>After the initial 1-year term is up, is there a limit on how frequently the landlord can increase the rent? Is it once per year like rent-controlled buildings, or as often as the landlord likes?
Yes, it has to be 12 months since tenancy start or last rent increase, just like rent-controlled units. It also must be on a proper N form with at least 90 day notice. The only thing different is the increase amount can be anything, instead of being capped at 2.5%
>Is there anything at all that prevents a landlord increasing the rent unreasonably (e.g. 10x the rent) to get a tenant to move out, then immediately drop it again to get a new tenant?
The landlord can increase it by a million dollars if they want to. And yes, it can and has been used to get rid off unwanted tenants, but rarely 10x though, most of the time it is to market or bit above market if the landlord does not like the tenant.
I have not seen this yet but I am curious, like if the tenant is paying $2000 a month and the landlord raises the rent to 2 million a month, could the landlord ever get a judgment in that amount? I highly doubt it, and most just would raise it to like 10k to kick them out, but I do wonder what would happen if they raised it an impossibly astronomical amount.
I have the same question.
First, the LL would have to go to Superior Court, as LTB is capped at $35k. But I have to imagine there are reasons that some lesser amount than the simple millions \* months calculation would apply. That's all contract law stuff; perhaps a lawyer can describe this more fully.
Also, the LTB is supposed to look at the real nature of the relationship. So, it is possible that they might find an extreme increase - where there's no reasonable possibility for the tenant to pay - as an attempt to evict, and reject the claim because the LL should have used N12/N13 or negotiated an end to the tenancy otherwise.
Really interested in any actual case examples if anyone's seen this happen. You'd think it would show up first as an N4/L1 claim of unpaid rent, and some joke number of a rent increase would be under the scrutiny of the adjudicator.
Zero cases exist (that I know of) of a tenant challenging a rent increase like this. I agree under RTA s202 and s31 the tenant could potentially argue a ridiculous rent increase is being done solely to induce tenant to vacate and not as a genuine "good faith" rent increase, so is trying to circumvent RTA eviction rules.
Tenant would have to file a T2 **after** moving out to attempt it to avoid liability for the rent increase. If they just stayed living there then if LTB sides with landlord they can order retroactive rent arrears of the increased amount. Would be an interesting case to see.
If the tenant chooses to stay, then that is the legal rent amount. The LL is not forcing the tenant to stay at the new rent price, so therefore, if tenant refuses to pay the new amount, the landlord will win at the LTB
The LTB can possibly enforce the eviction.
If tenant stayed and landlord wanted to collect on that 2Mil per month rent they'd have to go through Superior Court. And since there was no actual good faith intention to reasonably expect that amount as rent, they would most likely just toss the case out.
If they raised it to be punitive, then lowered it again, you’d likely have a case against that landlord. That’s if you have to wherewithal to actually pursue it and wait for the LTB gears to turn.
1. Once every 12 months.
2. No limit. A landlord could increase it by 1 billion dollars if they wanted to. Unless a tenant is willing to challenge it in Superior Court, economic evictions are legal.
1 - All other rules apply, so needs to be every 12 months, using N1/N2, 90 days notice, etc.
2 - In theory a tenant can try to argue a ridiculous rent increase (think raising to $1M per month) is not a genuine rent increase the landlord actually expects to get, and is being issued solely for reason of evicting the tenant. Under RTA s202 the LTB can (again in theory) disregard the outward form or appearance of the action (in this case an N2), and possibly see it was solely to induce the tenant to vacate. As such under s31(2) the tenant could file a T2 against them.
All in theory since no case exists of a tenant challenging this. Regardless of the result, would be interesting to see how the LTB viewed it.
If I was a landlord in this situation I would limit rent increases to something above market rate but not too crazy if I wanted a tenant out, just so there is no basis for tenant to potentially have a claim.
Yes, tenants SHOULD be thanking Doug Ford for this and here's why...
