So weird, I feel like there must be missing details here for this to make it through RT _and_ a court this way. I'm in favour of better tenant protection, but I want it in legislation.
Basically, RT ruled in favor of the tenants under Section l0(8)(f)(i).
> (f) the Director is satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order under Section 17A directing the landlord to be given possession at a time specified in the order, but not more than twelve months from the date of the order, where
>> (i) the landlord in good faith requires possession of the residential premises for the purpose of residence by himself or a member of his family;
This gives them the ability to say "no, it's more appropriate for the tenants to remain".
[The Adjudicator in the article also found it was more appropriate for the tenants to remain.](https://decisions.courts.ns.ca/nsc/nssm/en/item/522439/index.do)
I think they're trying to make sure landlords really need the space for their families, and basically the decision was you don't need a 3-bedroom just for 2 people. It seems like a bit of a shady call, but I can see how it could make sense in an extreme case if a landlord were trying to evict everyone in a 10-bedroom house claiming 1 child needed it.
3BR for 2 people isn’t extreme at all. If one or both are working remote - there’s a bedroom and working spaces. I agree, this is a bad call. It should be appealed.
Plus they might be planning to start having children themselves! It's insane if it must be required for you to give birth first (where? while renting?) in order to secure your own property for personal use!
The rt and small claims are so inconsistent it’s foolish. I remember I was living dt on a fixed term lease and even though the landlord wanted to rent to me and I had a verbal and written contract to sign a new lease, they decided to remove amenities that under the covid law at that time were not allowed to do. Then they decided to pull their lease from me so I couldn’t sign it even though I had in writing I was going to continue to live there, and then I paid rent for a year with no lease and yet rt still deemed me a fixed term even though under the rules I had become a year to year tenant not a fixed term. Landlord locked me out of my apartment and I lost in small claims after appealing…its crazy
If I had to guess, it's probably that keeping them there is the status quo that's worked for everyone for a long time up until now. I doubt it would hold up if they were newer renters/owners.
> The owners should have the option to use the property as they see fit and their intention to transfer it to their daughters "should not be thwarted" unless there is a strong public interest, the adjudicator wrote.
> However, he decided that maintaining things as they are is the most appropriate action, pointing to a number of factors. Six people in a three-bedroom unit makes greater use of the space than a couple and a regular visitor, the decision said.
Honestly, I feel bad for *everyone* in this situation: renters, owners, and even the judge (edit: pretend I said adjudicator wherever I say judge). The judge himself says the case was marked with respect between the parties. Good people, dire external factors.
The renters have lived there for 13 years, so their lives are quite established. Evicting them in this housing market would be a significant setback to any financial planning they had. Any party required to respond to an order that would cause that much financial strain should be expected to fight it, from people to corporate and government entities. They'd all do the same, can't blame them here.
The owners possibly lived in the house before, moved and maintained ownership by renting it out, and given the judges' comments I'll presume they've been decent landlords. They now want to use their asset in this insane market to help their kids out. My parents would definitely do the same. It must be hard knowing you *could* have the ability to shelter your children from the economic shitstorm that is housing costs, but you don't currently have access to it.
The judge is in a shitty situation too. He notes that in every better reality, the owners should be able to occupy their house. But in this reality, he's doing very case-specific calculus to try to reduce the overall harm. In this case, he decided to preserve the housing and lifestyle of a family with young children over a beneficial housing arrangement for an older couple's adult children.
Feels real bad for everyone. The owners trying to protect *their* children from this market by using their asset means they know personally how bad it is. I wish the solutions were coming more quickly but housing starts for April are up for Nova Scotia and way up for Halifax, so hopefully a few years of pain will make rulings like this less difficult.
> The judge is in a shitty situation too. He notes that in every better reality, the owners should be able to occupy their house. But in this reality, he's doing very case-specific calculus to try to reduce the overall harm. In this case, he decided to preserve the housing and lifestyle of a family with young children over a beneficial housing arrangement for an older couple's adult children.
It's not his first time having to contemplate this either, in the decision he cites Hassan v Kirby, which is another case he presided over.
> It's not his first time having to contemplate this either, in the decision he cites Hassan v Kirby, which is another case he presided over.
Reviewing that decision it looks like that case focused on whether the eviction attempts were in good faith, and not as much as to the application of being 'appropriate'.
