

Settlement may override Act

(2) Despite subsection 3 (1) and subject to subsection (3), a settlement mediated under this section may contain provisions that contravene any provision under this Act. 2006, c. 17, s. 194 (2).

So in September of 2011, the tenant breaches the agreement by disconnecting the smoke detector. The landlord instructs me to file an L4 re-application under s.78 of the Residential Tenancies Act, the section of the Act that allows such things on a breach of an agreement or consent order. This is normally an ex parte application, that is, without a hearing and without notice to the tenant. But as often happens with conduct breaches, an adjudicator made the administrative decision to send it to a hearing. Just to be safe. Or was that the reason?

Today was the hearing. I could have fallen off my chair when the Member suggested that the reason she sent the matter to a hearing was that she had no jurisdiction to consider the L4 application since it was not the same tenancy, but a new tenancy. I read the iron-clad wording of the mediated agreement into the record, pointed out s.194 of the statute, even led the tenant through examination where she and her counsel admitted that at the time of signing the agreement in March, she considered the tenancy to be remaining intact. I suggested to the Member that there was not much point in s.194 of the statute allowing contracting out of the statutory provisions, if the Board later turns around and says "You Must Comply with the Rules". Besides, there is no reference in the Residential Tenancies Act to a tenancy being tied to a unit, nor one that says a tenancy must re-boot if moved in these circumstances, nor is there any case law that's on point. And moreover, it was the right thing to do.

What was the alternative back in March with the original unit trashed and uninhabitable? Should the landlord have locked the door and declared the tenancy frustrated? Should they have gone to the LTB on an expedited basis and attempted to evict the tenant in front of an adjudicator. Well in this case, the landlord understood its obligation under the Human Rights Code, and took these extraordinary accommodation measures to try and keep this tenant housed.

So what's the fallout. If the final decision, (which has not yet been made) is that the LTB has no jurisdiction, then my client has to start fresh. We can't rely on the behaviour in the original unit, and would have to serve new notices of termination based on new conduct in the replacement unit. I can assure you that's what the client will do if the decision is that the Board won't respect the parties wishes in mediation that the tenancy be transferred intact to another unit. And you can bet that when we come back to the Board and the Member asks if the parties are interested in mediation, that we will refuse the suggestion.

Board Delays Put Safety At Risk - Is This Fair & Balanced Mr. McGuinty?

2011-08-18T15:14:00.004-04:00

Another day at the LTB. The Residential Tenancies Act says that proceedings are supposed to move along at a good clip:

Expeditious procedures

183. The Board shall adopt the most expeditious method of determining the questions arising in a proceeding that affords to all persons directly affected by the proceeding an adequate opportunity to know the issues and be heard on the matter. 2006, c. 17, s. 183.

So today I have a landlord application to evict a tenant, a man who has violent tendencies, who bullies tenants into submission, and who was charged with assault of the superintendent. Including the victim, there were 4 eye-witnesses to the assault at the hearing, one of those being a security guard. Security flagged down an officer on the street the day of the assault, and they arrested the tenant. Charges are still pending before the criminal courts.

We served the N6 and N7 notice of termination at the beginning of July. We filed on July 12th. The tenant has had over a month to find a lawyer, yet he comes in today playing the lawyer card, fired his first one he admits, the second isn't yet actually retained, yet he feels he has an absolute right to counsel. So did the Member I guess.

So the matter was adjourned to a date over a month from now. The Board and the Minister will tell you they have an expedited process for impaired safety, but it's a lie, a complete falsehood. In practice, they don't give a damn about the safety of good tenants in buildings.

I wanted the security guard to testify today (related to the adjournment request by the tenant) that when the officers arrested the tenant, they confided to security that they know this guy, and that even they don't want to deal with him. We brought documents to the hearing from an online message board where this tenant, a survivalist, talks repeatedly about owning guns and ammunition. His political views on his Facebook page reads:

Listen, and understand. The Liberal is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse - only fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until your guns are gone.

His favourite quote shown on his Facebook page is:

"HONOR AND COURAGE
ENFORCED BY
SKILL AND COLD STEEL"

But the Member wasn't interested in hearing any of it. Does nobody remember Columbine or what happened in Norway just last month. I've already had one property-manager client stabbed, I wrote about her tragic death in an earlier post on this blog. We don't need another. The provincial courts are partly to blame as well. When someone allegedly assaults a person, tenant or staff in a building, the bail conditions should always include a prohibition from living in the building until such time as the matter is resolved. It happens sometimes. Most times not.

The LTB isn't just a little broken in need of fixing. It's dead at the side of the road. I hope a new government puts it out of its misery.

LTB Member Makes Thoughtful Decision on Condominium Eviction Case

2011-08-16T20:49:00.003-04:00

I never mention LTB adjudicators by name here, partly because I am often critical on these pages, and I have concerns about my obligations to the Law Society. I sometimes come close to the line, but I try not to go over it.

But I wanted to mention a decision I got today, and I want to mention the Member as I feel she is one of the brightest at the LTB and she takes the time to consider matters carefully and then writes good, solid reasoned orders.

The case was an eviction application, LTB file No. TSL-14775-11. The Member was Ruth Carey at the Toronto South District Office. You can look up the order online eventually once it is posted at Canlii. The tenant who was being evicted lived in a condo. The person below him who he interfered with via pet noise was not a tenant, but a unit owner. An N5 notice was served, and an application filed.

The hearing took place last week. The Residential Tenancies Act does not play well with condos. I've long been a critic of the shortcomings of the statute in that respect, and recall attending a hearing before the standing committee on general government when the Residential Tenancies Act was being debated. A deputant was setting out the issues wherein the proposed legislation did not deal with the new reality of condos being the new rentals.

I had some concerns about this eviction application, not because of the facts or the legal issues, but because section 64 of the Act refers to enjoyment of other tenants, not unit owners. The person in unit below the tenant who was being evicted was a unit owner, and arguably any interference with his enjoyment would not give rise to a cause of action under the Residential Tenancies Act. Now there were other opportunities for eviction, as we were also claiming that the tenant in #712 was substantially interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of the landlord and with the landlord's lawful right, interest and privilege.

The Member reserved on her decision, and then wrote the following in her order that I received today:

One of the issues that arises in this application is that s.64 of the Act does not contemplate a situation such as this one where the rental unit is located inside a condominium complex. Here, the complaining neighbours are owners of their suites and not tenants, but the Act only refers to disturbances to other tenants and to the landlord. It reads:

Termination for cause, reasonable enjoyment
64. (1) A landlord may give a tenant notice of termination of the tenancy if the conduct of the tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted in the residential complex by the tenant is such that it substantially interferes with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex for all usual purposes by the landlord or another tenant or substantially interferes with another lawful right, privilege or interest of the landlord or another tenant.

Although it is very clear from the definition of "tenant" in s.2 of the Act that condominium unit owners cannot be considered "tenants", it creates an absurdity to exclude them from consideration under s.64. I say this because it makes no sense whatsoever that a tenant can be evicted in an apartment tower if his neighbour is also a tenant, but cannot be evicted for the same disturbing behaviour if his neighbour owns his or her own apartment. As a result, I believe that the Act is unintentionally under-inclusive and "owner occupants of condominium units in the same residential complex" should be read into s.64 until the Legislature catches up with the changes that have been wrought in the lived reality created by the wide-spread development of condominium apartment buildings."

Bravo for the Member for recognizing that the law is always growing and changing, and that the definitions in s.2 of the Act are inclusive, but not exhaustive. I recall another order written by the same Member where she found that fees charged to a landlord for a pre-authorized debit that had insufficient funds could be considered NSF fees even though the Act deals only with NSF fees in respect of returned cheques.

The decision can and should be used in front of the Board in similar fact cases, but it might even prove useful where a tenant living in a condo is suing a landlord for maintenance where the alleged breach is of a common area or facility where the owner/landlord has no right to make repairs or changes. For instance, an entrance door, a swimming pool, the lobby area, a games room, the parking garage, a balcony, or even exhaust unit ducting are all elements in a condo that are part of the common area, not owned or controlled by the landlord. If a tenant makes a complaint, and the landlord brings it to the attention of the management company, I've always felt that the owner's obligation ends there, and that the management company should be named as a landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act for the purpose of that alleged breach.

Members at the LTB have a lot of discretion to do the right thing, make reasonable findings, and then give their reasons clearly. I've always found that Divisional Court is deferential to Members on their findings and interpretation of statute so long as the Member writes sound and clear reasons. Too many Members fear being out on a limb.

I recall when I was a Member at the LTB between 2001 and 2004. My mentor was a Vice Chair named Jeff Rogers, who I still remember fondly. He once said to me that you can't go wrong by doing the right thing, so long as you explain your position clearly. He told me not to be afraid to go out on a limb, but to be ready to support my position by reference to the law. Other Members would do well to follow Member Carey's lead.

Before Investing, Be Aware That The LTB May Deny You The Right To "EVER" Move In

2011-08-16T11:18:00.013-04:00

While lamenting about Ontario's over-bearing and over-reaching rental housing legislation, the first plank of Marx's communist manifesto comes to mind. It reads as follows:

Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

Without question most would agree that the real estate market drives the rental industry in Ontario. Low interest rates and values that climb annually without apparent logic make investing in a house or condo a no-brainer for those inclined to take on some risk. But going in, most investors think the risk is small or non-existent, and for many the fall-back is that they or a family member can move in when it suits them. After all....it's their property, right?

But how many potential investors would put their 10% down if they thought there was even a chance that they could not move back in, or sell the property without being hamstrung? I suspect it would knock at least 20% out of the game.

But they don't know the score getting into the game, and investors blindly buy condos or upgrade to a bigger house and hold onto their old property for a short time, tenanted, until the market improves. Some move in a basement tenant to help cover their costs while they continue to live in the house.

We have no absolute property rights in Canada. That should change. Rights of expropriation or eminent domain under limited circumstances for the public good, and with compensation still have a place, but denying an individual the use of their home when no expressway is coming through is plain wrong. Far too often I've seen the Landlord and Tenant Board strip away an owners right to re-occupy a premises, or rid themselves of a tenant who shares it with them.

Just this week I've spoken with the daughter of a sick, elderly woman who needs to bring in a full-time caregiver into her four bedroom house, where a male tenant actually shares the house in an upstairs bedroom with the mother down the hall. The elderly woman, with the support of her children, wants to stop renting, too much time and effort in her condition and at her age. Also the agencies that provide live-in caregivers won't provide a candidate for the job with the male tenant living on the same floor in one of the bedrooms. The LTB call centre advised her that because there are enough bedrooms for the landlord, the caregiver and tenant, that she can't evict the male tenant based on the caregiver moving in. It's not settled law that a landlord can evict because they just want to stop renting. Sounds like Hotel California!

A couple of years ago there was a young man and his fiancée wanting to move into one of the units of a Toronto 4-plex that they owned. At the LTB, the Member found that the landlord had given good-faith termination notice, but denied termination of the tenancy (not delayed, denied) based on the tenant's vision impairment. The case went to the Ontario Divisional Court on appeal. It's Caputo v. Newberg at Canlii.org. The court upheld the LTB's decision.

Just this week I spoke to a man who moved to New York for work purposes for a few years while renting out a condo near Toronto's waterfront. He is coming home and wants to move back in. The tenants were served an N12 but refused to move out. He has nowhere to live when he comes home.

Another woman I spoke to this week had the unmitigated nerve (note the tongue in cheek) to put her house on the market. But when difficulties selling the house and their family situation changing caused them to re-think the sale, they decided that their son would move in rather than buy his own place. The tenant has retained counsel (free, courtesy of your tax dollars) who will argue that the notice must have been in bad faith since the house was on the market for a time.

I had a client named Slapsys in 2008, 2009 and 2010. It took over two years for him to get his house back for the use of his growing family at a cost of about $25,000 in legal fees. I was successful at first instance at the LTB getting an eviction order, but before the sheriff came, a local legal clinic filed an appeal to Divisional Court. My client won there with costs against the tenant, but then the advocacy Centre for Tenants, Ontario took the file and brought the case to the Ontario court of Appeal. All on your dime. My client won there again. But at what cost? Check out Slapsys v. Abrahms at Canlii.org.

How many investor owners are aware that the Landlord and Tenant Board has no jurisdiction to evict a tenant if the landlord is in serious breach of an obligation under the statute or of any material covenant of the tenancy agreement? I can't count the number of tenants I've seen fabricate maintenance issues, tamper with electrical systems, disable furnaces etc. in order to avoid eviction.

And what about the naïve investor who buys a property through a single-shareholder corporation where the human and the corporation act in harmony as one? Years later the human landlord serves an N12 notice and attempts to move in, but he risks losing the right to live in the house, forever, because of the corporate ownership. It turns out that corporations don't need a place to live.

While it's the topic of other blog entries, I haven't even touched on how the Residential Tenancies Act makes private property owners surrogates of the government by forcing them to act as social workers and use the fruits of their own labour to deal with issues of mental illness in their tenant population. Isn't that the government's job, to be paid for by all taxpayers as part of general tax revenues?

That government money and legislation is used to deprive people of their own property is perverse. Why do we allow this here? And where is Tim Hudak and the Real estate industry?

Minister Bartollucci's Comments on Guideline are Intellectually Dishonest

2011-07-30T10:35:00.004-04:00

On FridayMinister Bartolucci reacted in mock horror to the 3.1% provincial rent increasefor 2012, saying he would re-vamp the system if the Liberals are elected. But let’s look at the facts.

Prior to theLiberals enacting the Residential Tenancies Act in 2007, the annualguideline was based on a 3 year rolling average of eight building operatingcosts. This blending of 3 years was used to smooth out the bumps of anyone given year that may have been atypical. It was Minister Bartolucci’sgovernment that changed it to the current system which looks at only the mostrecent year of the Ontario Consumer Price Index.

The rent control guideline for 2012 will be 3.1%

2011-07-29T12:02:00.000-04:00

The rent control guideline for 2012 will be 3.1%, up from the 2011 guideline of 0.7%. The 2012 guideline is calculated using CPI data from June 2010 to May 2011.

The rent guideline is based entirely on a pre-determined formula based on Ontario’s consumer price index. The guideline will also mean that there will be a change to the threshold for what qualifies for an extraordinary operating cost increase in 2012. According to the regulations, “an increase in the cost of municipal taxes and charges or utilities is extraordinary if it is greater than the guideline plus 50 percent of the guideline”. That means that the threshold for extraordinary operating costs will be 4.65% for 2012.

The interest rate on last month’s rent deposits also changes in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act which requires interest to be paid to the tenant annually at a rate equal to the guideline. The interest rate on last month’s rent (LMR) deposits for 2012 will be 3.1%.

The rent for a unit can be increased up to the guideline limit if at least 12 months have passed since a tenant first moved in, or if at least 12 months have passed since the last rent increase. A tenant must be given proper written notice of a rent increase at least 90 days before the rent increase takes effect. The written notice should be on the N1 Form, “Notice of Rent increase”, available from the Landlord Tenant Board website, www.ltb.gov.on.ca, under the section “Notices of Rent Increases”.

Important case from Ontario Court of Appeal on Rent Deposits

2011-07-18T22:20:00.002-04:00

I’ve just read a recent case, decided in July by the province’s highest court, theOntario Court of Appeal. The decision reversed (or at least modified) thereasoning in an earlier decision of the Ontario Divisional Court which alloweda landlord to retain a last month’s rent deposit when a tenant refused to movein. I would suggest you read the decision.

Musilla v. Avcan Management Inc., 2011 ONCA 502 (CanLII)

Inthis case, the tenant’s rental application was approved, and a lease wassigned. However six weeks before the commencement date, the tenantadvised the landlord they would not be moving in. The landlord, foolishlyin my opinion, stood firm and said that they were prepared to have the tenantmove in. The landlord would have been better off getting the tenant torescind the agreement in writing, and then trying to re-rent the unit.

ACTOdisagreed with the ruling at Divisional Court and filed an appeal on behalf ofthe tenant. The decision of the Court of Appeal overturned the earlierdecision of the LTB and the Divisional Court, based on the specific facts ofthe case. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Divisional Court in theory,in that a tenant does not have an automatic right to have the deposit refundedwhere the landlord has done everything required to give possession of the unitto the tenant, but the tenant unilaterally repudiates the agreement. However the Court of Appeal allowed the tenant’s appeal, and found that in thiscase, the landlord’s rental application was not clear about the disposition ofthe rent deposit if the tenant failed to move in, and also contained anillegal provision in stating that the deposit would be forfeited. Asa last month’s rent deposit can only be used as rent for the last month of thetenancy, the forfeiture of the deposit would be illegal. A rentdeposit can be applied….if it’s clear what it was meant to be, but it cannot beforfeited.

TheCourt of Appeal agreed that if an application for tenancy is worded properly,the landlord should be able to retain a last month’s rent deposit if the tenantthen fails to move in so long as they are not double-recovering. In otherwords, if the tenant gives the landlord lots of notice of their intention tonot move in despite the approved application, the landlord must attempt tore-rent and would return the deposit if and only if they were able to re-rentwithout loss of income.

I’ve have a good rental application form at my online form that some of my clients use. I’ve madesome changes to it in keeping with the decision. Use whatever applicationyou wish, but be careful about wording related to the rent deposit. I’veupdated the section on the deposit to make it clear that if the tenant fails tosign a lease once the application is approved, or if the tenant refuses to movein once the application has been approved, that the landlord can retain thedeposit and apply it as security against rent.. I’ve been careful to usewording to track the Court of Appeal decision so that the rent deposit can beretained as security against lost rent, even if the approved tenant does notsign a tenancy agreement.

It’simportant to remember that when one party to an agreement breaches a term orcondition, the other party has an obligation to mitigate, that is, to minimizetheir losses.

Fire Marshall's Report on 200 Wellesley Won't Solve the Problem

2011-07-06T21:38:00.005-04:00

I've been waiting for the Ontario Fire Marshall's reportand recommendations with anticipation. The fire at 200 Wellesley struck home for me as I have a large number ofsocial housing landlord clients where the incidence of compulsive hoarding ishigher than the norm.

Despite the report's suggestion that the problem can behandled through the Ontario Fire Code by the Fire department working withpublic health departments, it has been my experience that they generally take ahands-off approach.

In Ontario, the landlord is expected to be the first lineof defence. After all, they are requiredby law to make sure that rental units are fit for habitation and comply withstandards.

But landlords, from the TCHC's to the smallest mom andpop operation renting out a basement, are also required to accommodate anytenants engaged in behaviour that violates the law if that behaviour may becaused by the tenant's inclusion in any one of 14 Human Rights Code protectedgroups.

Accommodation efforts must be continued until thelandlord reaches the point of undue hardship, which is the point just shy ofinsolvency.

Ontario's system requiring landlords to fulfill theirresponsibility and keep their buildings free from hoarding is flawed for atleast three reasons.