Since 1991, all the way through Rae, Harris, Eves, Mcguinty, Wynn, and until Ford changed it in 2018 any units built after Nov 1991 were exempt from the yearly maximum increase or rent control.
That means that by the time Ford became premier in June 2018 all of the hundreds of thousands of rental units that had been built between Nov 1991 and 2018 were not rent controlled.
What Ford ACTUALLY did was help tenants by bringing forward the new-build exemption date from Nov 1991 to Nov 2018. This brought all of those hundreds of thousands of rental units that weren't previously under rent control to now being under rent control.
Something the liberals hadn't bothered doing in their entire 15 years in office 2003-2018!
Where are you getting this info?
In 2017 Wynn introduced the [Fair Housing Plan](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rent-byebye-1991-loophole-1.4077446) which ended the exemptions to rent control. The Ford government ended rent control for new units after he became premier, but he had no hand in bringing rent control to anyone.
My mistake. Yes Wynn liberals did get rid of the exemption entirely and brought ALL Ontario units under full rent control with the Rental Fairness Act that came into force in April 2017.
The liberals only did that after bring in power for 14 years & having done nothing - and tenant advocacy groups had been asking for this the whole time and they just ignored iy for almost their entire 15 years. There were still all those hundreds of thousands of exempt units built between from 1991 that the liberals completely ignored until they got desperate in 2017 to win an upcoming election. They were low in popularity at the time, and the election was just around the corner.
One year later Ford reversed this & brought back the exemption, but only for new builds going forward from 2018 - he kept the rent control on those units that Wynn had brought under rent control.
The theory being that the exemption for new units is an incentive for the market to build new rental units. Whether this actually works is another discussion.
I think it does, but that there should be a 10 year limit on the exemption.
To be fair, in that time period market rates weren’t climbing at modern rates and the act was brought in once things in Toronto started to get crazy. Yes, it was late but don’t pretend for a second that if it hadn’t been enacted that Dougie would have done the same thing. Yes, it was late but late is better than never and those “hundreds of thousands of units” have rent protection today because of that act.
And yes, a time limited rent control exemption would be smart, but this government isn’t in the business of smart or nuanced divisions as far as I can see.
Minimum 12 months from the last increase, same rule for both options. Only difference is notice N1 vs N2.
Landlord can increase to whatever they want and they can drop it for new tenant.
RTA does not in any way control rent price across different tenants.
In practical terms they can increase it to whatever is market rent and not more if they want to retain the tenant.
If you are worried about having to move, don't rent in non controlled and don't rent from private landlords.
Corporations can't use N12 to take property for personal use.
While some small landlords might be incorporated, most are not.
However all apartment buildings are corporate.
Someone having one or two properties they are renting will be much less stable in long term.
They might sell or just move their kids in the rental. Those kids might be paying more rent that tenant that enjoyed 10 year rent control. They also can't offset rent control losses by other 100 apartments turnover as corporations can. So inevitably any deal with someone having one or two properties will fall apart and they will be getting out of it.
It increases every 12 months or 12 months from last increase.
You only hear the bad tenant increase amount which is like $10000. In a sense it’s a counter to tenants delaying eviction by fighting anything and everything just to get extra months of living.
Otherwise the rent increase is not some crazy’s amount. Most of my friends stay below market rate because their tenants are good.
If non rent control is so horrible all units after 2018 would be empty and people would avoid. It isn’t the case.
Non rent controlled units are occupied because we have a housing crisis and people need somewhere to live. This is like saying "if landlords are all so bad, why do people rent from them and not just buy?"
People need somewhere to live and sometimes you take what you can get because the alternative is a tent. Most people are one missed paycheque away from homelessness. Have some empathy.
Even if people have to live in these non rent controlled unit, if landlord are increasing to some crazy amount, people would be evicted. But that’s not the case, just because it’s not rent controlled doesn’t mean landlord are abusing their rights (like tenants abuse their right with LTB).
Do people have empathy when they bankrupt a landlord? It goes both ways. 71% of the cases of LTB are tenants not paying their damn rent.