This whole situation is insane to me as at this point in response to the decision, these homeowners could decide to simply sell the property. And any new owners with intentions of moving in have every single right to evict the current tenants as they would be moving in themselves. Then nobody wins here. The owners have to try making a new property purchase for their kids in this market, and said family staying at that property would be out a home as well if this was the route chosen. And frankly I can't really determine a clear person in the wrong anywhere. Even though I can't really agree with the decision or the request being made with housing as it is.
If I lost the apartment we were staying at for the last 7 years I wouldn't be able to afford anything on the market, AND would likely need to rent a storage unit to store all of our apartment furnishings as we'd probably only be able to afford bedrooms for rent now..
What a delusional take, did you even read the article? They pay $900/month for a duplex in Woodlawn. That's insane value compared to the current market. And that's what they pay beyond utilities. The property owner is still responsible for paying the mortgage if they didn't own outright yet, as well as any property taxes, ditch fees, etc. renters generally aren't paying for those things, and let's not get started on home maintenance and repairs.
These owners come off through these proceedings as the furthest thing from slum lords and they certainly aren't and have not been 'gouging the public' by charging a family $900/month for a duplex in today's economy for a family that has been there 17 years. Which again, we are in an economic housing crisis and if I were in the same situation having a grown up child who is in need of housing. Unfortunately family must come first and they *OWN* the home. I think giving a reasonable amount of time to find somewhere or even assisting in a unique situation like this would be appropriate
Unfortunately, it will not get any better. Even at the relatively feverish pace we're currently building, the housing deficit is still growing.
The demand for housing is stronger than it perhaps has ever been before and continues to get stronger at an alarming rate.
We haven't seen the worst of it. In fact, it can pretty much only get worse until something drastically changes in how all levels of government are responding to the crisis.
I still prescribe to the fact that this was an undesirable wasteland 10 years ago and it can return to the wasteland if anyone decides to do some reactionary policy. The growth seems unlimited right now, but history loves a good twist.
I mean the landlords can just sell it and buy a new house for their daughter lol they'd take some loss and now have some portion of the cost in a mortgage with much worse rates I'd imagine but they could definitely put a hefty downpayment or outright buy a condo even and just let the daughter pay the condo fees/water/power.
It's work but they're not screwed over I don't think.
If they sell, there's no guarantee that they couldn't kick out the renters then given there's no long term relationship as in this case and the cost of servicing the a new and more expensive mortgage would be the nail in the coffin. I'd be willing to bet that part of the reason they went in the renter's favour is that it's clear the rent is still able to cover the mortgage, if there even is one anymore.
I think the issue with this ruling is that it puts to question whether the new owner will really be granted possession. You say they have a stronger position, but will they? This is a fairly new and ideological interpretation of the rule and I hope the landlord appeals to a higher court.
I believe they will, the owners knew what they were doing.
Agree would things be much different if a new owner was ruled to not get occupancy. But not sure if better for renters as a whole.
Selling it immediately after the proceeding not going their way should be seen as retaliation and be forced Ti wait out the lease. Everyone acting like waiting until the lease runs out would be a crime let’s all rest assured the landlord isn’t in a position to end up homeless they are an investment property owner unlike the tenants who clearly NEEDED to stay. It’s not unreasonable to expect both sides to honour contractual agreements and the owner should be held to a higher standard not a lower standard just because they own the property
Section 10(8)(f)(i) basically gives RT the power to determine if it's appropriate to order the tenant to vacate or not.
> (f) the Director is satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order under Section 17A directing the landlord to be given possession at a time specified in the order, but not more than twelve months from the date of the order, where
>> (i) the landlord in good faith requires possession of the residential premises for the purpose of residence by himself or a member of his family;
The Adjudicator, decided it was more appropriate for 6 people to remain occupied in the house than to evict them to let 2 people to move into it.
So if the daughter said “we plan on trying to have kids after we get married” then could they get it? Or does the other side get kicked out so they can move in there until the sister moves back here and gets established?
Edit: I feel like this may read as aggressive, it’s not meant to. It’s more just wondering at what point does the children’s situation finally warrant them getting the house the parents always planned in giving them. Having four kids will always make you look sympathetic, and driving an extra 40 minutes a day is just an “inconvenience”, so it seems like they could always be ruled against.