First is the controversial Ontario Human RightsCommission which introduced a Policy guideline on the Code and Rental Housingin October of 2009. This guideline'sperverse content is closely followed by judges and adjudicators makes it almostimpossible for a landlord to evict those who exhibit hoarding behaviour, eventhose retaining competent legal help. Most hoarders suffer from OCD and are therefore entitled to de factoprotection under the Code. The Landlordand Tenant Board sets the bar very highin evicting tenants who may suffer from code related issues.

The second hurdle is the Landlord and Tenant Board andthe Residential Tenancies Act which itoversees. The Board over-applies theCode and holds landlords responsible for accommodating a tenant's code-relatedbehaviour even if they had no knowledge of the behaviour, the Code-relatedissue or if the tenant refuses to takepart in the accommodation process.

The time to evict in complex hoarding/Code cases isupwards of a year. That itself mitigatesagainst resolving the problem. There isno threat of quick sanctions to spur the tenant and their community or familysupports into action. It also providestime for the fire to start or infestation to spread.

The Residential Tenancies Act has a mechanism for tenancytermination notices. The statutoryframework is so complicated that no small landlords and most experiencedlandlords cannot comprehend or comply with the rules. Notices of termination are frequently foundto be defective by the Board resulting in applications being dismissed.

The most common, the N5 termination notice, is served toa tenant who has interfered with enjoyment or the landlord's lawfulrights. It is a voidable notice. It is remedial. If the tenant corrects the behaviour, thenotice is void. However the 7 dayvoiding provision is so complex that only a handful of people can articulateit. To prove at a hearing that thetenant did not correct the hoarding behaviour (cured the breach) is along-shot, particularly since hoarding behaviour is not like a noisecomplaint. Hoarding may be both a breachof omission and a breach of commission. Voiding behaviour differs for each type of breach. Don't even ask.

Most landlords don't want eviction, they want thedangerous conditions removed. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, the tenantis required to keep the unit in a state of reasonable cleanliness. That's all the landlord wants. The LTB Members have the power, at a hearing,to order the tenant to remediate the condition within a fixed period of time,failing which the landlord could file for a quick eviction. Instead the Board routinely dismissesapplications, allowing the problem to continue.

Finally the support tenants receive through LAO fundedcommunity legal clinics makes the unrepresented landlord easy prey. I've been on hoarding cases where dangerousconditions exist, where all my client wanted was to have the condition resolved,yet the tenant refuses reasonable fixes and time-frames and their counsel saysto me "If Ms. X would prefer to die in the unit, that should be herchoice". In short the legal systemin the L&T world is too adversarial and not geared to solving problems. No surprise there. The government should examine the mandate ofthe clinics in light of this health and safety crisis.

Perhaps the pending class-action lawsuit will help toshed some light on the plight of the landlord who is given the responsibilitywithout the tools or authority.

Mayor Ford's Solution to TCHC Housing Crisis May Need Some Work

2011-06-13T09:15:00.004-04:00

I've been reading about the Mayor's plan to raise $40 million in order to stem the city's budget crises projected to be about $700 million in this current fiscal year. He flip-flopped on the intended use of the funds, and now says that they money will go back into TCHC in the form of much needed capital repairs. But the sale of 900 scattered single family homes may not bethe Mayor's answer to the city's financial crisis as he had hoped.

Ninety percent of the 900 houses are rented withtenants. Under the Residential TenanciesAct these tenancies will survive any sale. That means once the houses are sold, the tenants can stay, subject to the purchaser deciding that they or a family member wish to move in.

So will a prospective purchaser take the enormousrisk that they will be able to evict the existing tenants once they become theowners? This will be a highly politically charged issue. The community legal clinics will be literally knocking down the doors of these houses to represent the tenants in order to save their tenancies and embarrass the Mayor.

Making it more difficult, the facts as reported suggest that many of the houses are ina state of disrepair. Pursuant to s. 83(3)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act,the Landlord and Tenant Board lacks the authority to evict tenants if thelandlord is in serious breach of its obligation to repair and maintain.

Making it riskier for buyers, the Landlord and TenantBoard routinely refuses to evict atenant based on a disability, despite the landlord's good-faith intention tomove in. This approach was upheld on appeal to Divisional Court in a case calledCaputo v. Newberg, 2009 CanLII 32908 (ON SCDC).

Perhaps the new owners will take a different path and attempt to evict so that they can dosubstantial repair or renovation and then move in. But s. 53 of the Residential TenanciesAct permits an evicted tenant the rightof return at the same rent once the work is completed.

And if TCHC was to commit to re-house these tenantselsewhere within their existing stock, they would find that a family of 5 won'tfit into a 2 bedroom apartment in a high-rise. That's why TCHC has scattered housing.

I can only see this happening the way the Mayor envisions it if the province steps in and legislates away the tenant's rights, which is certainly possible. Maybe the Mayor wants to run this by legal beforescheduling a vote in council.

LTB Makes Up The Law As They Go Along

2011-06-04T10:55:00.009-04:00

Couldn't resist posting this one after yesterday's action by the Landlord and Tenant Board making up Rules of service and imposing them on taxpayers without authority... without a live application to provide them with jurisdictional cover.

Friday afternoon I was sitting in a hearing room waiting my turn and a Member decided to create new law as he/she went along.A landlord had an old 2008 judgment from the Board for money. The former tenant had filed a review 3 years later after the fact, once she found out that there was a garnishment attached to her wages.

The former landlord and tenant spoke (I assume) and they agree it had been a mistake and at the hearing, they consent to the granting of the review and then the withdrawing of the original application that gave rise to the enforcement proceedings at Small Claims Court. So the parties read the consent to the Member who instead of accepting and endorsing the consent, added to it. The Member decided that he/she had the jurisdiction to order that "within 11 days, the landlord shall repay the former tenant all the funds that had been received through the Sheriff's office by way of the Small Claims garnishment proceeding".

The agent for the landlord was clearly shocked and balked. While the agent didn't use the "J" word specifically, I would ask what jurisdiction the LTB has to order a landlord to refund monies obtained through a legitimate (at the time of enforcement) Small Claims Court proceeding. The former tenant had options without this quasi-judicial activism. The former tenant could have gone to Small Claims with a motion for the repayment of the money based on the subsequent withdrawal of the landlord's underlying claim.

This Member is bright and experienced. He/she knew better, but did it anyway. At any Court or administrative tribunal, jurisdiction is everything, the sine qua non of any proceeding. Without jurisdiction, the Board is powerless to consider a claim or affect a remedy. But to that Member on that day, it didn't seem to matter.

In my opinion, too many Members are acting as advocates at the LTB. This is unacceptable even when their efforts are designed to put things right as I suspect was the Member's motivation in this case. This rant is not about landlords or tenants. It's about fairness and respect for the law and the institutions that uphold it. There needs to be consistency and predictability in Courts and Tribunals. Divisional Court is getting fed up with LTB appeals which are also expensive for the parties.

LTB Makes Up The Rules As They Go Along In Preparation For A Postal Strike

2011-06-02T12:56:00.017-04:00

Interesting letter I got today, unsigned and un-named from the LTB accompanying a hearing order for a matter heard on May 31st.

In the letter, the unknown writer directs me to serve the hearing order to the tenant and to be prepared to provide a certificate of service to the Board if asked. I quote:

However, to ensure that the tenant(s) receives a copy of the order, the Board is also directing you to give a copy of the order to the tenant(s).

Amazing. It's not part of the order itself, it's in a letter enclosed and delivered to my office by courier with the order. By what authority does a clerk at the LTB "direct" me to do anything? The Board is "functus". Once the hearing order is issued, the order is final and the Board has absolutely no statutory authority.

If a review or re-opening or re-application was filed, their jurisdiction would return. But absent any of those events, this file is closed. Finished. Done. I agree that any employee of the LTB may be considered a statutory delegate, at times performing a function as a delegate for the Minister as set out by statute. But there is no such authority in statute for this "direction".

If an adjudicator had included this direction in the order, I might agree that it has weight and must be followed. The adjudicator is empowered by statute, including the Statutory Powers Procedure Act which allows the Board to make rules. The Board makes Rules, and they include Rules about service of documents, Rule #5.

The Residential Tenancies Act also speaks to service of applications, in s.188:

Service of application

188. (1) An applicant to the Board shall give the other parties to the application a copy of the application within the time set out in the Rules. 2006, c. 17, s. 188 (1).

In Rule #1.5 the Board has the power, at times, to waive a Rule. So theoretically, a Member could waive Rule #5 and "direct" a landlord to serve the hearing order to the tenant.

1.5 A Member may waive a Rule where appropriate, provided that the Rule does not have a non-waiver provision

However, nowhere in the Act or the Rules does it talk about a landlord serving an order. The Member can at times waive Rules. You can't make up new Rules without the Rules and Guidelines Committee doing so.

Perhaps the Board finds its authority within its general jurisdiction to make directions to parties, but Boards don't really have any such inherent authority. They do have s.23 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act:

Abuse of processes

23. (1) A tribunal may make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it as it considers proper to prevent abuse of its processes. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, s. 23 (1).

But that would be about matters in proceedings before it. This matter accompanying the anonymous letter is no longer before the Board. The Board is functus officio.

Just another example of the contemptuous manner in which the LTB and this government treats landlords. The landlord may live 100 miles from the tenant, but he's got to drive over and deliver the order. Oh, unless the tenant has a fax machine!

My advice to landlords is to comply regardless of how you feel. Otherwise, if the tenant claims he never got the order and didn't know the amount or the voiding date, you may be back before the LTB. Same with applications and notices of hearing. Make sure that they are personally served in accordance with the Board's Rules.

Mr. Hudak, Where Are Your Conservative Values?

2011-05-29T15:47:00.009-04:00

I used to be a partisan. I was a President of a riding association. A sought-after fundraiser.

Now I think all partisans are shallow and foolish. Familiarity breeds contempt, and when the 'party', (chose one), believes it has your vote by way of narrow ideological promises, they act contemptuously towards you.

Let's look at the PC platform as released to date. We have hot-button issues such as chain gangs and the tracking of pedophiles. Then we have false promises of a balanced budget arrived at only after the end of the mandate. Why is it always after the end of the mandate I wonder? We have tax cuts coupled with new spending (explain to me again how that works), along with another hot-button issue, union-bashing.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favour of union-bashing, I just don't like the party to assume that they have my vote because of ideological issues, most of which just marginally touch my life, many of which will face court challenges and then be found to be contrary to the Charter.

What I want is for Mr. Hudak to tell me how he will provide us affordable energy, build jobs and eliminate red tape that chokes business, and help local former grow affordable produce. I can't imagine being a business owner today with the OHSA, OHRC, PIPEDA, ESA, AODA etc. causing me nightmares with training, compliance and litigation costs without adding a cent to the bottom line. Let's say that one more time. All this government red tape is a drag on the economy that costs us dearly in terms of competitiveness.

Mr. Hudak has talked about OHIP card fraud. My goodness, the OW and ODSP fraud I see every day are horrendous, and nobody seems to care.

And in my world of residential landlords and tenants, where nobody wants to build new housing rental stock, nobody can afford to fix up their buildings, small "potential" secondary market landlords are scared out of their minds to get into the business. Show us some courage Mr. Hudak. You've shown us none to date.

For starters, make evictions of drug dealers in crack houses easier with SCAN legislation similar to Bill 106 that died in the current mandate. Make the requirements for notices for entry into the unit more flexible and practical. Allow damage deposits. Let landlords and potential tenants contract freely on issues such as pets in the unit. De-couple tenant claims (usually made at the last second to avoid eviction) from landlord's applications for rent. Bring back default judgments. Have the police enforce mischief and damage to property laws in a rental context by reference to the Criminal Code, rather than have them repeat the tired and lazy mantra "take it to the LTB". Get rent arrears applications to hearings quickly like it used to be, 2 weeks, and re-vamp the Sheriff enforcement process allowing private and competitive bailiffs to enforce LTB orders.

And finally, deal with the Human Rights Commission and Tribunal. Your recent speeches tell me that you've already broken your leadership promise on this issue. The perverse impact of the Commission's Recent Policy Guideline on the Human Rights Code and Rental Housing is the single most frightening and unfair of all the roadblocks put in the way of small landlords today.

Lucky for me, if Mr. Hudak doesn't examine these issues I will continue to wallow in the glut of clients in volumes I can't even begin to handle. Not so lucky for the small landlords (working families Mr. Hudak) who have nowhere to turn and feel like they are being treated like trash at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

What will it be Mr. Hudak? I'm staying home in October if you continue to run this classic front-runner campaign.

Naïve LTB Adjudicators Ask the Darndest (and Most Inappropriate) Questions

2011-05-15T13:20:00.001-04:00

People get used to doing what they've always done. After a while, they can't fathom doing that thing any other way. Judgesand adjudicators are no different, and perhaps are more susceptible to thecondition as they work in a vacuum without feedback or supervision.

Some members at the LTB are in a shocking state of repetitive conduct thatbelies any common sense. Two examples are striking and deserveconsideration by the Chair.

The Residential Tenancies Act requires that the Board consider all thecircumstances prior to ending a tenancy, and permits the Board Member to denyor delay termination of the tenancy after considering those circumstances, ifthey believe it is not unfair to do so. That's the law.

When the respondent tenant attends a hearing, the Members poll the tenant forany such circumstances. But Members at the LTB are in the terrible habitof asking landlords or landlords' agents whether they are aware of anycircumstances that would have them deny or delay termination. In my opinion,supported by some first-class legal minds who I've polled and who have studiedin the area of privilege and admissibility, the LTB Members have no businessasking the question. Well perhaps they do, but agents and counsel have nobusiness answering the question. This is so for two reasons.

First, it is never the job of an opposing representative to make the case forthe other side. Second, and more important, any such knowledge that theagent or counsel has that was provided to him by his client is privileged andcannot be revealed unless the client waives privilege. If I learned frommy client any circumstances that would stand in the way of eviction at theBoard, and I gratuitously offered those facts to the Board without my client's permission,and I knew that the revealing of those facts were adverse to my client'sinterests, I would be guilty of professional misconduct. It's true that Imay not mislead the Board, but that's different than offering up the case forthe other side.

It is generally assumed that in Ontario,privilege exists between licensed paralegals and their clients as it does betweenlawyers and their clients. This was found to be true in R. v. McClure,[2001] S.C.J. No. 13, 2001 SCC 14, albeit by a case management master, butI've never heard a dissenting opinion within the profession.

The second incredibly naïve question I'm hearing asked by Board members to atenant when the parties have agreed to terms and want them embodied in a Boardconsent order, is "Are you happy with the consent?"

What a crock of sh...allow thinking. When parties give informed consent,with or without counsel, and agree to be bound by the terms of the mediatedagreement or the consent order, they don't have to be happy, and they rarely are. Almost every consent is a compromise, agreed to for any number of reasons thatfrankly, are none of the Member's business unless there is reason to believethere was coercion, misrepresentation or there are capacity issues. Whenparties go into settlement talks, they bind up all their hopes and fears andfacts and legal advice into a settlement that they prefer to any other courseof action, usually going before a judge or adjudicator. They are not"happy" with the consent, and they should not be asked such aquestion. Often, the answer given by a party, usually a tenant, is "No,I'm not happy". Then the Member second-guesses the tenant’swillingness to enter into a consent, or sometimes refuses to endorse theconsent through a Board order. The only questions that should be asked area) whether they understand and agree with the consent, and b) whether they arecoming to the agreement without the force of coercion.

I don't know the solution to this pollyanish thinking, other than to suggestthat the LTB needs to train its Members in the true realities of theadversarial litigation process.

Where is Tim Hudak on Landlord Issues

2011-05-09T20:57:00.007-04:00

I'm not convinced that the business climate under theTim Hudak government will be any different for landlords than it is under theprovincial Liberals.

Hudak lacks courage, but worse he also lacks faith in voters,even in his base, to stand up for a return to common sense ideas. His team sees any release of information asbeing too risky.

Harris took those risks, a year prior to theelection he released his platform. Rob Ford had the same courage of his convictions. Theyboth said what they would do if elected and once elected, they went about doingit.

Hudak is a mystery man, hoping to win in October not onhis policies, which we've not seen, but on the public's dislike ofMcGuinty. What if he's wrong?

Today, Hudak backtracked on his bold promise to dismantlethe Ontario Human Rights complaints system. He was willing to promise anythingduring the leadership to take support from Randy Hillier. But now as the election nears he isdistancing himself from his previously held position. I have a particularinterest in the Commission as it's policy guideline on the Code and rentalhousing is devastating for landlords, particularly small investor landlords.

My conservative friends think that I'm unfair and thatfrankly tell me I don't have anywhere else to place my vote. "So helied", they say. "He's a politician." That's not good enough for me. I'm tired ofbeing lied to by any politician regardless of ideology.

If you're a landlord looking for commitments from thePC's if elected government, start lobbying your local PC member or candidatenow, and let them know that they can't take the business community for granted.If they won't give you answers, then tell them you'll just stay home onOctober 6th. I know I will.

If You Need a Lawyer for Divisional Court Appeals, Doug Levitt is my First Choice

2011-05-04T14:14:00.009-04:00

There are a lot of tenant appeals to Divisional Court. And just maybe, Divisional Court is getting tired of all the frivolous appeals lacking merit, brought only for delay. I get a lot of calls asking about representation for appeals of Landlord and Tenant Board decisions. But first there is an internal review process at the Landlord and Tenant Board, and certainly I or any other competent paralegal can file a review at the Board. The cost is just $50, and it's a fairly quick process.

However more often than not, original decisions at the Board are upheld on review, and landlords (or tenants) want to bring the case to the Ontario Divisional Court. This is a mid-level appellate court to which all Landlord and Tenant Board appeals go if there is a claim of an error in law. Of course from there, some cases go to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Paralegals in Ontario are not permitted to do appeals work either of decisions of agencies, boards or commissions, or of the Small Claims Court. So when I have a client needing a solicitor in Ontario to bring or defend an appeal, I am careful to chose someone who I know understands not just appeals process and rules of procedure, but also knows the Residential Tenancies Act. and is familiar with all the case law.

I've referred about a dozen appeals to a local lawyer named Doug Levitt from the firm Horlick, Levitt and Di Lella. Doug does a bit of trial work at the Landlord and Tenant Board, but mostly he does commercial litigation, debt recovery, real estate, condominium work etc. But he excels at the appellate work, and every case I've given him has had a positive result.

Just last week, Doug had a great win for his client in Whittaker v. Elsbury, [2011] Divisional Court File No. DC-11-003-00. The tenant filed an appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision, but as is often the case, it was just about delay. The tenant then failed to provide a transcript or "perfect his appeal" which he was required to do within 60 days of filing. He sought another delay. Doug filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and for costs, arguing that there were no live legal issues in support of the appeal and that the issues pleaded on appeal had been dealt with at the Board. The Court agreed, dismissed the appeal and lifted the stay. However they also did something rare in that they ordered costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the tenant, fixed in the amount of $5,000. Doug argued before the Court, in essence arguing for all landlords, that frivolous appeals and delay ought not to be tolerated and that the Court ought to set an example. Well they certainly did.