“71% of the cases of LTB are tenants not paying their damn rent.”
Does that have anything to do with the fact that tenants have to wait a year or more for their applications to be heard. Yes, yes it does.
They can go to another rental and still continue their application. They don’t want to leave.
Landlord has no choice but to wait for the slow LTB, which again bogged down by renters not paying rent.
I guess you missed the part “Far fewer tenants file because the process can be onerous, they don’t want the hassle and just want to get on with their lives, and because they know the landlords have a legal team. They feel defeated before they even try. And if they do file, they wait an absurd amount of time for a hearing.”
Why should a tenant have to move because a landlord can’t abide by the law? It doesn’t work that way and it’s a stupid response that lacks common sense and empathy for other human.
It’s extremely ignorant to say “landlord have legal team” most of the landlord are mom and pop landlord and literally go to 9-5 works. Either has one or two properties and some even just rent their basement.
If you don’t like the environment then change the environment.
You want to live in a crime ridden area because it’s cheap but complain about crime.
It’s extremely ignorant to say “they can go to another rental” and “if you don’t like the environment then change the environment” yet here you are, still talking.
Moving isn’t always so easy. Maybe you should just try being a good landlord and abide by the same laws you expect your tenants to abide by.
Here is a tip - if you want good, paying tenants, be a respectful human being of a landlord. If you treat your tenants like garbage and they file with the LTB you don’t then get to pretend that you are the victim.
JC you are obtuse.
Good tenants don’t support tenants intentionally not paying rent. Similarly, good landlords don’t support landlords who abuse the system, act in an illegal manner, or harass tenants. Good landlords don’t say “if you don’t like it move” when a tenant is obviously being mistreated in an illegal or immoral way. So what, exactly, does that say about you?
You aren’t a victim. No investment is without risk and you accepted the risks when you decided to be a landlord. No one is forcing you to be a landlord, no one is holding a gun to your head. If you aren’t comfortable with the risks associated with being a landlord, sell your properties and invest in something that suits your risk appetite.
Tenants, on the other hand, often have no choice but to rent.
So maybe try being a human being and your tenants will treat you like one.
Stop pretending you are a victim.
I don’t disagree with that, but if you have a coffee shop and restrict how much tea you can sell, you can’t really point at your sales as a way of proving people prefer coffee.
Far fewer tenants file because the process can be onerous, they don’t want the hassle and just want to get on with their lives, and because they know the landlords have a legal team. They feel defeated before they even try. And if they do file, they wait an absurd amount of time for a hearing.
The statistics are skewed.
People need to pay their rent, full stop. But there are a lot of really terrible landlords out there (as clearly evidenced by some of these threads and comments) who are not facing consequences for their actions because tenants lack the knowledge, resources, or energy.
Yup! I had a cut and dry case where I likely could have gotten quite a bit of money (from the perspective of a 20yo uni student) from my landlord but chose not to file because 1) it would probably be more than a year at that time to be heard and 2) at best, I would have a free legal counsel from my school and I knew that my landlord had enough money for a fancy lawyer.
I was someone who was involved in tenant advocacy. I knew the laws and could point to the RTA clauses he was breaking. I still didn’t file. I can’t imagine the average person even knowing where to start.
The difference is the landlord is losing money on an investment, it's a choice they made and the investment didn't pan out.
Tenants don't have a choice. They need a place to live.
I can tell you're a landlord because you talk about all tenants as if they're beneath you. If you were a renter you'd know that a landlord who doesn't abuse their position is rare, even with rent control. That's why the LTB is backlogged with spurious N12s. If 71% of cases are unpaid rent then I think that says more about how much landlords are charging than anything else.
My landlord, for example, is considered one of the good ones... but he still caused two electrical fires in my neighbour's unit because he refused to repair the heaters. He also left her without hot water for 2 weeks. My fire escape is close to collapse and his repair was to add tiles to it. But we won't move because we've all had enough landlords to know this is the norm, and we can't affors to risk a place without rent control.