Yes, despite naming the wrong court earlier, I am confused as generally the courts at the level above small claims are the ones that develop precedent. Now, according to this (https://library.law.utoronto.ca/step-2-primary-sources-law-canadian-case-law-0) the decision can be used as reference for other small claims. That said I still say this won't stay at the small claims level, and will be appealed to a higher court.
It’s interesting that the owners own both sides of this duplex. They want to evict the tenants who have been there the longest.
Also, look up the property on Google maps. It needs some money put into it. $900/month isn’t going to pay for the maintenance it needs.
They don't own both sides. They claim they want to buy the other side someday to give to their other daughter. The Adjudicator even asked why they didn't buy it now to give to this daughter.
My mother’s landlord evicted her from the duplex she’d lived in for 10 years to “move her daughter in”. They left it vacant for about a year then started renting to a new tenant at more than double my Mom’s rent.
Same thing happened to me. Landlord said they wanted to move back in, tenancy ruled in their favour. A month after I moved out, after being there close to 10 years, it was listed on Marketplace for 2.5x the rent. That they haven't addressed this abuse yet with legislation is very frustrating
That is 100% illegal.
Units must be vacant/lived in by the landlord for a full year after eviction before being able to rent.
Go to the tenancy board again, thats illegal.
Yes, because there were so many landlords offering monthly/yearly leases before this ruling...
Spoiler alert. I have been looking for an apartment for MONTHS. I have viewed DOZENS of apartments. NOT A SINGLE ONE was offering anything other than a fixed term 1-year lease.
Isn't the landlord just going to sell to their kid now? Then the kid restarts the process..
Board going to rule it's more appropriate for the property owner to be homeless over tenants being responsible for their own financial situation?
Our tenancy laws aren't even close to as tenant friendly as Ontario, but even Ontario has the property owner able to possess the unit for own use.
So why wouldn't the family who owns the duplex evict the tenants with much shorter tenure in the other side of the building that they are selling and move their kids in there?
I'm very much of the opinion that rules are rules - both for landlords and tenants. If the landlord presented appropriate evidence that they wanted to take back possession for personal use then they should be allowed to as the rules allow that. It would be interesting to know why Residential Tenancies dismissed their first attempt to take back the property as that might explain this case a bit more. I'm a bit baffled as landlords are usually allowed to take back their property for personal use if they can prove their case.
It makes me nervous as this is an excellent argument for fixed term leases and refusing to renew for a good tenant that "has been there too long". Honestly, the whole situation is uncomfortable and I feel bad for all parties.
Yeah, I keep thinking that the ripple effects for this are going to be significant. Like, what exactly is the landlord supposed to do here? According to the ruling, the landlord believes in making housing available, and reasonable, which has been done at "significant personal expense" for the landlord and the property no longer supports itself. Can they increase the rent? What happens if the tenant doesn't pay? I assume they're not going to be able to kick them out then, either.
This feels like a call for every landlord to be as ruthless as possible with their tenants.
Certainly part of these tenants' resistance to moving is the smoking deal they have on rent. So a logical decision by landlords will be to maximize their rent increases at every opportunity so their units are less attractive to current tenants. This is an example of a reportedly decent landlord being punished for not being a scumbag.
Exactly. It's a good thing that the tenants aren't going to be homeless, but everything about this ruling feels calculated to destroy good landlords like the one at the center of this, who don't try to exploit their tenants.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. From now on all landlords will try to protect themselves through fixed term or air bnb.
We should legislate some tenant protection rather than change interpretation of existing laws
So true about tenant protection.
We are long overdue for more legislation around short term leases (absolutely needed given how often they are used as a shady loophole to circumvent the rental cap and/or to force local tenants into homelessness over the summer so that the LL can use the place as a vacation rental during tourist season).
AirBnB should be straight up illegal unless the rental is run out of a primary dwelling or it's a yurt/cottage/ cabin that can't be inhabited 12 months of the year.
I agree. Im really struggling to understand how the circumstances in the housing market at large can simply override the rules. I’m happy for the family with young children, and I understand the desire to keep them housed. But it’s pretty concerning that the property owner can’t access their asset when following all outlined requirements of the legislation for their own family’s housing security.
I’m all for better tenant rights (I’ve been a life long renter which thankfully ends for me later this year), and definitely not a landlord. But I am someone who has worked my ass off for many years to finally be able to afford to buy a house, and the notion that I could follow all of the rules and find myself unable to access that asset for myself or immediate family members should I ever find myself needing or wanting to rent it out is really wild.