In one case, Doug took a file of mine to Divisional Court, won at Divisional Court, and then the legal clinic acting for the tenant sought leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Leave was granted, and Doug did a superb job, having the highest court in the province uphold the original decision.

Doug has become a personal friend over time, and I trust him implicitly. I wouldn't refer my clients to counsel who I didn't have the utmost faith in. I hope you don't ever need him, but if you do, his number is (416) 512-7440 x25 or you can find him at: http://www.hldlawyers.com/.

Public Input Ends re: Strong Communities Through Affordable Housing Act

2011-04-01T11:40:00.005-04:00

Yesterday was the final date for submissions on Bill 140, the Strong Communities Through Affordable Housing Act. This Act will amend several acts such as the Planning act, and replace the Social Housing Reform Act with the new Housing Services Act. Acts affected include:

City of Toronto Act, 2006
Municipal Act, 2001
Planning Act
Residential Tenancies Act, 2006
Social Housing Reform Act, 2000

When the Bill was first introduced it disappointed the social housing community as there was no money or new spaces for rent geared to income units. The Bill was introduced after a cross-province tour with stakeholder meetings conducted by the previous Minister Jim Watson. I attended one of the meetings and was optimistic at the time. Seeing the Bill, it is now my opinion that it was just a show, as nothing came of it. Here is a summary of high-level changes:

Bill 140 would,if passed, repeal the SocialHousing Reform Act, 2000 and enact the Housing Services Act, 2010. Thelegislation relates to the provision of housing and homelessness services underprovincial oversight. Among other measures, the proposed legislation:

· sets out defined matters of “provincial interest” relating to housingand homelessness services and provides for Ministerial policy statements onsuch matters;

· simplifying the rent-geared-to-income calculation process so that mosttenants would only declare their income once a year. This could allow them touse the extra money to improve their standard of living

· requires prescribed housing and homelessness plans to address thematters of provincial interest and be consistent with the Ministerial policystatements;

· provides for the designation of “service managers” (i.e. a municipalityor a district social services administration board) and their service areas andwill provide them with more autonomy than currently available under SHRA;

· sets out the general powers and duties of service managers, includingreporting to the Minister and public; and sets out the rules governing theoperation of defined “local housing corporations”

· defines and addresses the operation of both “rent-geared-to-incomeassistance” and “special needs housing”, including minimum prescribed servicelevels.

· amends the Planning Act to eliminate municipal prohibitions on secondfully-contained units within a home in an effort to increase housing stock

· simplifies administration and allows municipal partners to moreeffectively manage their services to meet the true needs of their communities

The Bill has now passed second reading and just finished debate and public deputations at standing committee. Two years after the cross-province meetings, it is now Minister Bartolucci who is in charge. A centerpiece of the new legislation is changes to the Planning Act to resolve the issue of second auxiliary suites in detached houses. Currently it's all over the map with most municipalities not allowing second suites. The changes to the Planning Act will take that power away from municipalities and require them to permit such living arrangements. The government is hoping that this will open up thousands of spaces in the private, secondary rental market where rents are $100-$200 per month cheaper than with institutional landlords.

Frankly, I think that concept has merit but is a farce without a lot of changes. No small landlord should consider getting into the business without changes to the legislation, primarily the Residential Tenancies Act, and the Human Rights Code that take some of the risk and down-side out of play.

Here is a link to an excellent submission provided to the committee by the Landlord's Self-Help Centre describing some of the factors that come into play, and some changes that would be helpful in order for small landlords to really get into the game.

Landlords' Self-Help Centre Submission on Bill 140

They have succinctly described the challenges for small landlords in being part of this new affordable housing scheme.

Ministry's Investigations & Enforcement Unit Useless for Landlords

2011-03-04T18:04:00.004-05:00

Many people are not even aware that there is a unit within the Ministry of Housing called the Investigations and Enforcement Unit. Their job is simply.....to investigate and enforce offences under the Residential Tenancies Act. Those include lockouts, the big one, as well as furnaces being turned off, tenants not allowing landlord's entry (the big one for landlords) and many more.

I’ve always been supportive of the Investigations and Enforcement Unit and sometimes even defensive of people’s criticisms as it relates to support for landlords. However an incident today changed my mind. I was shocked at the lack of response when I attempted to resolve the problem with intervention, a simple phone call, to avoid a much larger problem.

It concerned a file I'm handling for a client where we had already filed a complaint with the IEU a couple of weeks ago, and a file number had been assigned. I had already provided them with specific complaints about refused entry, and asked them that action be taken. A file was opened, but that's all that happened. Apparently the message did not get through to the tenant, whose sole purpose in life now seems to be to prevent entry so that the house will not be sold and so that she will not be evicted by the new purchaser who wants to move in with his family.

On Thursday my client served a notice of entry for entry by a home inspector. Her real estate deal is to close on March 8th, conditional upon the inspection. It’s amazing that anyone would buy this house after the abuse and comments by the tenant’s boyfriend, and the difficulty in getting entry. In any event, a deal was signed, conditional upon an inspection. The client was thrilled with the prospect of getting rid of these predators who had changed locks, refused entry, made threats, assaulted her 70 year old mother etc.

My client gave notice to the tenant yesterday at 4:50 pm, for entry today, Friday at 5 pm. I have coached my client to be careful and give proper entry, as we know the tenant is violent and obstructive, and that the rules are precise. At 5:20 yesterday, she received a phone call from the boyfriend claiming to have picture of her dropping off the notice at 5:08 and therefore insisting that entry will not be given on the Friday. Well of course this is crap and he's probably altered the time on the camera.

My client tried all day to call IEU to advise them of the issue. No response. So my client called me at about 3 pm today and I called IEU at about 3 pm to ask them for help. Specifically, I was asking them to make a simple phone call, an intervention, which they do all the time when a tenant says they are locked out, or that there is no heat etc. A simple phone call to warn the boyfriend that if he is found to be obstructing again, then charges could be laid against his girlfriend.

The person I spoke to was completely disinterested, said the guy hadn’t yet breached and that there was nothing he could do. I begged him to please, just make a call to ask the tenant to be careful, so that this real estate deal would not fall apart so that my client would not be further victimized. The guy on the other end of the phone said that this was not what they do. I tried to get him to actually confirm for me that when a tenant (or her the boyfriend) threatens not to let us in, when lawful notice is given, that it is not your policy to make a phone call to attempt to intervene before the breach occurs. He would not answer the question.

If this agency was not known for trying to intervene and resolve issues before provincial offence charges become necessary, then I would understand the reaction. But the agency is known for taking a proactive approach, but it appears it is only for tenants that they will be proactive.

Those who read this may or may not be aware that the Ontario Landlord Association met just two weeks ago with Ministry of Housing staff to speak with them about issues for small landlords. The IEU's ineffectiveness was on the top of their list. Until now, I have been supporting the IEU and making apologies for the Unit. However you can now count me as one on the other side.

Today's "Why Nobody Should Ever Become a Landlord in Ontario" Story

2011-03-04T17:11:00.007-05:00

The Court of Appeal decision of March 2nd upheld the 2010 trial court's decision that an exclusion in an insurance policy for a grow-up was valid, even though the landlord/owner had no knowledge of the grow-op. In Pietrangelo v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company, Valentino Pietrangelo and Antoinette Pietrangelo owned a rental property. The tenants of the property caused an explosion resulting in total destruction of the house. Following the explosion, the Pietrangelos filed a proof of loss claim under their home insurance. The insurer, Gore Mutual Insurance Company, denied the loss based on an exclusion clause in the policy that excluded coverage to properties directly or indirectly damaged while used in the processing or manufacture of marijuana. The Pietrangelos appealed the use of the exclusion clause, arguing, among other things, that the word "use" in the clause is ambiguous, and that it was an error to hold that the exclusion clause was intended to apply regardless of any knowledge or involvement of the insured.

At the original trial in June of 2009, the homeowners asserted that in every way they were innocent, diligent landlords, and that they could not have prevented Mr. Arquette from embarking upon his course of criminal conduct on that fateful day. The plaintiffs also claim that they were unaware of the Marijuana Exclusion the insurer relies upon, that Gore Mutual introduced it into a revised policy of insurance without giving them written or any notice of the new policy wording, and cannot therefore rely upon the Marijuana Exclusion clause as a basis for denying the claim. They also examined the interpretation of the word "used" in the insurance policy.

So landlords now have to worry about their own comprehensive insurance not covering a total loss caused by a tenant based on a grow-op. Maybe the landlord had done an annual unit inspection the month before, prior to the grow-op being established. What's a landlord to do?

And it's not only a denied insurance claim that can ruin a landlord's day. There was an interesting decision in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Nock, 2008 that dealt with an application by the Provincial Crown for a forfeiture of property under the Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act, 2001. The Province sought the forfeiture of a house because the property was supposedly acquired, at least in part, as a result of unlawful activity -- a marijuana grow operation. In that case the court took pity upon the owner, found he had acted reasonably diligently and did not seize the property.

But then there was Attorney General of Ontario and 170 Glenville Road, King, 2010. This was a similar case, this time in King, Ontario where property owner Wing Kwong Lee was faced with the Crown seizing his house and selling it off. In this case the Crown successfully argued that Mr. Lee was not a responsible owner and ought to have been aware of the grow-op. The Court issued an order seizing the property as having been used and been instrumental in the conducting of an unlawful activity.

So if this doesn't scare off a small investor, I don't know what will. Think about all the absentee investor/landlords who are put into real estate deals by their well-meaning Realtor, only to find out that their hard-earned equity had evaporated. Making matters worse, getting entry into a rental unit in Ontario is difficult. It's almost a joke how the government can insist that owners be proper landlords, responsible for illegal activity, bawdy houses, grow-ops, fire safety and the like, when the government through the Ministry of Housing won't make sensible rules for entry. In fact, take a look at the post above......

TCHC waste & abuse was unforgivable, but let's not lose sight of the real issues

2011-02-28T14:23:00.010-05:00

A scathingreport on TCHC spending practices was released moments ago, and with all the leaks, no surprises. Mostly expenses that private sector companieswould make without criticism, even publicly held companies. But this isToronto, the terminus for the gravy train. We should not confuse spendingon staff incentives, and waste, for the big issues and their causes.

TCHC is introuble as are many social housing providers due to senior levels of governmenthaving a half-hearted commitment to fund housing. When the provincegot out of the business and gave municipalities full responsibility, there wasno way that there would be sufficient funding to maintain and rehabilitateaging rental stock. Buildings age and deteriorate. DerekBallantyne, former CEO of TCHC made no secret of the fact that they had a $350million dollar infrastructure deficit. So with all the tenant complaintsabout maintenance, let’s remember that TCHC has no ability to print money tomake repairs. It plays the cards it is dealt.

Hoarding,fire risk and inability to treat for bedbugs are the un-holy trilogy that oftenresults when housing tenants with mental health issues. After the 200 Wellesleyfire, people asked why TCHC, or their 3rd party management Greenwin, didn’t take the problem seriously. But thosecritics haven’t tried to evict through the Landlord and Tenant Board with LAOfunded legal clinics fighting to retain the tenancy rather than work with thelandlord and tenant to eliminate the risks. When my clients have calledthe health or fire departments to assist, they are most often unwilling to getinvolved. For all the promise of Mike Colle’s bedbug summit, the provincehas not legislated anything helpful to resolve this.

Anotherlegitimate tenant concern is crime. Nightly news reveals that socialhousing buildings are ground zero for gangs, guns and drug related crime. Some residents feel that they are under siege. But is that the problem ofTCHC? Human Rights Code issues prevent serious scrutiny of tenantapplicants. The Streets to Homes program and provincial waiting listsover-ride normal prudent screening methods. Poverty, illness and crime gohand in hand, that’s not TCHC’s fault, yet they are charged with housing thepoor and mentally ill. Crime is sure to follow. Critics ask “whydoesn’t TCHC evict when tenants commit violent, illegal acts”. Goodquestion, but conduct evictions are extremely expensive, drawn-out and oftennot effective when brought to the Landlord and Tenant Board which is in itself,broken. I’ve acted for landlords on guns and gangs and even rape cases,and despite the overwhelming evidence, the legal aid system is right therelooking to save the tenancy at a Board that is receptive to doing so.

The onlysolution is involvement from the senior levels of governments. Over a 30year period they closed down mental health institutions to be replaced bycommunity living, but they don’t fund it appropriately. Then they gotout of the social housing business. And it’s the provincial Liberals thatamended Human Rights Code law and who authored the Residential Tenancies Act. Let’s not give the city blame and responsibility with no authority.

Check out our new Ontario Landlord Discussion Forum

2011-02-24T19:59:00.003-05:00

As of today, landlords can exchange info, get educated on the latest happenings and ask questions related to landlord and tenant law issues. Check us out at the link on our web site. It's at:

Landlord Solutions

I will try to answer questions as I'm able, but it's meant to be a place where landlords, particularly new landlords without experience, can find a mentor to help them out. I'll also be providing forms, free of charge, for landlords to use to manage their businesses.

FRPO Report Urges Modernization of Ontario's Flawed Rent Dispute Process

2011-02-23T21:00:00.011-05:00

Today FRPO, the Federation of Rental Property Owners of Ontario, announced a powerful initiative to point out the flaws in Ontario's broken rent arrears eviction system. FRPO will be presenting the report to the Ministry, but urges all landlords, large and small alike, to contact their MPP's and local media and distribute the materials.

I applaud FRPO on this well-researched report. Reading it, one wonders how we ever got to the ludicrous state we are in today with our manifestly unfair rental housing laws in Ontario.

I've attached a link to the one-page bulletin here:

FRPO Bulletin on the rent dispute and eviction process

and to the report itself, here.

FRPO report on the rent dispute and eviction process

Please download it, print it out, distribute it via email, on your forums, on your blogs, via Twitter. Contact your own MPP, and ask for a meeting. Provide a copy of the report to them prior to the meeting and tell them you would like to discuss the content. Demand change NOW!

Ontario Landlord Association another Internet One-Hit Wonder

2011-02-18T17:18:00.012-05:00

Today I was banned from the Ontario Landlord Association forum, my password deactivated. I feel honoured joining the many others who have commented on the disintegration of civility and honesty on that site, and been banned after being slandered.

Moments before being banned, one of the forum operator/moderators posted a claim that I am being paid by FRPO and the Landlord's Self-Help centre, and as such that was the reason why I was criticizing the OLA for being so critical of all the other good organizations doing landlord advocacy work. For the record, I have never received a penny from either organization. For some context, I should explain that since its inception, the OLA has been ruthlessly and unfairly critical of other organizations that have done yeoman's work in protecting Ontario's landlords. All this, while promoting themselves as being something they are not...players in the political world that influences landlord and tenant law in Ontario.

I can only think of one reason that the OLA would want to rip down FRPO and the LSHC....they want to destroy their credibility so that they increase their own memberships, telling lies like the one above in the process. Before the thread was truncated with a scalpel, they operators were making claims that they were the only group to have ever advocated to government on behalf of small landlords. Another pure fabrication. They were going to meet with the Minister, I was told by a senior member. Turns out they met with some staffers, no Minister, no Parliamentary Assistant, just the hired help and MPP Mike Colle who seems to be looking for profile as he gets set to meet the fight of his life, Rocco Rossi in the upcoming provincial election.

Between the Federation of Rental Property Owners of Ontario, and the Landlord's Self-Help Centre, along with other organizations such as the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, municipal landlord associations like the GTAA and LPMA, these are the people representing interests of landlords.

Serious issues need serious people. And the leaders of the OLA are not among them.

Well Reasoned LTB Bed Bug Decision

2011-02-15T10:46:00.014-05:00

Here’s adecision on a case of mine at the LTB, just released, that took a year toconclude. The legal clinic, Neighbourhood Community Legal took anunreasonable and defiant position considering the overwhelming evidence against the tenant. The matter was before the Board 5times in special hearing blocks. By the time the order was written by Member Pilon, 13 months after filing, 7 of 30 tenants had moved out of the building. It was anapplication by a landlord for eviction based on interference with enjoyment,with the landlord’s lawful right, interest and privilege, and for damage. I want to make it clear that it was not Member Pilon who caused any delay, but the Board's scheduling backlog.

My closing arguments to the Member included a respectful submission that the Board needsto develop an approach to these cases, and currently there is none...it’s all over themap. I suggested to the Member that assessing blame in bedbug cases isalmost impossible, but that in the midst of this public health crises, theBoard needs to send a message that they will evict if tenants don’t respondreasonably to efforts by the landlord to resolve the problem. I suggestedthat the Board needs to look at the interplay between sections 33, 34, 36 and 20 harmoniously anddetermine who has breached their obligations.

Under the Residential Tenancies Act the tenanthas section 33, 34 and 36 obligations.

Tenant’s responsibilityfor cleanliness

33. Thetenant is responsible for ordinary cleanliness of the rental unit, except tothe extent that the tenancy agreement requires the landlord to clean it. 2006,c. 17, s. 33.

Tenant’s responsibilityfor repair of damage

34. Thetenant is responsible for the repair of undue damage to the rental unit orresidential complex caused by the wilful or negligent conduct of the tenant,another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted in the residentialcomplex by the tenant. 2006, c. 17, s. 34.

36. Atenant shall not harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with alandlord. 2006, c. 17, s. 36.

The landlordhas section 20 obligations, which means that once they discover the problem, theyneed to resolve the problem quickly and for the time being, at their expense, howsoever caused.

Landlord’s responsibilityto repair

20. (1) Alandlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex,including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit forhabitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenancestandards. 2006, c. 17, s. 20 (1).

But once the landlord starts to undertake the work of remediation, the landlord has a right to file a section 69 eviction application pursuant to a section 62and 64 notice if the tenant does not act as a partner in the cleanup.

62. (1) Alandlord may give a tenant notice of termination of the tenancy if the tenant,another occupant of the rental unit or a person whom the tenant permits in theresidential complex wilfully or negligently causes undue damage to the rentalunit or the residential complex. 2006, c. 17, s. 62 (1).

64. (1) Alandlord may give a tenant notice of termination of the tenancy if the conductof the tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted in theresidential complex by the tenant is such that it substantially interferes withthe reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex for all usual purposes bythe landlord or another tenant or substantially interferes with another lawfulright, privilege or interest of the landlord or another tenant. 2006, c. 17,s. 64 (1).

The Board Member did just that, looking at thelandlord’s efforts and reasonableness, contrasted to the tenant’s obstructive behaviour in determining who had met their obligations under the Residential TenanciesAct. There were also issues of damages based on expenses incurred bythe landlord in rectifying the problem. This should be a model for thistype of case. Here it is:

Bedbug Case LTB

Unfortunately this Board tends not to have consistency of decision making and consistent approaches, a hallmark of a properly functioning administrative agency.