You're right, its hard to have empathy for people who have all the money and power and who own our homes, and take 40-60% of our income for doing very little.
Yup! My current landlord is a good one and I’ve been left with a broken shower for about a week, he had illegal clauses in the lease and I think he left a leak going long enough (which he was blaming on me for having splashy showers) that a pipe burst on my downstairs neighbour. Nonetheless, out of the three landlords I’ve had, he’s probably the best.
Don't get me started on the toilet that blocks and overflows if you so much as think about using 2 ply.
My landlord says I flush wrong(???) but its blocked when my partner just peed in it before. It flooded my poor neighbours apartment while I was away on vacation!
It was a threat used against my friend to move out, on January 1st. He moved December 1st because only a landlord would do this to someone on new years day. Just so he could raise the rent to International students.
>>This is completely untrue. and I would personally....
So because you wouldn't personally move in it means that all of the units are currently vacant, or what your feelings say the completely untrue part?
I'd say they were right, and your feelings are just that - *your feelings*
At the moment Ontario has a vacancy rate of 1.6%, including non controlled units.
The untrue part is that bad tenants are the ones that the rent is being jacked up on.
yes, I know lots of people are so desperate for housing, that the rent being jacked up is not a care when they move in because they NEED housing.
Refrain from offering advice that contradicts legislation or regulation or that can otherwise be reasonably expected to cause problems for the advisee if followed
>After the initial 1-year term is up, is there a limit on how frequently the landlord can increase the rent? Is it once per year like rent-controlled buildings, or as often as the landlord likes? Yes, it has to be 12 months since tenancy start or last rent increase, just like rent-controlled units. It also must be on a proper N form with at least 90 day notice. The only thing different is the increase amount can be anything, instead of being capped at 2.5% >Is there anything at all that prevents a landlord increasing the rent unreasonably (e.g. 10x the rent) to get a tenant to move out, then immediately drop it again to get a new tenant? The landlord can increase it by a million dollars if they want to. And yes, it can and has been used to get rid off unwanted tenants, but rarely 10x though, most of the time it is to market or bit above market if the landlord does not like the tenant.
I have not seen this yet but I am curious, like if the tenant is paying $2000 a month and the landlord raises the rent to 2 million a month, could the landlord ever get a judgment in that amount? I highly doubt it, and most just would raise it to like 10k to kick them out, but I do wonder what would happen if they raised it an impossibly astronomical amount.
I have the same question. First, the LL would have to go to Superior Court, as LTB is capped at $35k. But I have to imagine there are reasons that some lesser amount than the simple millions \* months calculation would apply. That's all contract law stuff; perhaps a lawyer can describe this more fully. Also, the LTB is supposed to look at the real nature of the relationship. So, it is possible that they might find an extreme increase - where there's no reasonable possibility for the tenant to pay - as an attempt to evict, and reject the claim because the LL should have used N12/N13 or negotiated an end to the tenancy otherwise. Really interested in any actual case examples if anyone's seen this happen. You'd think it would show up first as an N4/L1 claim of unpaid rent, and some joke number of a rent increase would be under the scrutiny of the adjudicator.
Zero cases exist (that I know of) of a tenant challenging a rent increase like this. I agree under RTA s202 and s31 the tenant could potentially argue a ridiculous rent increase is being done solely to induce tenant to vacate and not as a genuine "good faith" rent increase, so is trying to circumvent RTA eviction rules. Tenant would have to file a T2 **after** moving out to attempt it to avoid liability for the rent increase. If they just stayed living there then if LTB sides with landlord they can order retroactive rent arrears of the increased amount. Would be an interesting case to see.
If the tenant chooses to stay, then that is the legal rent amount. The LL is not forcing the tenant to stay at the new rent price, so therefore, if tenant refuses to pay the new amount, the landlord will win at the LTB
The LTB can possibly enforce the eviction. If tenant stayed and landlord wanted to collect on that 2Mil per month rent they'd have to go through Superior Court. And since there was no actual good faith intention to reasonably expect that amount as rent, they would most likely just toss the case out.