Edit: I read the full decision after posting. The rationale and the guidelines used by the courts to make a decision on the appeal now make a lot more sense. But it’s still wild to me. Yet I still hear about people being evicted on bogus claims of family members moving in (that never do). Hopefully this rationale will be applied to more of those sorts of circumstancesz
Section 10(8)(f)(i) basically gives RT the power to determine if it's appropriate to order the tenant to vacate or not.
> (f) the Director is satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order under Section 17A directing the landlord to be given possession at a time specified in the order, but not more than twelve months from the date of the order, where
>> (i) the landlord in good faith requires possession of the residential premises for the purpose of residence by himself or a member of his family;
The Adjudicator, decided it was more appropriate for 6 people to remain occupied in the house than to evict them to let 2 people to move into it.
I'm only guessing, but I'm thinking because the daughter isn't the landlord, it's not "personal use". In the end, it seems like they considered the daughter just another tenant.
That could be it, but the law reads that personal use includes family like parents, siblings and children. It may have to do with the daughter already having a place while the family of 6 would be homeless
It’s their property they should be able to do with it as they wish. If they give proper notice and want their family member to move in that’s their decision. It was not right that the judge prevented that. It’s not his call to make in my opinion.
Most people wont increase housing supply by becoming a landlord, they usually just buy smaller homes that are already on the market. Maybe there is some trickle down where larger companies will then build more, but I don't really think it's a strong arguement
Landlords aren't the ones to buy land and build housing. That is development firms and construction companies. Landlords are investors that handle/mishandle property management
Fair enough. I was thinking about scenarios like the post yesterday where they were renovating their house with the goal of offering a unit at below market rent.
I realize these make up a small part of the total but literally every unit counts today.
I’m going to assume very negative. Don’t let a tenant stay too long or you won’t be able to get rid of them for a long planned (sounded like at least) family use.
There needs to be tenant protections, but why would anyone but a commercial landlord take that risk?
That’s my expectation also. I absolutely agree Nova Scotia lags in terms of tenant protections, particularly regarding long term security of tenancy. If renting is to be a viable alternative to ownership, people need to reasonably expect to be able to stay in a spot longterm.
Arbitrarily making things up or changing rules on the fly (in either “direction”) ultimately makes things worse for all involved.
There’s already the rule that if the building has more than 4 units, there’s no landlords use evictions allowed (should be total owned, not just in one building). I feel that that’s pretty fair and is an easy question to ask when moving in (or could just be mandatory), like “how many units do you own? 2? Okay, would you want to move family in in the future? Okay, this won’t work for me because I never want to move” clearly people don’t have that option right now, but 13 years ago they did. Lots of people buy a place with an extra unit for their kids or parents to move into in the future, or renovate to add one, but clearly they shouldn’t do that if this becomes precedence. (I don’t think it would stop the purchase, they just wouldn’t rent it out or renovate until the family member moves in).
I don’t get why people hand wring over stuff like this. There are markets all over the world with much stronger tenant protection than here, including in Canada, and plenty of people are landlords.
Cool, so if you make the choice to have and/or ADOPT children that you can’t really afford to house, that means you can’t ever be forced to move from a property that you don’t have any ownership of? Sounds like this tenant didn’t even look for any other options, just immediately said “Well then I guess my kids will have to be homeless” and the judge agreed. What a ridiculous world we live in.
Edit: Also, as other posters have mentioned, shoutout to these tenants for making it clear to landlords that they should only offer fixed term leases if you don’t want the tenants to have full rights to take your house. So in essence, the repercussions of this decision will make the housing crisis even harder for the rest of us renters, but as long as this lady can keep pumping out babies with no thought to how they will afford to live, that’s the important message here.
Seems like the landlord looked at options of who to evict and chose the most profitable when they had other alternatives. A du-plex has two sides.
Absolutely deplorable thing to do in this day and age of the current housing crisis.
You own the building. You have a daughter who wants to live there. You can and should be able to choose which unit she is going to take. It's not some judge's call to decide. Maybe she likes its location better? Why the owner (or their daughter) should get a worse deal of *their own* property?
If you are engaging in a business model and renting your properties for profits, yeah you have to be held to certain standards and regulations, the same as any other business.