A Week in the Life of Scheduling Insanity at the Landlord and Tenant Board

2011-02-08T22:23:00.005-05:00

Here's a week in the life of LTB scheduling insanity.This true story has taken place over the last 10 days in my practice:

I wrote about this first fiasco in my previous blog. Basically the Toronto South hearing blocksare so over-booked that the same matter went two hearing days, December 10th and January 26th, only to twice getpushed off the docket and not heard. Myclient was rather upset to put it mildly. Rather than take a third day off from his work and payme for a third time, the client paid the tenant to go away.

Next, a tenant sues a landlord who then retains me todefend him. The application allegesharassment and interference with enjoyment. The hearing is scheduled for February 10th in Newmarket. I'm not available, I'm booked elsewhere. We seek the tenant's consent to rescheduleand she grants it in principle. But thetenant calls the LTB about rescheduling and finds out that it could be 6 weeksbefore we come back. She changes her mind and withdraws consent. So the parties will waste their time and use valuable hearing time in Newmarket.

Next, a tenant sues my small-landlord client for allegedmaintenance issues. A hearing isscheduled for Toronto North on February 2nd. My client is served and once again, I'm not available on that date. I write the tenant a letter, a reasonable guy, askingfor his consent to reschedule. He giveshis consent, with his availability dates through to the end of March, butwarning me that they are subject to change. The tenant relies on me to get a new date, asking me to please bookquickly. I go to the LTB counter inperson to re-schedule, using my dates and his to come up with a list of datesthat work. The CSR tries, but can't findany available dates as there were not many hearing blocks opened up very deep into the future, which is all too common. So I send the coordinator a faxed request toreschedule with the signed consent and dates, telling him that the dates may besubject to change and that I'd appreciate him scheduling based on ouravailability as soon as possible. Thefile seems to have disappeared into a black hole. Soon they will be scheduling past ourprovided dates, or one or the other of us will have booked over thosedates. Perhaps we should put our liveson hold and make no plans for a month until the date is set.

Here's the best one. Snowmaaggedon arrives on February 2nd. Its our third appearance in Cobourg on a complex eviction manner, butthe LTB cancelled the hearing docket the day prior. On its own initiative the Board rescheduledall the matters in the block to February 15th. But I was booked elsewhere on that date so the next day I spoke with the cliniclawyer on the other side and we came up with some dates the workedfor us both. So off to the schedulingcounter goes my staff, with signed consent for a return date later inMarch. Imagine our surprise when toldthat we can't consent to a date, that we need the adjudicator's consent, andthat we would have to go to Cobourg on the 15th. Would that be my left side or right, causethe other half of me is in Scarborough? And of course this application, scheduled for an hour, will ultimately be adjourned with an hour hole in the middle of the hearing block being wasted.

And finally, take a look at the LTB's web site where in2009 one could check their file's application status online, see if a date wasbooked, see if the order had been written.

LTB Electronic Service - Check Application Status

Look at the notice date...April 27th, 2009. Its been down for almost 2 years as the Board's failed new case managementsystem has been rolled out. Theimplementation of their new product has been an utter failure.

The LTB is badly broken. The government doesn't seem tocare. The parties are almost universallydissatisfied. The Minister needs to take a look at the entire operation and perhaps return L&T cases to the Courts.

Delays at LTB Forced my Client to Cough Up Money for an Un-Deserved Settlement

2011-01-28T11:33:00.009-05:00

If only it were easy to sue the crown. If only politicians gave a damn. On December 10th, 2010, my client and I attended at the Landlord and Tenant Board. I was acting for a client in LTB file number TST-10258-10. My client was a respondent to an application made by a tenant claiming that he had given her bad faith notice that he was moving into the unit. Factually I had the perfect case to defend. The tenant moved out in July of 2010, he did some minor work for a month after she moved out, moved in and has lived there since. All his ID and addresses have been changed and he has proof of leaving his old place of residence. The tenant actually was aware he lived there, as she had her mother serve the plaintiff's claim and notice of hearing on him at the new, subject unit at 10:30 pm one night. Smart move actually, so she would see if he answered the door late in the evening.

So we get to Court on the morning of December 10th, but as usual the block was over-booked, rent arrears, conduct and three tenant applications. After a time waiting, the Member, Louise Horton politely advised us that we would not be heard. So we left, the client upset at paying me fees to appear for no reason. The tenant smiling.

The matter was rescheduled with the assistance of the scheduling coordinator, and we were promised that time would be set aside in the new block so that we would be heard. We returned on January 26th at 9:30, this time in front of Member King who also faced a full room. In fact when I advised her that I'd like some consideration in terms of getting heard, she advised me that we were not the only application in the room where the parties had returned and not been heard on their previous visit.

We tried mediation for a short time, but it failed. So we waited in the hearing room to be called, there was an impaired safety application, rent applications, another tenant claim, and it became clear at around noon that again we would not be heard. My client was livid, not at me, but at the Landlord and Tenant Board. The tenant was smirking, doesn't work and had nowhere in particular to be, and she knew that the more the delay, the more costly to her former landlord in terms of time off work and legal fees.

So my client instructed me to do the only thing that made sense. Offer her money to settle a matter that was completely devoid of merit. We negotiated for a while, the tenant knowing that she had the upper hand, and we finally entered into a consent agreement wherein the landlord paid her a substantial sum of money that same day.

Now one can argue that delay and cost are risks of litigation, but we didn't bring this vexatious claim, the tenant did. And at the LTB, there are almost never costs awarded when a claim fails and is found to be completely devoid of merit. This encourages frivolous litigation. There generally has to be bad conduct by a party in order for the Board to award costs, unlike Small Claims Court which continues to amend their cost rules so that there is some risk to losing (to say nothing of frivolous litigation). And tenants rarely attract costs at the LTB.

So on it goes, nobody seeming to give a damn, backlogs getting worse, adjudicators getting swamped and the Ministry turning a blind eye.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur's Comments on Tenant Safety are Patently False

2011-01-20T11:11:00.011-05:00

In Today's Ottawa Citizen, the Hon. Madeleine Meilleur, Minister of Community and Social Services made the following comments in response to an article the previous day by a frustrated landlord:

Our government also takes tenant safety seriously, which is why we changed the Residential Tenancies Act to make it easier to evict persons whose actions pose a serious threat. Under the Act, grounds for eviction based on the behaviour or actions of a tenant include damage to a unit and involvement in illegal activity.

Her entire letter can be found here:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Landlords+have+rights/4135873/story.html

She is either lying or completely misinformed. The letter is entirely inaccurate and the misrepresents the Liberal's record towards landlords since taking office in 2003. In fact, since the Liberals took the reins, they have done the following by way of the Residential Tenancies Act and the Human Rights Commission:

1. Introduced what they call a 10 day termination notice [section 66] which was a public relations stunt, and suggested it can result in faster evictions for dangerous conduct. In fact, the 10 day notice is meaningless as it still takes between 3 and 6 weeks to get a hearing, and the landlord can file for a hearing date the moment after the notices are served;

2. By the October 2009 introduction of the Human Rights Commission's policy guideline on rental housing, a 110 page anti-landlord tome, it has become near-impossible for landlords, especially small landlord investors, to evict tenants from their homes even for the most egregious behaviour;

3. Introduced a new eviction order voiding provision [section 74(11)] whereby tenants now have 4 chances to void a rent arrears application/order, even after the landlord has filed the Board's eviction order with the Sheriff. This can add a month to the process;

4. Added a provision to encourage lease-breaking parties, [section 43(2)(a)] whereby a tenant who wants out of a fixed term tenancy need only act so badly that the landlord is forced to serve a termination notice, thereby ending the tenancy and with it, the tenant's obligation with respect to paying rent for the balance of the lease term;

5. Toughened the rules that permit landlords to get orders to increase the rent if they do substantial improvements to the property, thereby contributing to the decay of Ontario's rental stock. This while at the same time changing the methodology for calculating annual permissible rent increases, resulting in the lowest increase in history, just .7% for 2011, this in a year where landlords now have the inflationary effect of the HST;

6. Introduced new "trial by ambush” provision to the Residential Tenancies Act, [sections 82 & 83] allowing a tenant to prolong the hearing process by raising fictitious claims at a hearing scheduled for rent issues, without prior notice to the landlord, claims that are in many cases, patently false;

7. Introduced new grounds for eviction aimed at grow-ops, [section 63] but then don't address the problems landlords have getting entry into the rental unit to inspect for grow-ops. The rules about entry to inspect the unit are archaic.

8. And finally, through the extensive delays, both scheduling and procedural, they have exacerbated the bed-bug problem by not allowing quick adjudication of disputes resolving same.

The Liberals should be ashamed of their record on creating balance in the rental housing marketplace and the Minister should be ashamed for her false comments.

Joe Fiorito of the Toronto Star is a Hypocrite of the Worst Order

2011-01-12T16:26:00.006-05:00

It’s remarkable that with all the talk aboutinvective and language in the wake of the shooting in Arizona that Joe Fioritoshould continue to inflame and insult.

In today’s column, The casualties of Rob Ford’s War, Joe wrote of RobFord, saying; Hewill chop help for tenants who can’t afford to fight scumbag landlords.

Well in my legal practice I see a lot of totally disreputable as well as honestand upstanding landlords and tenants. There is good and bad in every group. Butnot to Mr. Fiorito. Fiorito decides to paint all landlords with the same brush.Would the Toronto Star allow one of their columnists to use the term “scumbag tenants”? Whathappens tomorrow if a tenant, perhaps deranged as Mr. Jared Loughner was,decides to confront his or her landlord after having Mr. Fiorito affirm hisbelief about his landlord’s conduct, or about his landlord’s right to live. Iam acutely aware that Mr. Fiorito is not a reporter, but an opinion writer.However even columnists have a responsibility for civility and balance.

Mr. Fiorito is a hypocrite as are so many on the left. But he is worse. He isirrelevant. He is anachronistic, from a time before even those on the leftrealized that all the good intentions in the world don't mean a damn if governmentscan't afford to pay the bills. Look atDemocratic governors in the USA. Has he taken a look at California's honest and painful budget measures imposed by a Democratic governor? Chop- chop - chop. What would Joe say about that? People like Fiorito complain about Fox Newsand warn us about Fox News North, but the most unbalanced and defamatory informationcomes from the Toronto Star and out of the mouth of Joe Fiorito.

New LTB Guideline on Notices of Entry Long Overdue - Lack of Email Service Striking

2011-01-07T17:57:00.006-05:00

The LTB has a process where Rules of Practice and Interpretation Guidelines are created and updated to reflect the Rules, practices and general approaches to issues at the Board. An internal committee meets regularly and updates existing Rules and/or Guidelines and creates new ones as the need arises. Industry stakeholders are consulted after a draft is prepared, and input is provided. Interpretation Guidelines are important for litigants as it gives them a heads up as to the current approach or thinking with respect to just about every different type of application that a landlord or tenant may file, and about other issues such as Payment into the Board, Reviews, Amending Orders and Administrative Fines.

I've been arguing for years that the LTB should produce an Interpretation Guideline regarding entry into the rental unit. For small landlords, it's a huge issue. Tenants often have ulterior motives in having landlords not be able to enter properly, and yet landlords have been punished by the Courts and the LTB for harmless and apparently legal entry into the unit. The single biggest issues have been what constitutes a "time of entry" in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, and what method of service of the notice of entry should be acceptable.

Entry is controversial. It's a tenant's home. Yet it's the landlord's property. The landlord has an obligation to repair, maintain, keep fit for habitation and comply with standards. The landlord has to make sure that the Fire Code is complied with. The landlord has to make sure that no grow-ops are being run on the property. And when the landlord fails to do any of these things, they are roundly criticized.

On January 4th 2011, the Board published their newest updates. They can be found here for Rules:

Landlord and Tenant Board Rules of Practice

And here for Interpretation Guidelines:

Landlord and Tenant Board Interpretation Guidelines

Take note of Guideline #19. It's new, and it's long overdue. Finally landlords big and small have a published document which should guide them, and the Board, in making decisions about what types of entry are legal. The big benefit to landlords will be clarification about the issue of time. The Guideline reads in part:

Where a specific time of entry is known, it should be stated in the notice. Where it is not possible to state a specific time of entry, the notice may provide a reasonable window of time for entry.

What is a reasonable window of time will depend upon the facts and circumstances in each case. Where the landlord exercises control over the work being done and who is doing the work, the notice should be reasonably specific with respect to the time for entry. Where the landlord does not exercise control over the work being done or the person who is doing the work, the notice should set out a reasonable window of time for entry.

For example, where the work is being done by a cable or telephone company and the company specifies a reasonable window of time when it will be at the rental unit, a landlord may reasonably specify that same window. Where the same or similar work is being done in a number of units on the same day, a reasonable window of time may be specified. In determining whether the specified window of time is reasonable, consideration should be given to the type and complexity of repair, replacement or work being undertaken, the location of the work and the extent to which the entry affects the tenant’s ability to use the rental unit.

The sentence I've underlined in the second paragraph will help to shield landlord from tenants who file T2 applications looking for an abatement of rent because the landlord's trades person, for no fault of the landlord, didn't arrive at exactly the time the landlord had advised. The Guideline makes a distinction between entry by persons over which the landlord has control, and those over which the landlord does not have control.

Missing from this new Guideline was some progressive thought regarding service of documents for entry. I would urge....no I would beg on one knee that the Board consider email notice for entry. Currently they do not, even when a landlord and a tenant have a history of using email exclusively. The LTB's position is that the Rules respecting service of documents of litigation, termination notices, applications, motions, notices of hearing, should also apply to service of notices of entry. In fact, it just doesn't work.

Out of town landlords can't drive 100 or 1,000 miles to put a notice of entry into a mailbox, or under the door, or serve it to the tenant or an adult in the unit personally. They can mail it, but then a 24 hour (minimum) notice turns into a 144 hour notice, since mail is deemed to add 5 days. Only a small percentage of tenants have fax, which is permitted, and when they do it's often at work which might end up giving them no effective notice of the landlord's intention to enter.

There are three good reasons why the Board should recognize a distinction between serving LTB legal documents, and serving notice of entry.

The law should change as technology changes. Faxed service is permitted. How many tenants have fax machines, versus how many have email? I read about a case recently where a judge allowed a plaintiff to use Facebook as a method of substituted service when no other method was practical.
Rules about service of legal documents need more specificity and precision than notices of entry since the outcome of a legal dispute may rest on if and how service was made.
Email is in many cases functionally equivalent to fax. I use a fax program that runs on my computer 24/7. I don't receive paper faxes. I receive them in my Inbox, just like emails. I don't print them unless I need to print them, just like emails. I read them on my computer screen, just like emails. They are transmitted electronically, just like emails.

It is rare, perhaps even unprecedented that I make a plea to the Chair of the Board over my blog, but if Dr. Lilian Ma is listening, I urge her to consider these arguments and bring service of notices of entry into the 21st century.

Ontario's Housing Minister Releases Report on Affordable Housing

2010-11-29T13:42:00.012-05:00

Remember a year ago when there were public meetings on the issue of long-term affordable housing, I think Jim Watson was Minister at the time? Well today Rick Bartolucci, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing released the results of the cross-province meetings that were designed to create solutions to the problems of long-term affordable housing. The initiatives are mostly for social housing landlords with changes to the Social Housing Reform Act, but it seems that they might also force municipalities to allow fully enclosed second suites, something that currently is outlawed in many places. That's a good thing for small landlords, and probably good for affordable housing.

ONPHA, the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association has given the proposals their support on the SHRA initiatives, but comments quite fairly that what the system needs is more money, not just autonomy for municipalities to decide on how to run their programs. Quoting ONPHA's Executive Director:

"This strategy, and the accompanying legislative reforms, should create much needed local flexibility; allowing communities to better engage the power of community-based non-profit housing providers in meeting local housing needs. ONPHA's members have long advocated for increased flexibility as a central requirement to improve local housing outcomes and it is encouraging to see this reflected in the strategy."

There are some rumblings that when this bill is introduced, the government might try to sneak in some changes to the Residential Tenancies Act dealing with other residential tenancy issues as governments are sometimes prone to do. Here's the announcement posted today on the government's web site:

Families in need of affordable housing will soon have access to a more flexible, coordinated and supportive system that is focused on people first.

Ontario's Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy will address the unique needs of individuals and communities by building a strong foundation that is based on four key pillars: putting people first, creating strong partnerships, supporting affordable options and accountability.

"As part of the strategy, the Strong Communities through Affordable Housing Act will be introduced today. It would, if passed, reduce barriers to affordable housing by:

Consolidating Ontario's housing and homelessness programs to give municipalities the flexibility to use funding to address local needs
Simplifying the rent-geared-to-income calculation process so that most tenants would only declare their income once a year. This could allow them to use the extra money to improve their standard of living
Expanding affordable housing options by requiring municipalities to set policies that would allow second units in new and existing developments
Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of municipalities and the province to create stronger partnerships and greater accountability

Today's legislation, if passed, would also commit the province and municipalities to report on key performance indicators including how the strategy is working for those with housing needs. This is an important part of the Open Ontario plan to break the cycle of poverty.

The future of affordable housing depends on flexible, sustained funding. Ontario will work with municipalities to engage the federal government to commit to stable, long-term funding."

Expect the introduction of legislation shortly. There are some additional details of the government's plans at the link below:

More Info on Ontario Government Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy

End of the Gravy Train for Toronto's Left-Wing Tenant Activists

2010-11-18T20:00:00.003-05:00

Toronto City Hall was truly Toronto Socialist Silly Hall under Mayor Miller. All the committees, minions, appointees, agencies, grant recipients were engaged in a mutual hand-washing exercise, courtesy of the taxpayer. I've long been amazed at the waste in the Toronto city budget for certain areas of housing. I'm a fan of the rent bank, and any money given to supportive housing agencies. But the shelter system is bloated, the Federation of Metro Tenants Associations (FMTA) is a relic of the past, and the Tenant Defence Sub-Committee, Michael Walker's pet project, has no place today where protections abound.

I'm thrilled Sue-Ann Levy has highlighted the next group to be booted off the train. Read her column in tomorrow's paper at:

Sue-Ann Levy's End of the Tenant Gravy Train Column

And Mayor Ford, the citizens of Toronto are behind you.

Hoarding and Bedbugs and Fires and Mental Health and Code and the LTB and.........

2010-11-11T16:58:00.008-05:00

There has been a lot of press lately about hoarding, bed-bugs and fires. I say them together in one breath as in rental housing, they are usually connected. Manifestations of obsessive compulsive behaviour often cause hoarding. Hoarding causes infestation. Hoarding causes fires. We saw recently the frightening fire in the TCHC building at 200 Wellesley, and in yesterday's Sun there was a story about two brothers facing eviction for hoarding. And of course there is almost daily news coverage about the plight of bed-bugs in Toronto.