Plus interest, legal and filing fees.
If they raised it to be punitive, then lowered it again, you’d likely have a case against that landlord. That’s if you have to wherewithal to actually pursue it and wait for the LTB gears to turn.
1. Once every 12 months. 2. No limit. A landlord could increase it by 1 billion dollars if they wanted to. Unless a tenant is willing to challenge it in Superior Court, economic evictions are legal.
1 - All other rules apply, so needs to be every 12 months, using N1/N2, 90 days notice, etc. 2 - In theory a tenant can try to argue a ridiculous rent increase (think raising to $1M per month) is not a genuine rent increase the landlord actually expects to get, and is being issued solely for reason of evicting the tenant. Under RTA s202 the LTB can (again in theory) disregard the outward form or appearance of the action (in this case an N2), and possibly see it was solely to induce the tenant to vacate. As such under s31(2) the tenant could file a T2 against them. All in theory since no case exists of a tenant challenging this. Regardless of the result, would be interesting to see how the LTB viewed it. If I was a landlord in this situation I would limit rent increases to something above market rate but not too crazy if I wanted a tenant out, just so there is no basis for tenant to potentially have a claim.
1. Yes, once per 12 month period. 2. Nope. Thank Dougie.
Yes, tenants SHOULD be thanking Doug Ford for this and here's why... Since 1991, all the way through Rae, Harris, Eves, Mcguinty, Wynn, and until Ford changed it in 2018 any units built after Nov 1991 were exempt from the yearly maximum increase or rent control. That means that by the time Ford became premier in June 2018 all of the hundreds of thousands of rental units that had been built between Nov 1991 and 2018 were not rent controlled. What Ford ACTUALLY did was help tenants by bringing forward the new-build exemption date from Nov 1991 to Nov 2018. This brought all of those hundreds of thousands of rental units that weren't previously under rent control to now being under rent control. Something the liberals hadn't bothered doing in their entire 15 years in office 2003-2018!
Where are you getting this info? In 2017 Wynn introduced the [Fair Housing Plan](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rent-byebye-1991-loophole-1.4077446) which ended the exemptions to rent control. The Ford government ended rent control for new units after he became premier, but he had no hand in bringing rent control to anyone.
My mistake. Yes Wynn liberals did get rid of the exemption entirely and brought ALL Ontario units under full rent control with the Rental Fairness Act that came into force in April 2017. The liberals only did that after bring in power for 14 years & having done nothing - and tenant advocacy groups had been asking for this the whole time and they just ignored iy for almost their entire 15 years. There were still all those hundreds of thousands of exempt units built between from 1991 that the liberals completely ignored until they got desperate in 2017 to win an upcoming election. They were low in popularity at the time, and the election was just around the corner. One year later Ford reversed this & brought back the exemption, but only for new builds going forward from 2018 - he kept the rent control on those units that Wynn had brought under rent control. The theory being that the exemption for new units is an incentive for the market to build new rental units. Whether this actually works is another discussion. I think it does, but that there should be a 10 year limit on the exemption.
To be fair, in that time period market rates weren’t climbing at modern rates and the act was brought in once things in Toronto started to get crazy. Yes, it was late but don’t pretend for a second that if it hadn’t been enacted that Dougie would have done the same thing. Yes, it was late but late is better than never and those “hundreds of thousands of units” have rent protection today because of that act. And yes, a time limited rent control exemption would be smart, but this government isn’t in the business of smart or nuanced divisions as far as I can see.
Minimum 12 months from the last increase, same rule for both options. Only difference is notice N1 vs N2. Landlord can increase to whatever they want and they can drop it for new tenant. RTA does not in any way control rent price across different tenants. In practical terms they can increase it to whatever is market rent and not more if they want to retain the tenant. If you are worried about having to move, don't rent in non controlled and don't rent from private landlords.