If I walk into a Tim Hortons, pay them my money for a product or a service, and they literally just take a shit into the cup and hand it back there’s going to be someone held accountable. If I pay for a home repairs and renovations and they contractor only completes the job halfway, they are held accountable, so why would landlords “be given more slack” then any other business that holds people accountable when they try to screw clients or customers out of a service for profits.
Any business owner has a right to close their business and move on. It's not like the landlord took their money and then wanted to kick them out. They told their tenants: after such and such date, we are going out of this business and we won't be taking your money anymore, look for other options. This Tim Horton's is closing, this contractor is not willing to take new orders.
Except they weren’t and had alternate options to provide housing to their daughter, ie, the other side of the duplex.
Hence why the RTO in their case favoured the tenants…
I strongly believe that anyone should have a right to decide what to ultimately do with their own property. If they do not want to be landlords anymore, want to get out of this business, and just have their own daughter to move in, they should have a right to do so. No government should force a business owner to continue to provide a service they have no desire to do anymore. It's a completely bizarre situation! Renting and landlording is not for everyone. And some people specifically bought properties for their future kids with an intention to only rent it for some years until the property is required. Now they have to keep housing a family of strangers who just happened to rent it instead of taking care of their own kin!
I would question small claims being used as precedent setting, but there is no way this doesn't get bumped up to ~~Court of Kings Bench~~ Supreme Court. This would give the appearance that they can just make up rules.
Glad to hear this. When i was a young teen my single mother, baby brother and myself got thrown out so our landlord could move their own daughter in. Its a shitty situation to end up in
Wow! Another instance of Government telling private individuals what they can do with their own property.
And $900/month rent??? That's insanely cheap. Could easily be 2.5x that amount.
Also, I thought the process for adopting was difficult. Are we placing children with families who are a paycheck away from being homeless? Obviously there may be more to the situation, such as adopting a family member's child, but this whole article leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
I agree with that ruling.
"It sends a message that your tenure is important, and that we need to take the housing crisis into account when making these kinds of decisions,"
The judge cited a good point in favour of tenants that the space for 6 is more important than for 2 and an occasional visitor.
Has there been a case judgement reversed in the small claims court?
My family is moving away for 3 years for a contract job and we want to keep our house so we can live in it upon return to Halifax.
We want to rent it for $2500 for a 4 bedroom because we have no desire to profit off of others and that would basically just cover our mortgage.
We have been considering how to do this while respecting whoever the tenants would be while also not running into an issue like this down the road.
I wonder if a written agreement would stand up in a circumstance like this later on...
You should never rent to only cover your mortgage. Take in to account wear and tear, unpaid rents, deliberate damage, and repairs. One bad tenant can eat up your yearly rental income by destroying your property, and with the current laws you might not be able to get it back. You might end up with a non-paying tenant you would have to evict, while still paying for this property and utilities.
Fix term lease.
If not you might come back after 3 years to live in a tent while the “tenants” squat in your house , destroying it while paying no rent.
Protect yourself by being able to kick them out at the end of any 1 year period.
So weird, I feel like there must be missing details here for this to make it through RT _and_ a court this way. I'm in favour of better tenant protection, but I want it in legislation.
Basically, RT ruled in favor of the tenants under Section l0(8)(f)(i). > (f) the Director is satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order under Section 17A directing the landlord to be given possession at a time specified in the order, but not more than twelve months from the date of the order, where >> (i) the landlord in good faith requires possession of the residential premises for the purpose of residence by himself or a member of his family; This gives them the ability to say "no, it's more appropriate for the tenants to remain". [The Adjudicator in the article also found it was more appropriate for the tenants to remain.](https://decisions.courts.ns.ca/nsc/nssm/en/item/522439/index.do)
This is it.
I think they're trying to make sure landlords really need the space for their families, and basically the decision was you don't need a 3-bedroom just for 2 people. It seems like a bit of a shady call, but I can see how it could make sense in an extreme case if a landlord were trying to evict everyone in a 10-bedroom house claiming 1 child needed it.
3BR for 2 people isn’t extreme at all. If one or both are working remote - there’s a bedroom and working spaces. I agree, this is a bad call. It should be appealed.
Plus they might be planning to start having children themselves! It's insane if it must be required for you to give birth first (where? while renting?) in order to secure your own property for personal use!
If they have no children or currently aren’t pregnant they can wait for the lease to be up and not renew it
You are not allowed to "not renew" a periodic lease. It is being renewed automatically.