I have a number of social housing landlords as clients, so I end up doing a lot of hoarding and bed-bug cases. First I would suggest you not blame the Landlord and Tenant Board. They are generally following the law, albeit sometimes over-applying the Human Rights Code without using much common sense.

Hoarding is not permitted by the Residential Tenancies Act nor condoned by the Board. The problem is that the Human Rights Code is paramount to the Residential Tenancies Act and the landlord's obligations (and the tenant's obligations) under the Code must first be examined and exhausted prior to attempts at termination of a tenancy. If a provision of the Residential Tenancies Act is inconsistent with the Code, that provision has no force or effect. The HRC produced a Policy Guideline on Rental Housing in 2009, and it's oppressive to put it mildly. Thank you Mr. McGuinty.

Landlords flock in numbers to the Landlord and Tenant Board trying to evict tenants for having committed one or all of the conduct trilogy. To succeed their application usually boils down to the landlord having to prove that they have made efforts to accommodate the tenant's inclusion in a Code-related ground (usually disability) to the point of undue hardship. Undue hardship has been defined as being costs so substantial that they permanently and materially impair the viability, the very existence of the commercial enterprise. In other words, to the point just short of bankruptcy.

If a tenant fits into one of 14 protected groups under the Code, and you are providing accommodation to them, then you may have a duty to accommodate. These protected groups include but are not limited to race, ethnicity, religion, physical and mental disability, sexual orientation, receipt of public assistance and family composition.

It always starts with the tenant creating problems by way of his or her conduct. Basically the tenant is not following the rules. If the tenant is unable to comply with these apparently neutral policies or requirements, a standard of behaviour, a behaviour that you or I or most of us would have no problem complying with AND if that inability to comply is based in the tenant's inclusion in one of the 14 protected groups, then there arises upon the landlord the duty to accommodate.

This apparently neutral policy or requirement that is expected from all tenants may include things like:

Paying rent on time
Parking in an outdoor parking space
Not hitting people or swearing at them
Not starting fires or floods
Not yelling and screaming so as to cause a noise disturbance
Not hoarding
Not allowing infestation
Not running a crack house
Not doing damage to the unit
Not listening to music at loud volumes

But if the tenant's inclusion in one or more of the 14 protected groups makes it difficult to comply with the apparently neutral requirement or policy, then landlords need to work with the tenant in the "shared responsibilities of accommodation" to try and bring the behaviour or environment to a point so that the tenant is not excluded from the full participation and inclusion in normal living. The landlord needs to assist in the accommodation process so as to remove the risk of the tenant losing their housing. A few misconceptions to burst:

Accommodation is different from toleration. It doesn't mean you do nothing or "live with it" and hope it goes away.
Accommodation is not simply warning the tenant that if they don't change their ways, the tenancy might be at risk.

Accommodation is working with the tenant, their supports, family, sources of outside funding, professionals etc. so that the tenant and their behaviour is elevated to a level where the problem no longer affects the enjoyment or safety of others. The effort and length to which the landlord must strain to help the tenant achieve that level is "the point of undue hardship". If the landlord's efforts fail despite having reached the level of undue hardship, then the tenant may be evicted and the landlord absolved of further responsibility.

At a hearing, the Landlord and Tenant Board has the jurisdiction and obligation to consider the Code and the landlord’s duty to accommodate, and too often, it does it badly. By badly, I mean that many Members grossly over-apply the code. They also tend to do a poor job in fact-finding insofar as determining:

• The existence of a disability
• The seriousness of the disability
• What affect that disability had on the tenant’s alleged behaviour
• What efforts the tenant made to advise the landlord of their need for accommodation
• What efforts the tenant made to be part of the accommodation process
• What is the connection between the disability and the tenant's conduct

These issues are the keys for you in defending a tenant's claim that they are entitled to relief from eviction under the Code. At a hearing a tenant must be held to strict proof of those issues I've just listed. If the Board doesn't give you the leeway and latitude to cross-examine on these issues, then you need to get your displeasure on the record, and file a review or if necessary, an appeal of the adverse decision
.
Having said that, if you know or ought to know that the behaviour may be the result of the tenant's inclusion in one of the 14 protected groups and you don't take action (and document it) prior to starting the eviction proceedings, then you've not done your job and under Ontario law, you don't deserve the eviction order.

The Code is the Code. It is what it is. In my opinion, the effects of the application of the Code on housing are perverse. What is more perverse is that the poverty activist community, often funded by tax dollars from Legal Aid Ontario, use the Code to thwart evictions where safety is an issue. Look at 200 Wellesley. Now I have no insider knowledge of this file, but I can tell you that most landlords are now throwing up their hands when faced with hoarding as they know that the legal clinics will be all over it, claiming that the tenant has post-traumatic-stress-disorder or schizophrenia and that the landlord recklessly ignored the (invisible) signs of the tenant's illness in a flagrant violation of their requirements under the Code. I wonder how many buildings have to become un-inhabitable or how many people must die in fires before this stops.

I would urge you to read the Human Rights Commission's policy guideline on Human Rights in Rental Housing. You can find it here.

Ontario Human Rights Code Rental Housing Policy Guideline

It is a 110 page tome of pure social engineering that has me advising my small landlord clients to get out of the business. The risk is too high; the downside too great.

Suite Metering Finally Arrives for Ontario Landlords

2010-11-10T17:48:00.010-05:00

Suite Metering Rules Finally Arrive for OntarioLandlords

After years of controversy and delay, suite meteringregulations in Ontario will come into force on January 1^st, 2011. When the Residential Tenancies Act was proclaimed in January of 2007,section 137 and 138 were exempt from proclamation as neither the landlord nortenant groups was interested in a change that could adversely affect them, andthe government wasn’t prepared at the time to enforce new regulations and fightadditional battles at the same time as the Tenant Protection Act wasbeing repealed and replaced.

What are suite meters?

A suite meter allows tenants to pay their own electricitybased on their actual consumption. Suite meters help tenants manage theirenergy consumption and better participate in Ontario’s conservationefforts. Landlords can install suite meters in all residential rentalunits. However, landlords require existing tenants to consent beforeresponsibility can be tranferred, requiring that the tenant to pay for theirown electricity use.

The History

The issue became muddier when certain landlords tested suitemetering of existing tenants without regulation or sanctioning, pushing the envelope,and required tenants to sign up with distributors of electricity and paydirectly to these distributors, while the landlords reduced the rentsproportionately. Some tenants objected and there were complaints andapplications to the LTB, but more harmful and effective were complaints to theOntario Energy Board. The OEB issued a stop-gap order in August of 2009,EB-2009-0111, providing for interim measures for obtaining consent from amongtenants already affected, and rendering void any consents obtained prior to theorder.

But in May of 2010, the government received Royal Assent for the new EnergyConsumer Protection Act, 2010. The Residential Tenancies Acthas also been amended (such amendments to be proclaimed on January 1^st,2011) and the government created a new Regulation, ONTARIO REGULATION 394/10,filed in October 2010, allowing landlords to provide suite sub-metering toexisting tenants, provided they have informed consent, and requiring landlordsto meet prescribed energy efficiency standards, but for refrigerators only.

The Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 ( the“ECPA”) deals with gas marketing and retailing of electricity toconsumers, contracts, meters, door to door sales etc. Of interest tolandlords are sections 31 through 34 which deal specifically with suitemetering, installation, billing, the types of premises covered etc. Butthe bread and butter of the new rules are found in the Part II of theRegulation to the ECPA, the new ONTARIO REGULATION 389/10. Itcontains information about entering into new contracts, tenant disclosurestatements, contract renewals, extensions and cancellations etc. Also a suite meter may not be installed in a rental unit in a residentialcomplex unless it is done in accordance with s.137 (2) (b) of the ResidentialTenancies Act. That section reads:

Interruption in supply

137 (2) Alandlord who has the obligation under a tenancy agreement to supply electricitymay interrupt the supply of electricity to a rental unit when a suite meter isinstalled if,

(a) the suite meter isinstalled by a suite meter provider;

(b) the supply of electricityis interrupted only for the minimum length of time necessary to install thesuite meter; and

(c) the landlord providesadequate notice to the tenant in accordance with the prescribed rules. 2010,c. 8, s. 39 (1).

The changes to the Residential Tenancies Act, and thenew Regulation, ONTARIO REGULATION 394/10 included a lot of goodies. These new provisions include a clear affirmation that utilities supplied by thelandlord are not rent and that the landlord cannot bring a rent arrearsapplication to evict as if it was rent. It also sets out that a landlordthat currently has the responsibility for providing utilities can onlyterminate the obligation and require the tenant to pay if there is writtenconsent on a Board approved form (currently being developed), provide theproper notice of termination of the service (30 days) and reduce the rentaccording to the methodology set out in the new Regulation.

For Existing Tenants Where You Want to Switch Over

Landlords that are currentlyrequired to provide a tenant electricity cannot unilaterally terminateresponsibility for electricity unless the tenant consents. Section137(3) reads:

Termination of obligation to supply electricity

137(3) Subjectto subsections (4) and (5), if a meter or a suite meter is installed in respectof a rental unit, a landlord who has the obligation under a tenancy agreementto supply electricity to the rental unit may terminate that obligation by,

(a)obtaining the written consent of the tenant in the form approved by the Board;

(b)providing adequate notice of the termination of the obligation to the tenant inaccordance with the prescribed rules; and

(c)reducing the rent, in the prescribed circumstances and in accordance with theprescribed rules, by an amount that accounts for the cost of electricityconsumption and related costs. 2010, c. 8, s. 39 (1).

But it’s not so easy. There is a lot of info the landlord is required toprovide to in-situ tenants prior to the tenant agreeing to make thechange. I assume the suite-meter provider will be anxious to provide thisinformation readily in a format that’s easy to use. In fact the ECPAsets out that the provider must forward the required info to aresidential landlord within 10 days after receiving a request from the landlordrelated to sub-metering of a rental unit. The Regulation sets out that:

The tenant must be given a statement in writing that thetenant is not required to consent to the termination of the landlord’sobligation to supply electricity to the rental unit. The tenantmust be given information in writing about the amount of the rent reduction forthe rental unit and how the reduction is calculated.

The tenant must be given the following information inwriting concerning the distributor or suite meter provider supplying theelectricity to the rental unit:

· Contact information for the distributor orsuite meter provider.

· A statement that the distributor or suitemeter provider may require a security deposit from the tenant.

· Information about the distributor’s or suitemeter provider’s security deposit policy, if a security deposit may berequired.

· A statement describing the types of any feesto be imposed on the tenant by the distributor or suite meter provider, andsetting out the amount of the fees or, if the amount is not known, adescription of how the fees are calculated.

· A statement indicating the circumstances inwhich the fees charged by the distributor or suite meter provider may increase.

· Information about the amount of any plannedincreases in the fees charged by the distributor or suite meter provider.

· A statement that the distributor or suitemeter provider may shut off the electricity supply to the rental unit if anamount payable by the tenant is overdue.

· Upon request, the tenant must be given a copyof the agreement, if any, between the landlord and the distributor or suitemeter provider.

· The tenant must be given contact informationin writing for the Ontario Energy Board and a written statement indicating thatthe tenant can contact the Ontario Energy Board about any dispute with thedistributor or suite meter provider.

· If the landlord provides a refrigerator forthe rental unit, the tenant must be given, in writing, the best informationthat is available to the landlord about the date of manufacture of therefrigerator and any available information about the energy efficiency of therefrigerator.

If a landlord is successful inobtaining consent from an in-situ tenant to terminate the provision ofelectricity and reduce the rent accordingly, the Regulation sets out theformulas for the reduction, either based on past consumption for the unit, oron estimated past consumption for a unit during the prescribed 12 monthperiod. Hopefully there will be online tools to do thecalculations. Existing tenants cannot insist on being converted to suitemetering. It is up to the landlord to decide whether to install suitemeters in existing buildings and whether to start the discussion about transfer of responsibility. There is nothing to preventlandlords from approaching sitting tenants to obtain their consent to be billedfor their electricity use. Of course in new construction, buildings willhave to include suite metering in all units.

For existing tenancies, electric heat is a contentiousissue, as the government’s wisdom is that tenants really have no ability tocontrol consumption as the landlord is responsible for insulation and windows.To protect the tenant, the new Regulation sets out that:

ONTARIO REGULATION 394/10

6. Where the primary source of heat in arental unit is generated by means of electricity, the following are thecircumstances and conditions referred to in subsection 137 (5) of the Act underwhich a landlord is permitted to terminate an obligation to supplyelectricity to the unit, but the landlord is permitted to do so only ifboth of the circumstances and conditions exist:

1. The electricity supply forthe provision of heat in the rental unit is not connected to the meteror suite meter that measures the electricity supplied to the unit for otheruses.

2. The landlord does notterminate the obligation to supply electric heat.

For Prospective Tenants

For prospective tenants, ifsuite meters are installed in a building, (or if any rental, a house, triplexetc. has separately metered units) the landlord must, before entering into atenancy agreement with a prospective tenant for the unit, provide theprospective tenant with information in a form approved by the Landlord andTenant Board. This would include the most recent information that isavailable to the landlord for the prescribed period from the suite meterprovider concerning electricity consumption in the rental unit. If therental unit was vacant during any part of the prescribed period, the landlordmust provide a statement of the period that the rental unit was vacant, and anysuch other information as is prescribed. The landlord will also be requiredto provide information about the date of manufacture and other energyefficiency information about the refrigerator. Of course none of thisapplies if if, under the proposed tenancy agreement, the landlord agrees toassume the obligation to supply electricity to the rental unit and to pay anyassociated costs

The rules about electric heatappear not to apply for prospective tenants. There is nothing toprevent a landlord, for instance a small landlord renting out a house ortriplex, from having a regular meter from “Toronto Hydro” and entering into a newtenancy agreement with the tenant having the tenant responsible forelectricity even if there is electric heat as the primary source. However, it appears that there is a provision of the ECPA O.Reg. 389/10that prohibits a suite meter provider from billing a rental unitfor consumption of electricity by the occupant if the meter was installed afterthe day the section comes into force and heat is by electricity and the metermeasures the electricity for the heat. How would they even know if thehouse is heated electrically?

And finally, if a landlordfails to comply with the various requirements of the Regulation, the tenant canclaim an abatement of rent and other remedies at the Landlord and Tenant Board,including in some cases, terminating the tenancy. However landlords areadequately protected from frivolous tenant applications in circumstances wherethe distributor cuts off power in situations where the tenant is responsiblefor payment for the supply of electricity. It is also made clear that ifthe tenant is required to pay a security deposit to a utility distributor, thiswill not be considered an illegal charge, nor will it be considered rent orconsideration in exchange for the right to occupy.

So, as a brief summary:

LTB Forms Available December 24, 2010

The Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) hasprovided these forms on their website on December 24^th, 2010. I have attached the first item.

The expected forms include:

1) Informationfor prospective tenants form

2) Tenantconsent form for suite-metering (for when you want to convert a sitting tenantfrom bulk metering to suite metering

3) Rentreduction schedules (for each of the different rent reduction options)

4) Notice to terminate theobligation to supply electricity

So What Do You Need To Know?

The new legislation will require informed and writtenconsent from existing tenants before landlords can terminate theirresponsibility to provide electricity and have the utility provider bill themfor their electricity use. In private rental units (non-profits areexempted), landlords must reduce the rent by an amount that reflectselectricity costs the tenant will have to pay.

Landlords are required toprovide the following information to existing tenants only if and when seekingtheir consent to bill them for their own electricity use:

· the amount of rent reduction and how it iscalculated;

· the contact information for the suite meterprovider and the Ontario Energy Board;

· the suite meter provider’s fees and chargesincluding any planned increases;

· the suite meter provider’s security depositpolicy if tenants are required to pay a security deposit;

· the disconnection policy if electricity costspayable by the tenants are overdue;

· the energy efficiency of the refrigerator, ifsupplied by the landlords, to help tenants estimate their future energy costs.

· In residential rental properties with six orfewer rental suites, landlords may apportion utility costs and pass these on totheir tenants separate from the rent subject to certain conditions.

Landlords will have to meet prescribed energy efficiencystandards for refrigerators.

If a unit is separately metered and the tenant will pay forelectricity, landlords will have to provide prospective tenants withinformation about utility costs and energy efficiency of the refrigerator.

Tenants will be able to apply to theLandlord and Tenant Board for remedies if the landlord has breached theirobligations around consent, rent reductions, energy standards, or disclosure ofinformation.

Court of Appeal Decision Ends Sad Saga of a Landlord Crushed by Fees & LAO Might

2010-10-19T19:43:00.011-04:00

If you've read this blog for some time, you know of the story of my former client who in 2007 tried to get his house back for his own use as his family was growing. You also know that his efforts were blocked every step of the way by advocates from the Kensington-Bellwoods Community Legal Services, and then by the Advocacy Centre for Tenants, Ontario, both acting on behalf of the tenant.

After at least a half dozen dates at the LTB where the tenant had counsel funded by LAO, the Board issued an order allowing the landlord to recover possession of his house. But the matter was appealed to Divisional Court prior to eviction of the tenant, an appeal filed by the legal clinic system, an appeal that had little or no merit, and which was dismissed by a panel of three judges after asking the landlord's lawyer not one question.

Not to be deterred, the LAO funded Advocacy Centre for Tenants, Ontario filed leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was granted. At the hearing two weeks ago, lawyers for ACTO made their case, with the landlord represented by lawyer Douglas Levitt, a good friend of mine who ushered the landlord through the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal ordeals.

Today the decision was released. You can find it here.

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2010/october/2010ONCA0676.htm

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court decision and the original LTB decision with respect to all of the key issues under appeal. They found that Member Pilon acted properly in his analysis with respect to the issues of a) estoppel not being an issue preventing the landlord from re-applying after a change of circumstances, b) a single-shareholder corporate landlord having the right (given appropriate facts) to serve a s.48 notice to move into the unit, and c) affirming that s.202 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which acts as a fact-finding tool for adjudicators, was appropriate and in fact mandatory to consider when making findings, even those adverse to the tenant.

What makes the saga sad is that it happens all the time. The system is designed such that any tenant can take a flyer with no risk, supported and enabled in the process by a well-funded network of tenant legal services that frankly, in this case, wasted what must be tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars, having the courts answer questions that had already been answered.

Legal Aid Ontario cries poor, as do the community legal clinics, yet the tenant who they supported throughout this process owned property, shown on title of a property on Dundas Street West in Toronto that he purchased with his mother in 2006 for $415,000, and likely did not even qualify for assistance during any phase of his tax-payer funded jaunt. He also moved out of the unit for a period of time during the appeal, sub-letting to three tenants, and attempted to hide the deception from the landlord. ACTO was advised (by me in writing) of this deception, yet continued to support the tenant's efforts to remain in a unit that he didn't seem that interested in living in.

ACTO, in asking the Court of Appeal to consider the matter, suggested that there was a public interest to having important issues clarified. That's often the way the poverty-law organizations convince appellate courts to take on an issue. But if there truly were public-interest issues to be resolved, why is the tenant funded, but the landlord must pay out tens of thousands of dollars just to get his house back?