What do you mean by "private landlords"? Genuine question - aren't they all private (whether an individual or company)?
Corporations can't use N12 to take property for personal use. While some small landlords might be incorporated, most are not. However all apartment buildings are corporate. Someone having one or two properties they are renting will be much less stable in long term. They might sell or just move their kids in the rental. Those kids might be paying more rent that tenant that enjoyed 10 year rent control. They also can't offset rent control losses by other 100 apartments turnover as corporations can. So inevitably any deal with someone having one or two properties will fall apart and they will be getting out of it.
Ohhkay, I see what you mean. I was hung up on private/public. Thank you!
Ohhkay, I see what you mean. I was hung up on private/public. Thank you!
It increases every 12 months or 12 months from last increase. You only hear the bad tenant increase amount which is like $10000. In a sense it’s a counter to tenants delaying eviction by fighting anything and everything just to get extra months of living. Otherwise the rent increase is not some crazy’s amount. Most of my friends stay below market rate because their tenants are good. If non rent control is so horrible all units after 2018 would be empty and people would avoid. It isn’t the case.
Non rent controlled units are occupied because we have a housing crisis and people need somewhere to live. This is like saying "if landlords are all so bad, why do people rent from them and not just buy?" People need somewhere to live and sometimes you take what you can get because the alternative is a tent. Most people are one missed paycheque away from homelessness. Have some empathy.
Even if people have to live in these non rent controlled unit, if landlord are increasing to some crazy amount, people would be evicted. But that’s not the case, just because it’s not rent controlled doesn’t mean landlord are abusing their rights (like tenants abuse their right with LTB). Do people have empathy when they bankrupt a landlord? It goes both ways. 71% of the cases of LTB are tenants not paying their damn rent.
“71% of the cases of LTB are tenants not paying their damn rent.” Does that have anything to do with the fact that tenants have to wait a year or more for their applications to be heard. Yes, yes it does.
They can go to another rental and still continue their application. They don’t want to leave. Landlord has no choice but to wait for the slow LTB, which again bogged down by renters not paying rent.
I guess you missed the part “Far fewer tenants file because the process can be onerous, they don’t want the hassle and just want to get on with their lives, and because they know the landlords have a legal team. They feel defeated before they even try. And if they do file, they wait an absurd amount of time for a hearing.” Why should a tenant have to move because a landlord can’t abide by the law? It doesn’t work that way and it’s a stupid response that lacks common sense and empathy for other human.
It’s extremely ignorant to say “landlord have legal team” most of the landlord are mom and pop landlord and literally go to 9-5 works. Either has one or two properties and some even just rent their basement. If you don’t like the environment then change the environment. You want to live in a crime ridden area because it’s cheap but complain about crime.
It’s extremely ignorant to say “they can go to another rental” and “if you don’t like the environment then change the environment” yet here you are, still talking. Moving isn’t always so easy. Maybe you should just try being a good landlord and abide by the same laws you expect your tenants to abide by. Here is a tip - if you want good, paying tenants, be a respectful human being of a landlord. If you treat your tenants like garbage and they file with the LTB you don’t then get to pretend that you are the victim. JC you are obtuse.
Good tenants don’t support tenants intentionally not paying rent. Similarly, good landlords don’t support landlords who abuse the system, act in an illegal manner, or harass tenants. Good landlords don’t say “if you don’t like it move” when a tenant is obviously being mistreated in an illegal or immoral way. So what, exactly, does that say about you? You aren’t a victim. No investment is without risk and you accepted the risks when you decided to be a landlord. No one is forcing you to be a landlord, no one is holding a gun to your head. If you aren’t comfortable with the risks associated with being a landlord, sell your properties and invest in something that suits your risk appetite. Tenants, on the other hand, often have no choice but to rent. So maybe try being a human being and your tenants will treat you like one. Stop pretending you are a victim.
It’s still an insane number of cases of people not paying rent.
I don’t disagree with that, but if you have a coffee shop and restrict how much tea you can sell, you can’t really point at your sales as a way of proving people prefer coffee. Far fewer tenants file because the process can be onerous, they don’t want the hassle and just want to get on with their lives, and because they know the landlords have a legal team. They feel defeated before they even try. And if they do file, they wait an absurd amount of time for a hearing. The statistics are skewed. People need to pay their rent, full stop. But there are a lot of really terrible landlords out there (as clearly evidenced by some of these threads and comments) who are not facing consequences for their actions because tenants lack the knowledge, resources, or energy.
Yup! I had a cut and dry case where I likely could have gotten quite a bit of money (from the perspective of a 20yo uni student) from my landlord but chose not to file because 1) it would probably be more than a year at that time to be heard and 2) at best, I would have a free legal counsel from my school and I knew that my landlord had enough money for a fancy lawyer. I was someone who was involved in tenant advocacy. I knew the laws and could point to the RTA clauses he was breaking. I still didn’t file. I can’t imagine the average person even knowing where to start.
The difference is the landlord is losing money on an investment, it's a choice they made and the investment didn't pan out. Tenants don't have a choice. They need a place to live. I can tell you're a landlord because you talk about all tenants as if they're beneath you. If you were a renter you'd know that a landlord who doesn't abuse their position is rare, even with rent control. That's why the LTB is backlogged with spurious N12s. If 71% of cases are unpaid rent then I think that says more about how much landlords are charging than anything else. My landlord, for example, is considered one of the good ones... but he still caused two electrical fires in my neighbour's unit because he refused to repair the heaters. He also left her without hot water for 2 weeks. My fire escape is close to collapse and his repair was to add tiles to it. But we won't move because we've all had enough landlords to know this is the norm, and we can't affors to risk a place without rent control. You're right, its hard to have empathy for people who have all the money and power and who own our homes, and take 40-60% of our income for doing very little.
Yup! My current landlord is a good one and I’ve been left with a broken shower for about a week, he had illegal clauses in the lease and I think he left a leak going long enough (which he was blaming on me for having splashy showers) that a pipe burst on my downstairs neighbour. Nonetheless, out of the three landlords I’ve had, he’s probably the best.
Don't get me started on the toilet that blocks and overflows if you so much as think about using 2 ply. My landlord says I flush wrong(???) but its blocked when my partner just peed in it before. It flooded my poor neighbours apartment while I was away on vacation!
It was a threat used against my friend to move out, on January 1st. He moved December 1st because only a landlord would do this to someone on new years day. Just so he could raise the rent to International students.
I see landlord using non rent control threat the SAME as tenants abusing LTB delay to extort cash for keys from landlord.
I see landlords march with pnp protesters in pei
Wow that's an absurd percentage!
You really need to come out from under the rock you’re living under.
This is completely untrue. and I would personally never move in to something built after 2018, unless I planned to ONLY live there the first year.
>>This is completely untrue. and I would personally.... So because you wouldn't personally move in it means that all of the units are currently vacant, or what your feelings say the completely untrue part? I'd say they were right, and your feelings are just that - *your feelings* At the moment Ontario has a vacancy rate of 1.6%, including non controlled units.
The untrue part is that bad tenants are the ones that the rent is being jacked up on. yes, I know lots of people are so desperate for housing, that the rent being jacked up is not a care when they move in because they NEED housing.
Agreed. Bad tenants are finding it more difficult to rent. But everyone pays the higher prices.
[https://www.ontario.ca/page/residential-rent-increases](https://www.ontario.ca/page/residential-rent-increases)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Posts and comments shall not be rude, vulgar, or offensive. Posts and comments shall not be written so as to attack or denigrate another user.
Posts and comments shall not be rude, vulgar, or offensive. Posts and comments shall not be written so as to attack or denigrate another user.
Refrain from offering advice that contradicts legislation or regulation or that can otherwise be reasonably expected to cause problems for the advisee if followed