Shame on LAO, shame on ACTO and on the entire legal clinic system.

Solutions for Hoarding are Complex, Needing Regulatory Changes

2010-10-07T17:20:00.002-04:00

In a Toronto Sun article today, Tamara Cherry accurately depicts the problems related to bed bugs occurring in manyToronto rental units. But it's not just social housing high-rises like 200 Wellesley wherecompulsive hoarding occurs. Peoplerenting from private landlords in basement apartments in the landlord's home toluxury condos, exhibit the same sad and dangerous behaviour.

So now Toronto Public Health and the Fire Marshall will springinto action at 200 Wellesley despite knowing about the problem for months and doing nothing. Butwhat options does a landlord really have to convince tenants to de-clutter?

Commencing a legal proceeding at the Landlord and TenantBoard is the government's solution, butit is most often ineffective because:

• The rules regarding entry into the rental unit aretoo restrictive;

• It can take up to a year to get a complex and contestedcase resolved at the Landlord and Tenant Board;

• The Board will not evict a problem tenant unless thelandlord has first investigated Human Rights Code grounds that may be relatedto the behaviour and accommodated the tenant's (stated) inability to correctthe problem to the point just shy of bankruptcy;

• Landlords know that if they take aggressive measures tothrow out clutter, garbage and debris so that they can treat for infestation orbring the unit up to code, they will be sued by the tenant;

• The 70+ community legal aid clinics across the provincewill contest legitimate eviction applications (using tax dollars) doingeverything in their power to defeat the landlord's eviction efforts and moreoften than not, the landlord's efforts to work with the tenant in remediationof the unit.

There need to be amendments made to the ResidentialTenancies Act and changes to Legal AidOntario's mandate of funding litigation that runs contrary to sound publicpolicy. Daily I lament the adversarial nature of landlord and tenant law, but it's likely here to stay. But on issues like this, there is no room for ideology that pits landlords against tenants.

Update on Michele Mandel's Bently Driving Persian Princes, Tenant from Hell

2010-09-16T21:36:00.001-04:00

I hope you read the previous post (3 below) and read the Toronto Sun column written by Michele Mandel. She did a great job exposing a predator. This evening at about 7:30 pm, the police pulled the tenant, her son and dogs out of the unit as she wouldn't leave after the Sheriff enforced the order. Once the Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order is enforced by the Sheriff, an over-holding occupant becomes a trespasser.

Ms. Amere (plus the other 5 names she went by) was nothing if not predictable. She lied and cheated to the end, trying to tell the officers she had a right to remain despite the Board order. In addition to the original damage done to the unit which precipitated the action at the Landlord and Tenant Board, there was feces and vomit everywhere. The unit is infested. There is likely $20,000 worth of damage.

I'm suggesting to my client that they consider pursuing criminal charges against their former tenant. Most landlord and tenant issues are dealt with as civil matters, and damages dealt with by way of monetary compensation. However there is sometimes a fuzzy line between civil and criminal, and there was a recent case in the Havelock area where the Crown saw fit to charge a tenant criminally with causing injury to property. The tenant pleaded guilty, a conviction was registered and a sentence imposed of two years on probation. Here's a link to the article:

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2656565

If there was ever a case where fraud and criminal property offences have occurred in a tenancy context, the Bently Driving Persian Princess was it. These first time landlords, heavily mortgaged, lost tens of thousands of dollars. This will of course end their adventure into real estate investing.

NDP Working Hard to Eliminate Private Landlords

2010-09-16T14:36:00.007-04:00

My friends at FRPO sent out this eye-opening news today.

Ontario NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo will be introducing a private members bill this week proposing licensing of landlords and tightening of rent controls. At an impromptu press conference today, Ms Di Novo was accompanied by the government funded Advocacy Center for Tenants Ontario (ACTO). ACTO, which is funded through Legal Aid Ontario, represents tenants on the fringes and advocates for issues more related to poverty than residential tenancies, yet they pretend to be a stakeholder for the mainstream tenant movement. Also at the press conference was a representative of ACORN (a US-based tenant organization).

The advocates claimed that the bill would provide a solution to the problem of bedbugs. They said that landlords would not be able to rent vacant units if there were outstanding work orders. Now I don't know what the rent control idea is, but I assume it's about returning to full rent control as opposed to vacancy decontrol which the Conservatives brought in with the Tenant Protection Act in 1998. That means the lawful rent on a unit is controlled even as new tenants move in, taking away any semblance of free market in which the parties can pick and chose a rental that suits their needs and budget. If a landlord kept the rents low over the years for a long-term elderly tenant, the landlord would be stuck with that same rent after the tenant moved out or passed on.

From the proposals put forward by groups such as ACTO, FMTA, their NDP sponsors etc., it appears that the end game is to eliminate for-profit private rentals completely, forcing the government to replace them with non-profit (subsidized) housing. Now goodness knows we need non-profit housing and I have many clients who run non-profits. But certainly there is a role for private landlords offering a quality product and providing choice. Perhaps Ms. Di Novo feels otherwise!

Now private members bills typically are not passed by the government. However, these left wing ideas will be out there in the papers in the next few days and may sway minds of those who don't understand housing. It's up to all of us to speak out against this bill with thoughtful arguments.

Employee's Conduct is Attributed to the Landlord

2010-09-03T08:46:00.011-04:00

In a recent decision at the Ontario Superior Court, a condominium corporation was held vicariously liable for conduct of its employee, a security guard at a condominium which was managed by Del. In the decision, JIA v. TORONTO STANDARD CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 1479 2010 ONSC 3433, the Court found that the conduct of the security guard, a former police officer, and the use of force employed to deal with a person he considered a trespasser (the court did not feel the person was there unlawfully) was excessive. A link to the decisions here:

http://canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc3433/2010onsc3433.html"

In a well-written decision, the Court ordered general, aggravated and pecuniary damages against the plaintiff. The total judgment against the defendant was $49,540.13. The Court did not find Del Property Management, also named in the action, was in any way responsible as the security guard was an employee of the condo corporation, not Del, so the Court removed Del from the claim. There are a couple of lessons to be learned. Landlords often feel that as owners and occupier they are permitted to remove persons from the property who have no lawful business being there, and as a general statement, that is correct. However, the Court in this case said (abridged):

The parties agree that it is permissible for a property owner to defend its personal and real property against trespassers by the use of reasonable force. There is also no disagreement with the principle that even a person, who has lawfully entered premises, commits a trespass if that person remains there after his right of entry has ceased. It is undisputed that, at least initially, Ms. Jia was permitted to be on the condominium premises and was not trespassing. She attended in the company of the owners of a condominium unit in the building who, according to Ms. Badu, were expected to attend that evening to obtain a status certificate for their unit, and then was allowed by Forest Vista’s authorized agent, Ms. Badu, to remain in the inner lobby. In the present case, I find that Ms. Jia was not trespassing. She had been given permission by Forest Vista’s authorized agent to remain in the lobby. As Mr. Keeley admitted, security guards would ordinarily ask trespassers to leave. Ms. Badu did not ask him to remove Ms. Jia or issue a trespass notice or ask Ms. Jia to leave because she was sitting quietly. Without reasonable explanation or justification, Mr. Keeley peremptorily revoked that licence.

In your rental buildings, there is a presumption in law that your tenants have a right to have others visit and remain for legitimate purposes, and only if a certain set of circumstances arise can this presumption be ignored and acted on.

Finally, the people who work for you as employees need training and judgment in order to keep you out of court. We sometimes see superintendents taking a paternalistic attitude towards your building, not altogether a bad thing. But they must be trained to contact a property manager before taking steps that could land your company in court.

Michele Mandel's Column from August 21st Should Scare off "Landlords to Be"

2010-08-22T09:27:00.006-04:00

On page 3 of this week's Saturday Sun is an article by Sun columnist Michele Mandel, who broke the story on the so-called Persian Princess about 8 months ago, renting from a landlord named Jane Randall. That story was about the victimization of a condo owner in the Yonge and Sheppard area. Now the Bentley Driving, true tenant from hell has resurfaced, playing the system for the third time that I know of, and for the second time victimizing a client of mine. These three horror stories have occurred within blocks of each other as she slithers from place to place using different names. Read the story here:

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/michele_mandel/2010/08/20/15092061.html

Some Days My Job Just Stinks

2010-08-17T21:30:00.007-04:00

It's been a while since my last post. Too busy with too many clients. Too many victims. Too many professional tenants who are predators. I'd be lying if I didn't admit that most small landlords are the authors of their own misfortune...no credit or tenancy checks, not checking to see if the employment info they provided is legitimate. I would venture to say that in most small-landlord tenancies, the tenants know the ropes far better than the landlords. My clients say "it's not fair, they know all the tricks" as if it's an indictment of the tenant. I say "good for the tenant, and why don't you know the ropes"?

I've never seen a business like this. If a person was considering going into the dry cleaning business, first they would work in a dry cleaning store for a year or two, then if they like it, and had learned the business, they would buy a dry cleaning store. But in the small landlord business, it's perverse. Small landlords believe themselves to be real estate investors, but not business people. When will they learn that they are in a business, a difficult business, and often a dirty business.

That's where the title of this blog post comes in. So much dirt, deceit, duplicity, lies, etc. all coming before Members at the LTB. I've had a few too many small-landlord clients the last couple of months. Gotta cut back. I've told myself that in this business you can't bleed for the client, but my nature is to want to set things right. And too often at the Landlord and Tenant Board, they get things wrong. Too many tenant-side Members, and leadership that seems to think that everything is OK so long as no stories hit the papers. Too many Members who think that because the legislation is remedial, that fairness should be a 60-40 proposition. And the process at the Toronto South location has pretty much ground to a halt. You can wait two months for a hearing on an impaired safety matter, only to have it adjourned on the tenant's motion, and then wait another 2 months before it returns.

I feel dirty lately, like I'm working in a cesspool. Where is the Minister of Housing? Where is the media? Where is the Chair of the Board, Dr. Ma?

Shame on McGuinty for Lowest Ever Rent Guideline

2010-06-23T11:30:00.001-04:00

The Premier has betrayed both landlords and tenants withthe announcement yesterday that the 2011 annual rent guideline will be just.7%. That's the lowest percentage sincethe guideline was introduced, in a year that is expected to see landlords'costs increase by about 7% with the impact of inflation and the HST, ten timesthe allowable increase.

It was the Liberals who changed the rent guidelinecalculation methodology in 2007 when they implemented the Residential TenanciesAct. Those changes are resulting in thisrecord-low number.
Picking on landlords is such an easy game, but thepractice ignores the ultimate victim, the tenant. With basically no ability to keep up withinflation, landlords have only two areas in which to cut back, staff and maintenance.

In too many cases, Toronto buildings are in a state ofdisrepair. But who is to blame? Landlords run the only business I can thinkof where they can't raise prices for existing customers to cover their basicneeds as costs increase.

When government threatened the pharmaceutical industryearly this year with onerous and existential changes to their funding, theindustry shot back with threats of price increases, cuts in service hours, theelimination of free services etc. Landlords can't do any of the above, asservices, pricing and facilities are all regulated. This leaves cutbacks in maintenance andinvestment in capital projects.

As for the supply of rentals (not in condominiums) inToronto, nobody is building. There isjust too much uncertainty and risk when rental housing is in effect, controlledby the state.

Shame on this government for using landlords asscapegoats and pandering to the tenant vote. As infrastructure crumbles and tenants don't have decent, wellmaintained housing, we will look back at the political gamesmanship playedsince the Liberals were elected in 2003.

Cowardly Joe Fiorito takes Cheap Shots, Hides Behind his Paper

2010-06-07T15:39:00.005-04:00

So after sending my previous blog post (below) to the Star as a letter to the editor, which they published in an abridged format, Joe Fiorito writes a scathing column, an open letter addressed to me. Here's a link.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/819789--fiorito-tenant-or-bedbug-which-came-first-and-what-does-it-matter

What a coward. Here he is, controlling the content, able to abridge, twist, respond without fear, writing a personal attack against his manipulated summary of my views. I emailed him the following in reply, which I'm sure he won't print.

What I say Joe is that the Provincial Liberals have no interest in forward-looking public policy that stands any chance at solving this or any other problem. Frankly neither do the Conservatives.

It's the ill-conceived but catchy 30 second "sound bite" that helped in creating an attitude of us-versus-them that governments have built into the landlord and tenant relationship. Being a landlord is almost criminalized in Ontario, and yet when the vulnerable need assistance, the government turns to landlords to provide same.

How well has it worked Joe by over-regulating landlords. Many new rentals being built? Are for-profit landlords pouring money into their existing buildings? You'd be crazy going into the residential rental business in Ontario today. If there are landlords with deep pockets, its because the buildings were constructed 45 years ago and are today, mortgage-free.

I would be overwhelmingly supportive if any government had the guts to make housing a ballot issue and then fund the support of the vulnerable through general tax revenue.

I'm not sure if you are old enough to remember the systematic dismantling of the network of mental health facilities across Ontario that started in the 1970's and ended just a couple of years ago. Community Living was supposed to be the alternative. Supportive housing was to fill the gap so that people with mental illness could live in the community with dignity and support. But what governments of all stripes did was use the closing of institutions as an opportunity to save money. The system of supports is meager, so the easy fix has been to turn landlords (I'm not talking about TCHC and other non-profits) into un-compensated social workers.

"Build more public housing", that should be the mantra by all of us. I've long supported the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association and help train housing workers in Human Rights and Accessibility law. But by building so much tension into the system, this government simply reinforces a paradigm that sends stakeholders into ideological camps.

Frankly Joe, while it may play to your constituency, you have quite a role to play in this mess. We need an honest broker, not ideological rhetoric and character assassination.

Liberal Bed Bug Bill is Batty

2010-06-03T18:23:00.012-04:00

Here's what the Toronto Star reported this morning, another wacky idea by the provincial Liberals making landlords into the villains.

Tenants have a right to sleep tight and not let the bedbugs bite, says Liberal MPP Mike Colle. Inspired by Star columnist Joe Fiorito’s crusade against bedbugs in public housing, low-income rental units, and seniors’ homes, Colle on Thursday will introduce private member’s legislation to protect tenants against the nasty parasites. The Renters’ Right to Know Act would shield people from having to endure the unpleasantness of bedbug bites in their rented houses and apartments.

That would entail a “bedbug information report” to be presented by a landlord to a prospective tenant prior to the signing of any lease.

“The landlord shall provide to the tenant a report specifying any information that has come to the landlord’s attention with respect to bedbugs in the rental unit or in any other rental unit in the residential complex for the previous five-year period,” the bill states.

Any landlord that fails to provide full disclosure of the bedbug history of a unit “or gives false information in the report” would face fines.

So let's get this straight. We have the City of Toronto's Streets to Homes program, taking people off the street, forcing social housing landlords to accept them, bringing bed bugs into the units, and where is the City when the bed bug problem occurs?

Then you have the Landlord and Tenant Board which routinely gets it wrong and blames landlords for the bed bugs, even when tenants bring them in, don't allow landlords into the units, don't cooperate by preparing the units for spraying or changing their living habits, but again, blame the landlords.

Then you have Legal Aid Ontario, supposedly looking for ways to spend money more prudently, funded by our tax dollars through Mr. Colle's government, working hard to keep people housed, preventing evictions, and defeating landlord's attempts to be compensated for the damage caused and costs incurred by the invasion of the bed bugs. They do this through 75 tenant-side legal clinics across the province, and a separate (and redundant) organization, ACTO, the Advocacy Centre for Tenants, Ontario.

And then we have the Ontario Human Rights Commission which under the Liberal watch, specifically in October of 2009, introduced a Policy Guideline on Human Rights and Rental Housing, which makes it all but impossible to evict any tenant who claims to be member of one of 14 Code protected groups (usually disability) and refuses to engage in acceptable hygiene and cooperate with the landlord in keeping the rental unit free from bed bugs.

Waste of LAO dollars through the Legal Clinics and ACTO is rampant. As we speak I have a case at the Landlord and Tenant Board where one of the 75 community legal clinics, Neighbourhood Legal Services, is defending a tenant in a private, for-profit building, who has let his unit get to such a horrid state of infestation that 6 other tenants have moved out. He has refused to cooperate in the remediation process, and to date, the landlord has spent over $10,000 doing unit and building treatments, all related to this one unit. Instead of encouraging the tenant to take some personal responsibility while living in a communal setting, the legal clinic is fighting not only the eviction application, but any attempts by the landlord to recover compensation for the damage, or to have the tenant improve his standard of cleanliness.

So Mr. Colle, before you decide that the panacea for this problem which I agree is a plague on this city is to have landlords fill out reports, perhaps you'd better consult with people who actually work in the industry. Maybe you should come up with solutions to get rid of bed bugs, instead of harass landlords who are also victims.

Dumbed-Down Wish List for the MInister of Housing

2010-06-01T16:55:00.017-04:00

I'm a member of various boards and organizations dealing with L&T law in Ontario, and from time to time I get to meet the Minister or Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister to help them understand stakeholder issues more clearly. Landlord and Tenant law is political, so the political masters need be careful to meet with all sides so that the appearance of fairness is maintained.

Now of course there is nothing at all fair about Landlord and Tenant law in Ontario from the perspective of the landlord, but the legislature is supreme and has the right to make un-fair laws. If real estate investors don't do their due diligence, and find out ahead of time that rental housing attracts the same regulatory scrutiny as nuclear power (or soon, off-shore drilling), that's really their own fault.

I read posts and blogs where landlords suggest that they can't wait for the provincial conservatives to come to power in November, as they think that will change things. I think not. There are more tenants than landlords, and while I'm hoping for change, I'm not anticipating changes even if Mr. Hudak and crew come to power.

So I've got a list I've made up of things I would bring to the Minister's attention if I were meeting with the Minister tomorrow. You may be surprised when you read it, as it doesn't deal with the things most people complain about; no damage deposits, no ability to restrict pets, the frustratingly slow eviction process, no return of default orders and eliminating s.82 that allows tenants to ambush landlords with their own claims without notice at a rent arrears hearing. These are not on my list, as it would be a waste of a list. I'm afraid that the best that landlords will do is to fix up some non-political, and non-controversial provisions that have a grossly unfair result, perhaps un-intended.

Here's my top-ten list. Feel free to post your own comments, and tell me what makes you think the government would consider them.

1. Clarify rules about entry into the rental unit, both regarding time of entry and duration. The Wrona v.TCHC decision at Divisional Court on appeal was disturbing and inconsistent with the landlord’s obligation to repair, maintain and keep fit for habitation. It also ignores the reality that landlord's don't control the schedule of trades people. The Courts, the Board and the Ministry's Investigations and Enforcement Unit are inconsistent, using different interpretations of what constitutes lawful notice of entry.

2. Modify the Board's Rules of Practice so that email is an accepted method of service, at very minimum for notice of entry into the unit. How many tenants have email, versus fax which IS a permitted method of service of documents.

3. Amend section 136 as follows to eliminate the unexpected effect of Price and Turnbull’s Grove which was decided at the Court of appeal. This decision renders meaningless the one year limitation, amnesty or deeming provision that was added to the Tenant Protection Act and remained in the Residential Tenancies Act to provide certainty and finality with respect to the amount of the lawful rent, particularly for those buying a rental property.

Rent deemed lawful

136. (1) Notwithstanding section 116, the rent charged one or more years earlier shall be deemed to be lawful rent unless an application has been made within one year after the date that amount was first charged and the lawfulness of the rent charged is in issue in the application. 2006, c. 17, s. 136 (1).

Increase deemed lawful

(2) Notwithstanding section 116, an increase in rent shall be deemed to be lawful unless an application has been made within one year after the date the increase was first charged and the lawfulness of the rent increase is in issue in the application. 2006, c. 17, s. 136 (2).

4. Clarify that an N4 notice given for rent arrears (or a conduct notice such as an N5, N6 or N7) does not eliminate the tenant’s obligation to pay rent during a 60 day notice period or to the end of the lease term if the tenant moves out after receiving the notice. Say goodby to lease-breaking parties!

5. Clarify s. 74(14) of the Act so that the Board has a consistent approach as to whether on a void motion, the tenant must have paid all the rent owing to the date of the motion hearing, and not just the date on which the motion was filed, which could be a month or more earlier. It's absurd that a tenant can void an eviction order for rent arrears, and still owe a month's rent or more.

6. Revise the disclosure rules to mirror those in the Small Claims Courts. Respondents, landlords or tenants, should have a right to be aware of the case against them before they arrive at a hearing, particularly with the tenant’s right to raise s.82 issues at a rent hearing.

7. Fix the “one year limitation” problem on money unlawfully collected or retained. Currently a tenant can sue the landlord for years of un-paid LMR interest even though s. 135(4) seems to have been intended to limit it to one year:

Time limitation

(4) No order shall be made under this section with respect to an application filed more than one year after the person collected or retained money in contravention of this Act or the Tenant Protection Act, 1997. 2006, c. 17, s. 135 (4).

8. Look at the s.53 provisions regarding the tenant’s right to return to the unit in applications for renovation, when the revised configuration of the complex makes it impractical, for instance, a rooming house converted to a single family home;

9. Section 68 should be changed so a tenant cannot, at a hearing, claim he or she “didn’t” void the N5 notice even though the landlord considered it voided;

Notice of termination, further contravention

68. (1) A landlord may give a tenant notice of termination of the tenancy if,

(a) a notice of termination under section 62, 64 or 67 has become void as a result of in the landlord’s opinion, the tenant complying with the terms of the notice.

10. Broaden ss.62 and 89 (notice of termination and application for damages) so that landlords can go to the Board for damages arising out of a tenant’s conduct if the damages are losses incurred, and not just physical damage. It is crazy that if a landlord has to bring in a company to clean up mess because a tenant won’t clean up infestation, or tow a car, or pay the fire department because of a false alarm pull, that the current legislation doesn’t permit me to do it (although sometimes Board Members forget that). The Courts have said that tenants have a right to general and special damages, almost every sort of damage is available to them through the LTB, in contract, tort and statute, with no requirement to make a separate trip to Small Claims Court.

I'm looking forward to hearing your suggestions.

Sad farewell to client and friend killed while doing her job

2010-02-04T16:31:00.026-05:00

I read with terrible sadness today that a client, or more properly an employee of a client had been murdered at work, alone in her office killed by a knife-wielding man. A 47 year old tenant has been charged with murder. Larisa Belekova worked as manager of several rooming houses, providing accommodation and support to persons with mental health, addiction and poverty issues.

I have a lot of supportive and transitional housing clients who house tenants with mental illness. I'm often afraid for them...most supportive housing workers are young woman, men as well, often under-paid and often working with little support or security. I don't blame my clients, they simply aren't given the funding. They do the best they can with what they have.

Ontario has celebrated 35 years of de-institutionalizaton of people with mental illness. The plan called for community living, part of which was to provide social housing but with a support component, most often called supportive housing. Usually the funds to pay support workers and services comes from the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, with rent subsidies coming from the province but more recently from municipalities. In this case it was an agency, Habitat Services, who provided the tenants, and the support funding. But the money under all levels of government has been woefully inadequate. Supportive housing landlords receive only a fraction of what they need to deal with the multiple concurrent disorders faced by their tenants, often living in cramped conditions, usually shared accommodation and with minimal support. Staff are not doctors, nurses, psychologists, clinicians of any sort. Theoretically there are support services that housing staff can connect tenants with, and they do, but at the end of the day, it's up to the tenant whether or not to take their meds or to accept support services.

Supportive housing programs house those who are the hardest to house, often taking referrals without being given any knowledge of the prospective tenant's history of mental illness, criminal convictions, sexual assaults etc. Referral agencies often have an ideological bent where they don't want to know the tenant's history, they just want to see him or her housed. Evictions when tenants become violent or dangerous are next to impossible. For that, blame the Residential Tenancies Act, the Landlord and Tenant Board and Legal Aid Ontario. The police are also complicit, often ignoring their obligation to "keep the peace", and suggesting to landlords "it's a landlord and tenant issues, go to the Landlord and Tenant Board".

My heart goes out to Larisa's family. I met her daughter a couple of years ago, a lovely young woman. She was thinking about going into the legal field. My hope is that Larisa's brutal murder will wake up governments to the inadequacy of facilities and funding for those with mental illness, and to the danger housing staff face every day working in impossible conditions.

Another Example of LAO Funding Prejudicing a Landlord

2009-12-15T15:04:00.015-05:00

Another great example which investors may want to consider before deciding to purchase a rental property. I was at the LTB this morning at the Central Regional Office, on a tenant-initiated review of an eviction order. It was actually based on the denial of the tenant's motion to void an eviction order based on an order for arrears that was filed with the Sheriff for enforcement, followed by a payment into the Board by the tenant of all arrears that was due to that date.

The amount due to "that date" included July, August and September's rent, as the payment into the Board was made on September 28th, just days before the Sheriff was about to come. The tenant filed his void motion on September 28th, with the hearing of the motion not taking place until October 30th. Of course on the date of the motion hearing, the tenant had not paid October's rent which at that point was 30 days late. He went to tenant duty counsel for advice, and based on that advice, argued that once the payment was made into the Board, that no further payment was required in order to void the eviction order.

The adjudicator agreed with my interpretation of s78(11) and s78(14) of the Residential Tenancies Act as other Members had in the past. Based on the fact that all the required rent as set out in the Act had not been paid, and based on my submissions, the Member denied the tenant's motion and refused to void the eviction order. Member Wronecki lifted the stay of enforcement, allowing the Sheriff to enforce the order.

But before that could happen, the tenant went to see tenant duty counsel and the local legal clinic, where they advised him to file a review of the order. I know this for a fact, as the Tenant Duty Counsel staff lawyer at the Mississauga Board location mentioned to me in passing the following week, that the tenant had paid her another visit after receiving the eviction order, asking for advice, and that she advised him that the legal clinic was an option.

The review request, drafted professionally using LAO funds, argued that the tenant had no obligation to pay his ongoing rent in order to have the eviction order voided. The hearing of the review was this morning. I watched amused as the tenant ran into the Tenant Duty Counsel office prior to the hearing, looking to gain support for his position. Or should I say, "for his bad behaviour". Did I mention that as of the hearing this morning, not only was October's rent not paid, but so was the rent for November and December unpaid. So the tenant, who is employed and is a mortgage broker, married to a woman who is also working, availed themselves of the system which advocated the proposition, through the drafting of his review, that the Board should void the previous eviction order despite the fact that as of the hearing today, the tenant owed $5,550, three months rent.

The tenant hasn't provided a reason for not paying the rent. He's made no claims of maintenance or harassment etc. Frankly, why should he? It's easy enough to use the system, that being the Residential Tenancies Act, the Landlord and Tenant Board and the LAO funded clinic and Tenant Duty Counsel system to avoid paying rent.

So at the Board today, rather than argue a defence to the merits of the review and convincing Member Wallace (very competent) who was hearing the review, of the merits of my client's position, I just consented to the granting of the review and walked away. Why? Because it was clearly being orchestrated as a test case by the clinic system (which is their right) and if I had been successful on the review, which I believe I would have been, it would have been $15,000 of my client's money to defend the appeal at Divisional Court. And of course, rent isn't getting paid, so if my client just hired a lawyer pending the appeal being heard 8 months down the road in order to get an interim order that rent be paid into the Court, that would have cost him $3,000.

So rather than pursue his rights, my client made the correct, pragmatic decision to walk away from a fight that he couldn't afford, as he was up against the full weight of the government. I served the tenant with a new N4 notice right in the hearing room, and will file a new L1 in two weeks. Round and round we go. More delay. More legal costs. More time wasted. More Board resources wasted.

Letter to Bob Ward, CEO Legal Aid Ontario

2009-12-04T11:28:00.022-05:00

This morning I drafted a letter to Bob Ward, the President and CEO of Legal Aid Ontario, asking him to consider the abuses in the funding of tenant advocacy in the landlord and tenant sphere. Click here to see a copy of the letter to LAO.

I hope others take up the cause to achieve fairness and balance. Mr. Ward can be contacted at the address below, or you can fax your concerns or complaints to LAO at 416-979-8669:

Mr. Bob Ward, President and CEO
Legal Aid Ontario
Atrium on Bay, 40 Dundas Street West, Suite 200
Toronto, ON M5G 2H1

Human Rights Commission Policy Guideline will Devastate Small Landlords

2009-10-05T13:46:00.009-04:00

This morning, HRC Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall addressed stakeholders and the media in order to introduce the Commission’s new Policy Guideline on Rental Housing in Ontario.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/en/resources/Policies/housing

To this point, there had not been a guideline tailored to rental housing, but stakeholders, advocates and adjudicators often took their cues from other materials that were more related to discrimination in an employment context. Starting today, finders of fact at all courts and tribunals will be bound to follow the new policy guideline when considering cases where discrimination is alleged, or the need for accommodation pleaded in a rental housing context. This will include eviction proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board which is already under-resourced causing delays prejudicing small landlords. Landlords will have to take notice of the guideline and ensure that their policies, both pre-tenancy and during the tenancy comply with the Code. Landlords must check leases and just as important, rental applications to ensure that they do not ask anything that could later be misconstrued as being discriminatory, or having the potential to have a discriminatory effect.

Nobody can argue against Human Rights in housing. It’s a motherhood issue. But most don’t understand the argument. The vast majority think that discrimination in housing means that a marginalized person was refused accommodation because of income, race, family status, age, a disability etc. Or perhaps a landlord wouldn’t install a ramp or other assistive device to accommodate their disability. And they would be right. But the danger of this new document is that it hides obligations for in-place tenants behind the basic protections that should be obvious.

A fatal flaw in the policy guideline is that it makes no distinction between obligations for small landlords, renting out their basement or a single investment property, “including a condominium”, and those professional landlords with the staff, training, resources and economies of scale to achieve compliance with the Code. Small landlords will be turned into social workers under the new guidelines, with obligations for connecting those with mental health issues to appropriate support services, creating an accommodation plan with the tenant, modifying their tenancy practices to the point of near insolvency, and having the burden of proving to a court or tribunal that the tenant’s requested accommodation imposes an undue hardship on them. And all this need be done, according to the guideline, before a landlord should even consider an eviction application, whether about rent or dangerous conduct.

For small landlords, most of who don’t know they have obligations under the Code, the Policy Guideline will be a shocking read. Ontario has embarked on a 30 year commitment to de-institutionalize those with mental health problems, and has instead focused on community living. Of course governments of all stripes have provided almost no money to house those who need support services, and as a result, the problem of homelessness and under-housing of those with physical and mental health issues has now reached crisis proportions.

This policy guideline represents the last piece of the puzzle. Without explicitly saying so, the commission (the government, although some will argue otherwise) will mandate that instead of the taxpayer being responsible for those vulnerable persons who need our support, the burden will fall to landlords. Instead of making housing a ballot question, the Government hides being the Code and now this new Policy Guideline. Instead of building more social housing, and in particular providing funds for alternative, transitional and supportive housing, the government washes its hands of those most needing its help, and is saying:

Here landlords, now you deal with what used to be a larger societal problem. You will need to accommodate the tenants' disabilities to the point of your insolvency, you will need to modify your dwellings, you can't evict problem tenants despite dangerous or unreasonable conditions occurring, even if you live in the same house, and we (the government) won't be there to provide help or financial support.

All for the $600 a month the small landlord receives from the typical basement apartment.

Small landlords, this is the time to divest yourself of all rental properties in Ontario. Invest in mortgages, bonds, anything but rental housing in Ontario. Despite the low interest rates and suggestions by your local Realtor, you do NOT want to be a landlord in Ontario after today’s announcement.

HRC To Release Policy Guidelines

2009-10-04T20:23:00.007-04:00

I've written and spoken a fair bit about the Human Rights Code and how pending changes are going to make it unwise for landlords in Ontario, particularly small landlords, to take the risk of becoming landlords. Last year's "consultation" (if you can call it that) laid the groundwork for the policy guidelines that are being introduced on Monday morning, October 5th by Barbara Hall. Here's a link to the press release:

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/arch ... c3364.html

These guidelines will form the basis for all adjudicative decision-making at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, and at all courts and administrative tribunals including the Landlord and Tenant Board where there are issues related to housing and human rights.

I hope you all take the time to read it when it is released. I suspect you will be shocked. Ontario has embarked on a 30 year commitment to de-institutionalize those with mental health problems, and has instead focused on community living. Of course the governments have provided almost no money to house those who need support services, and as a result, the problem of homelessness and under-housing of those with physical and mental health issues is now a crisis.

This policy guideline will be the last piece of the puzzle. Without explicitly saying so, the commission (the government, although some will argue otherwise) will mandate that instead of the taxpayer being responsible for those vulnerable persons who need our support, the burden will fall to landlords. Instead of building more social housing, and in particular providing funds for alternative, transitional and supportive housing, the government has washed its hands of those most needing its help, and is saying "Here landlords, now you deal with what used to be a larger societal problem. You will need to accommodate the tenants' disabilities to the point of your insolvency, you will need to modify your dwellings, you can't evict problem tenants despite dangerous or unreasonable conditions occurring, even if you live in the same house.and we (the government) won't be there to provide help or financial support."

Stay tuned for tomorrow's potentially devastating announcement.

Mediation at the LTB generally a waste of time

2009-09-22T12:07:00.004-04:00

I've never been a big fan of mediation at the LTB. It's generally a waste of time in my opinion. But I had two cases in one week that brought it home.

The first was a file up in Newmarket where I had entered into a consent order in June for the tenant to pay her rent on time (it was a persistent late application) or the landlord could file ex parte (an L4 application without a hearing) on a breach. The tenant breached in August with an NSF. We didn't get paid until the 26th of August. We filed the L4, got the order, the tenant filed a set-aside motion and the motion was heard by a Toronto North region Member last week. The tenant acknowledged that the cheque went NSF, I had lots of case law with me that says the Board should respect mediated agreements, otherwise nobody will enter into them. But what does the Member do? She said "I'll give you one more chance". She set aside the order. Now the next time there is a breach, the same thing will happen, the set aside motion will likely be heard by a different Member (law of averages) and that Member will likely say "OK, I'll give you one more chance". It's absurd. The Board may as well hang out a sign that says "Landlords need not apply on breaches of agreements". What about the landlord's legal fees? What about the NSF fees, they are even un-collectable on a hearing of a set aside motion .

Then a crazy one this morning at the Central Region. Never seen anything like it. We had a consent with the tenant back on August 21st. The tenant was to move out at the end of October, non-remedially and we forgave some rent due to their trumped up maintenance claims. The tenant was to pay some of the arrears to the landlord, and if the tenant didn't make those payments on time, my client had a right to file an L4 re-application earlier than October 31st (only upon a breach) for an earlier eviction. The first payment was due on the 24th of August, and we knew we wouldn't see it, but that's OK, we had a consent that said we could file ex parte

Well, the tenant didn't pay, but we got no order from the Board, so we couldn't file the L4. I contacted the Board, in writing and over the phone. I asked them "Where is the order, we want to file?" The Board said they would get back to me with an answer. Lo and behold, the Member issued a notice of hearing insisting that we return on September 22nd, today. The Board (and the Member) wouldn't advise why the would not order this consent that was agreed to by the parties, the tenant having been represented by Tenant Duty Counsel at the first hearing. They wouldn't tell us what the issues would be on the return. They refused our request for a quick telephone hearing in case it was a minor procedural issue. So we waited a month, the tenant missed the payment on the 24th and the next one on September 4th. The tenants were laughing I'm sure, both at us and the Board. They ignored their agreement for payment, knowing that we couldn't file early on the Breach because the Member wouldn't issue the consent order, nor would she bring it back quickly to resolve the issues.

Oh by the way, between then and today, we get a maintenance request saying the washing machine doesn't work. The landlord sends in a repairman who says that fresh concrete has been poured down the drain of the laundry machine, and he will have to dig up the floor. Wonder how that happened.

So this morning we attend, no tenants of course, they've already reaped the benefit of an extra free month. The adjudicator explains that she brought us back because on reflection, she didn't think she had the jurisdiction to order a non-remedial eviction, but also order conditions and the right for the landlord to file ex parte on a breach. She said she didn't think she could have two termination dates in one order.

She is clearly wrong in law, and I've done this same order a dozen times. And it's not two termination dates in one order, it's one non-remedial date, but a right to file an L4 ex parte

The Board says publicly it's trying hard to resolve the more complex matters through mediation. But regulars like myself just stop mediating and insist on everything going to hearing when if there was a breach. re-application for an eviction date prior to that if the tenants don't live up to the agreement. But the issue is not that I disagree with her interpretation of the law. The issue is that the 10 minute hearing we had this morning, in the absence of the tenant, could have been done as a telephone hearing, permitted by the Rules of Practice, the very next day after the August 21st hearing. It's now cost my client another month. Just another $1,000 in rent caused by the delay, no big deal.:

Members routinely question a tenant's commitment to a consent order, and instead suggest they go talk to Duty Counsel

The Board routinely sends ex parte applications to a hearing rather than issuing an order as the Act permits

The Board routinely sets aside eviction orders that came about as a result of an admitted breach of a mediated agreements and consent order, for no reason

The Board refuses to take consents that are within its jurisdiction

Mediation at the LTB. No thanks, and I would stay away too if I were you.

New player entering into Landlord and Tenant wars

2009-07-25T16:14:00.012-04:00

It's nice to see small landlords starting to organize. God knows, tenants' organizations, funded by governments at all levels have been organizing, lobbying and pressing governments for the last 25 years. Make no mistake about it....there is a war going on, with the poverty activists such as ACTO, Legal Aid Ontario, CERA, FMTA and others well funded and well organized.

Strangely enough, it's the government that keeps the fires of war stoked, as they promise and create programs and fail to fund them, creating a frenzy by groups attempting to get their share. To compensate for the under-funding, governments put onerous and oppressive regulations on landlords so that they don't have to go to the electorate with a ballot question about housing.

Small landlords have to some extent been out of the loop and silent in the battle. There is the Landlords' Self-Help Centre, the only landlord-side legal clinic funded by Legal Aid Ontario. But the LSHC is not there to be an activist or militant voice, but to educate and provide legal advice to small-scale landlords. There are organizations for corporate landlords, such as FRPO, GTAA and MDSA, but they tend to take a corporate, more measured approach.

There is a new voice with a new web site through which Ontario landlords can share advice, ask questions, discuss tenant issues, perhaps even post "bad-tenant" lists. They are the Ontario Landlord Association, and frankly it's about time. Small landlord investors, encouraged to buy properties through low interest rates and an aggressive real estate industry, have not been treated well in the current system. The government is schizophrenic on this file. They want housing. They want affordable housing. Yet they treat all landlords in a monolithic fashion through the "One Size Fits All" Residential Tenancies Act. I can tell you that one size does not fit all, and government needs to nurture and attract investors, or the alternative is that government will have to build and operate social housing.

The new web site was born out of a group of passionate small landlords who recognize the unfairness of the system, and want to fight for change. The name of the new organization is the Ontario Landlord Association, and the web site is at http://www.ontariolandlord.ca.

Call them militant, but folks, there is a war on out there, and the tenant side is over-funded, over-represented and has the ear of governments. If you are a small landlord, go to their site, join the forums, participate, learn, teach and hopefully prosper.

Too much support for such a small number of tenants

2009-05-28T19:21:00.006-04:00

There are a number of tenant groups who claim to represent tenants. They include the Federation of Metro Tenants. CERA. ACTO and the legal aid clinic system.

From my perspective, they don't represent tenants, but only a small sub-set of tenants. They generally represent tenants who are on the margins of being evicted, generally because they haven't been willing to live within the rules. The 98% of tenants who pay their rent, report maintenance issues as they occur, don't blast music at midnight and who don't damage their units, find nothing of interest in the likes of ACTO, the FMT or the clinic system. The resources being spent on the tenant side, with community 80 legal clinics, CERA, ACTO and the Tenant Duty Counsel program all funded by government, is perverse. And if they have $100,000,000 between them, multiply that by 50 to see the real power, since they generally provide services to the same 2% of the tenant population.

The tenant duty counsel program (TDCP) funded by your tax dollars provides lawyers or community legal workers to staff outposts at Landlord and Tenant Board locations around the province. Tenants come in, supposedly prepared to proceed after seeking outside legal advice, free from the clinic system, and then they get another kick at the can with the TDCP, delaying hearings and creating unnecessary adjournments at the advice of counsel.

Moreover, there is the appearance of bias when the TDCP exists within the Landlord and Tenant Board offices. In two of Toronto's LTB offices, you need to go inside the Board office to get to the TDCP office. The workers for the TDCP appear to be Board employees, but giving advice to tenants only. This from a quasi-judicial administrative agency that must be seen to be even-handed. The relationship is too cozy for my liking. The also delay proceedings terrible. Read this letter sent this week to the Chair of the LTB and the managing director about an experience I had in Peterborough just this week:

May 26^th, 2009

Dr. Lilian Ma

Chair, Landlord and Tenant Board

777 Bay Street, 12th Floor

Toronto ON

M5G 2E5

Ms. Diana Macri

Director of Operations

Landlord and Tenant Board

777 Bay Street, 12th Floor

Toronto ON

M5G 2E5

Dear Dr. Ma and Ms. Macri:

Re: Concerns regarding tenant duty counsel program

I wanted to pass along some comments regarding an experience I had today in Peterborough. My concern is not just the experience today, but certainly it is today’s events that prompted me to put my thoughts to paper.

I understand the Board has no affiliation with the Tenant Duty Counsel program, and that is well enough and with good reason. However, there is often an appearance for landlords that the two are in some way connected. Take the Toronto North and Toronto East offices where the TDC office is inside the Board offices. Last year a policy was instituted with respect to certain agents who monopolized Board mediation rooms without a mediator being present. The rationale was that this gave the appearance that the legal representative worked for or with the Board.

I find that the deference given to the TDC program staff lawyers by Board Members borders on creating an appearance of a too-familiar connection. In Peterborough, the local community legal clinic’s practice of having the same staff lawyer (or community legal worker) being retained on files in addition to doing the TDC work, creates some serious issues. The Peterborough Clinic normally sends Ms. _______ both as TDC and as an agent acting for tenants who have retained the clinic. This letter is not about Ms. ________, who is capable and professional.

Today Ms. ________ had been retained in advance through the legal clinic on three complex matters. She was also doing TDC duties. Member Burke had finished most of the simple matters early in the hearing block, and had Ms. _______'s three files remaining. None of them had settled. Meanwhile, Ms. _______ was giving advice to tenants, working with the mediator on another matter, while Member Burke waited unable to commence any of the three matters. As you know, matters are too often adjourned due to scheduling overflow, even with super-blocks.

I grant you that this was an unusual case. In the Toronto area where I spend 80% of my time, the issue is more often the amount of time TDC staff spend with clients (not the Board’s mandate) and how it affects the proceedings. There are too often de facto adjournments as tenants spend an hour and a half in the TDC office, coming out ½ hour prior to the end of the hearing block with s. 82 issues and seeking an adjournment for counsel. Parties are advised to come to the Board prepared to proceed, either advancing or defending the claims. It seems that too many tenants use it as a time to prepare for the proceeding, with the urban legend, true or otherwise, that the TDC staff can absolutely obtain for them an adjournment.

In Peterborough today, Member Burke delicately asked Ms. ________ her intentions and expectations of when she would be available. He handled it very well. I expressed my concern to the Member in the presence of Ms. ___________ that the clinic should send the resources needed to fulfill its mandate both to the TDC program and to its clients. My position was that if they fail to do that, it should not be the Board or other parties whose money, time and valuable resources are wasted waiting for the clinic staff to become available.

In summary, there are two issues I hope you will examine:

The relationship between the Board and the TDCP which to the casual landlord observer seems overly cozy.

The deference given to staff of the TDCP as it impacts on the service delivered to other parties and the use of Board resources.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these concerns. Also, my compliments go out to your front-line staff on the manner in which they are holding up in what appears to be challenging times.

Yours very truly,

Harry Fine

President

Landlord Solutions

So I ask you, can we not expect the government, in this case the Ministry of the Attorney General, to at least give the appearance of impartiality, and to not have agencies it funds impede with the Board process which is beginning to grind to a halt...not in small part due to the TDCP.

I invite your comments.

Backlogs at the LTB becoming an issue

2008-11-24T19:37:00.006-05:00

Access to justice is often moot if it's not swift. Landlord and Tenant law has traditionally been seen as an area of civil justice that required quick access to some type of dispute resolution system. Most cases are about rent, and the landlord is greatly prejudiced if rent arrears are permitted to mount.

But it's worse when it's about conduct, particularly if you have the tenants living in your home, and there are gang members, drug dealers, prostitutes etc. frequenting your basement while your family including perhaps young children are terrorized. There is no fast-track, not even a form of injunctive relief through the Superior Court if things get way out of hand.

At the Toronto South regional office of the Board, it's taking more than a month to get a hearing for rent arrears, and about a month at the North York and Scarborough locations. If it were just a month delay to a hearing, that wouldn't be so bad, but there are delays right through the system.

If a tenant asks for an adjournment for a lawyer, or to bring his or her own claim, it will invariably be granted. That could result in another month in order to have the matter heard. At the hearing, assuming an eviction is granted (which is quite an assumption), the Board won't let you file with the Sheriff for a minimum of 11 days. But now you're into the Sheriff's queue. I've never understood why the Act doesn't permit enforcement of the Board order by way of a commercial bailiff. The Sheriff delay hasn't been bad lately in Toronto, about 3 weeks, but after Christmas it will be back up to 4 or 5 weeks. The Peel Region Sheriff's office is about the worst in the GTA, often 6 weeks.

But let's say the tenant files a review request just days before the Sheriff is about to enforce. Then the eviction is stayed pending the outcome of the review. If timed properly, your Sheriff appointment is missed, and if the review is denied, which it usually is, you have to wait for the order lifting the stay, file it with the Sheriff, and then go back to the end of their line. I've always thought that was terrible unfair. Missed Sheriff dates should go to the front of the line once the stay is lifted.

There is a move afoot to reduce the number of adjudicators at the Board, some say by as many as 15 Members. I don't know if that number is accurate, and I suspect if it's true it will accomplished primarily through attrition, but to reduce the numbers in the GTA any further makes the system irrelevant and near meaningless.

This Whole System is Out of Whack

2008-03-08T18:25:00.004-05:00

Theoretically Ontario landlords and tenants are provided with a system that provides them both with an opportunity to effectively, quickly, cheaply and fairly have disputes adjudicated. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Landlords are terribly disadvantaged at the Board by a number of factors:

The Residential Tenancies Act is tenant-centred legislation
Decisions from the appeal courts have generally favoured tenants for a number of reasons
Legal Aid Ontario over-funds tenant-side programs, and provides little funding for landlords

I am going to deal with these issues in a number of posts over the next month, but for this post, I will deal with the imbalance between parties in their ability to get free legal help.

Legal Aid Ontario takes government money and doles it out, supposedly in the public interest. But Legal Aid Ontario considers that there is a huge power imbalance between landlords and tenants, and provides funding almost exclusively for tenants. There are 79 community legal clinics across the province, plus a number of specialty clinics, including ACTO, the Advocacy Centre For Tenants Ontario. In addition to its activities in the area of law reform, ACTO runs a program that provides tenant duty counsel for all hearings in all GTA area locations of the Landlord and Tenant Board. The community legal clinics handle duty-counsel services for the rest of the province. When a tenant walks into a Board office for a hearing, they are greeted by staff lawyers or community legal workers whose job it is to delay evictions, defeat landlord's applications, and have tenants win significant monetary judgments from landlords.

Landlords have no assistance at the Board through ACTO, nor do they have the ability to get assistance from the community legal clinics. There is one landlord-side legal clinic given minimal funding by Legal Aid Ontario. It is called the Landlord's Self-Help Centre, but it provides summary advice by phone or for walk-ins. There is no funding for legal representation at the Board or on appeal at the Courts for landlords. Landlord's Self-Help Centre has no staff lawyer, has no funding for test-case litigation, and while they do good work, small landlords are almost always the losers when they appear at the Board without representation when the tenant has a well-trained lawyer with the resources of Legal Aid Ontario behind them.

Landlords, particularly small-scale landlords should be up in arms at the heavy-handed measures taken by the legal clinics considering that there is an enormous imbalance in power and money. The solution is certainly political. Landlords should be complaining to Legal Aid Ontario, the Attorney General and the Ontario Ombudsman.

Paralegal Regulation at the Board

2008-02-02T16:08:00.001-05:00

Since November 1st, 2007 the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) has taken to asking representatives if they are licensed or exempt from licensing before anyone can act for a party. Paralegals in the current LSUC licensing program, lawyers and employees of companies who they are representing can all appear at the Board. So can friends and family, if they are not being paid. But there a lot of people who call themselves paralegals who did not take part in the licensing process and who should not be acting at the Board. I've already found one, and I turned him into the law society.

My question is, should the Board be the watchdog? Where is their jurisdiction to do so? Personally, I think they have it backwards. It's ironic in a way that when anyone could appear at the Board prior to October 31st, 2007, the Board didn't concern itself with the quality of representation. But now that there is a licensing body, the Law Society, the Board is acting as cops for the LSUC. A person engaging in unauthorized practice can be slammed with a hefty fine under the Law Society Act. Persons who are licensed and who mess up or do poor work, will find themselves in front of an LSUC discipline panel. So what's the big deal? Now that the LSUC exercises control over all those who appear at Small Claims, or administrative tribunals, or at provincial court, leave it up to the free market complaint-driven system to weed out the bad apples.

Let's Start Blogging

2008-02-02T15:49:00.002-05:00

Welcome to the Blog section of Landlord's Solutions web. There really are no Blog Spots in Toronto that I know of where landlords and landlord's legal agents can share notes, discuss decisions and comment on their experience at the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board. This site will allow people, within reason and within the bounds of good taste, to provide constructive information for others that might make their Board experience more fruitful.

My own experience at the Board started in 2001 when I was a Board (then Tribunal) Member, but for the last 3 years I've been presenting in front of the Board as an agent, acting almost exclusively for landlords. Many ask me if I find it strange being on the other side of the bench, or which I prefer. I prefer this new life, as I'm an entrepreneurial sort, not well suited for government work. And I enjoy most days, bothered generally by questionable adjudication at times by Members who tend to have a tenant-centred slant and too broadly provide relief from eviction.

Out of the 45 or so Members, I'd say that there are only about 9 that I've run into who on a regular basis depart from the norm and arguably act outside their jurisdiction. I't s a problem, and I'd like to encourage others to speak out when they become the victim. I look forward to sharing my thoughts with you, and hearing of yours.

Thoughts on Ontario's Landlord & Tenant Law

Wait Time for Rent at LTB Getting Shorter?

Don't you think there is something wrong with these pictures at the LTB?

Why Do Governments Not Fix Their Own Obvious Legislative Shortcomings

LTB Process Provides Most Unfair Outcome for Unsophisticated Small Landlords

Liberals Start New Legislative Session by Dumping on Residential Landlords Again

Auditor General Slams Legal Aid Ontario. Lots of $$$ Wasted in Landlord & Tenant.

So Much Delay at LTB....So Many Frivolous Tenant Applications

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished at the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board

Board Delays Put Safety At Risk - Is This Fair & Balanced Mr. McGuinty?

LTB Member Makes Thoughtful Decision on Condominium Eviction Case

Before Investing, Be Aware That The LTB May Deny You The Right To "EVER" Move In

Minister Bartollucci's Comments on Guideline are Intellectually Dishonest

The rent control guideline for 2012 will be 3.1%

Important case from Ontario Court of Appeal on Rent Deposits

Fire Marshall's Report on 200 Wellesley Won't Solve the Problem

Mayor Ford's Solution to TCHC Housing Crisis May Need Some Work

LTB Makes Up The Law As They Go Along

LTB Makes Up The Rules As They Go Along In Preparation For A Postal Strike

Mr. Hudak, Where Are Your Conservative Values?

Naïve LTB Adjudicators Ask the Darndest (and Most Inappropriate) Questions

Where is Tim Hudak on Landlord Issues

If You Need a Lawyer for Divisional Court Appeals, Doug Levitt is my First Choice

Public Input Ends re: Strong Communities Through Affordable Housing Act

Bill 140 would,if passed, repeal the SocialHousing Reform Act, 2000 and enact the Housing Services Act, 2010. Thelegislation relates to the provision of housing and homelessness services underprovincial oversight. Among other measures, the proposed legislation:

· sets out defined matters of “provincial interest” relating to housingand homelessness services and provides for Ministerial policy statements onsuch matters;

· simplifying the rent-geared-to-income calculation process so that mosttenants would only declare their income once a year. This could allow them touse the extra money to improve their standard of living

· requires prescribed housing and homelessness plans to address thematters of provincial interest and be consistent with the Ministerial policystatements;

· provides for the designation of “service managers” (i.e. a municipalityor a district social services administration board) and their service areas andwill provide them with more autonomy than currently available under SHRA;

· sets out the general powers and duties of service managers, includingreporting to the Minister and public; and sets out the rules governing theoperation of defined “local housing corporations”

· defines and addresses the operation of both “rent-geared-to-incomeassistance” and “special needs housing”, including minimum prescribed servicelevels.

· amends the Planning Act to eliminate municipal prohibitions on secondfully-contained units within a home in an effort to increase housing stock

· simplifies administration and allows municipal partners to moreeffectively manage their services to meet the true needs of their communities

Ministry's Investigations & Enforcement Unit Useless for Landlords

Today's "Why Nobody Should Ever Become a Landlord in Ontario" Story

TCHC waste & abuse was unforgivable, but let's not lose sight of the real issues

Check out our new Ontario Landlord Discussion Forum

FRPO Report Urges Modernization of Ontario's Flawed Rent Dispute Process

Ontario Landlord Association another Internet One-Hit Wonder

Well Reasoned LTB Bed Bug Decision

A Week in the Life of Scheduling Insanity at the Landlord and Tenant Board

Delays at LTB Forced my Client to Cough Up Money for an Un-Deserved Settlement

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur's Comments on Tenant Safety are Patently False

Joe Fiorito of the Toronto Star is a Hypocrite of the Worst Order

New LTB Guideline on Notices of Entry Long Overdue - Lack of Email Service Striking

Ontario's Housing Minister Releases Report on Affordable Housing

End of the Gravy Train for Toronto's Left-Wing Tenant Activists

Hoarding and Bedbugs and Fires and Mental Health and Code and the LTB and.........

Suite Metering Finally Arrives for Ontario Landlords

Suite Metering Rules Finally Arrive for OntarioLandlords

What are suite meters?

The History

The Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) hasprovided these forms on their website on December 24th, 2010. I have attached the first item.

The expected forms include:

1) Informationfor prospective tenants form

2) Tenantconsent form for suite-metering (for when you want to convert a sitting tenantfrom bulk metering to suite metering

3) Rentreduction schedules (for each of the different rent reduction options)

4) Notice to terminate theobligation to supply electricity

Court of Appeal Decision Ends Sad Saga of a Landlord Crushed by Fees & LAO Might

Solutions for Hoarding are Complex, Needing Regulatory Changes

Update on Michele Mandel's Bently Driving Persian Princes, Tenant from Hell

NDP Working Hard to Eliminate Private Landlords

Employee's Conduct is Attributed to the Landlord

Michele Mandel's Column from August 21st Should Scare off "Landlords to Be"

Some Days My Job Just Stinks

Shame on McGuinty for Lowest Ever Rent Guideline

Cowardly Joe Fiorito takes Cheap Shots, Hides Behind his Paper

Liberal Bed Bug Bill is Batty

Dumbed-Down Wish List for the MInister of Housing

Sad farewell to client and friend killed while doing her job

Another Example of LAO Funding Prejudicing a Landlord

Letter to Bob Ward, CEO Legal Aid Ontario

Human Rights Commission Policy Guideline will Devastate Small Landlords

HRC To Release Policy Guidelines

Mediation at the LTB generally a waste of time

New player entering into Landlord and Tenant wars

Too much support for such a small number of tenants

Backlogs at the LTB becoming an issue

This Whole System is Out of Whack

Paralegal Regulation at the Board

The Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) hasprovided these forms on their website on December 24^th, 2010. I have attached the first item.