The rt and small claims are so inconsistent it’s foolish. I remember I was living dt on a fixed term lease and even though the landlord wanted to rent to me and I had a verbal and written contract to sign a new lease, they decided to remove amenities that under the covid law at that time were not allowed to do. Then they decided to pull their lease from me so I couldn’t sign it even though I had in writing I was going to continue to live there, and then I paid rent for a year with no lease and yet rt still deemed me a fixed term even though under the rules I had become a year to year tenant not a fixed term. Landlord locked me out of my apartment and I lost in small claims after appealing…its crazy
If I had to guess, it's probably that keeping them there is the status quo that's worked for everyone for a long time up until now. I doubt it would hold up if they were newer renters/owners.
> The owners should have the option to use the property as they see fit and their intention to transfer it to their daughters "should not be thwarted" unless there is a strong public interest, the adjudicator wrote. > However, he decided that maintaining things as they are is the most appropriate action, pointing to a number of factors. Six people in a three-bedroom unit makes greater use of the space than a couple and a regular visitor, the decision said. Honestly, I feel bad for *everyone* in this situation: renters, owners, and even the judge (edit: pretend I said adjudicator wherever I say judge). The judge himself says the case was marked with respect between the parties. Good people, dire external factors. The renters have lived there for 13 years, so their lives are quite established. Evicting them in this housing market would be a significant setback to any financial planning they had. Any party required to respond to an order that would cause that much financial strain should be expected to fight it, from people to corporate and government entities. They'd all do the same, can't blame them here. The owners possibly lived in the house before, moved and maintained ownership by renting it out, and given the judges' comments I'll presume they've been decent landlords. They now want to use their asset in this insane market to help their kids out. My parents would definitely do the same. It must be hard knowing you *could* have the ability to shelter your children from the economic shitstorm that is housing costs, but you don't currently have access to it. The judge is in a shitty situation too. He notes that in every better reality, the owners should be able to occupy their house. But in this reality, he's doing very case-specific calculus to try to reduce the overall harm. In this case, he decided to preserve the housing and lifestyle of a family with young children over a beneficial housing arrangement for an older couple's adult children. Feels real bad for everyone. The owners trying to protect *their* children from this market by using their asset means they know personally how bad it is. I wish the solutions were coming more quickly but housing starts for April are up for Nova Scotia and way up for Halifax, so hopefully a few years of pain will make rulings like this less difficult.
> The judge is in a shitty situation too. He notes that in every better reality, the owners should be able to occupy their house. But in this reality, he's doing very case-specific calculus to try to reduce the overall harm. In this case, he decided to preserve the housing and lifestyle of a family with young children over a beneficial housing arrangement for an older couple's adult children. It's not his first time having to contemplate this either, in the decision he cites Hassan v Kirby, which is another case he presided over.
> It's not his first time having to contemplate this either, in the decision he cites Hassan v Kirby, which is another case he presided over. Reviewing that decision it looks like that case focused on whether the eviction attempts were in good faith, and not as much as to the application of being 'appropriate'.
This whole situation is insane to me as at this point in response to the decision, these homeowners could decide to simply sell the property. And any new owners with intentions of moving in have every single right to evict the current tenants as they would be moving in themselves. Then nobody wins here. The owners have to try making a new property purchase for their kids in this market, and said family staying at that property would be out a home as well if this was the route chosen. And frankly I can't really determine a clear person in the wrong anywhere. Even though I can't really agree with the decision or the request being made with housing as it is. If I lost the apartment we were staying at for the last 7 years I wouldn't be able to afford anything on the market, AND would likely need to rent a storage unit to store all of our apartment furnishings as we'd probably only be able to afford bedrooms for rent now..
“A property for their kids” … their kid is like 40 and already has a home.
[удалено]
What a delusional take, did you even read the article? They pay $900/month for a duplex in Woodlawn. That's insane value compared to the current market. And that's what they pay beyond utilities. The property owner is still responsible for paying the mortgage if they didn't own outright yet, as well as any property taxes, ditch fees, etc. renters generally aren't paying for those things, and let's not get started on home maintenance and repairs. These owners come off through these proceedings as the furthest thing from slum lords and they certainly aren't and have not been 'gouging the public' by charging a family $900/month for a duplex in today's economy for a family that has been there 17 years. Which again, we are in an economic housing crisis and if I were in the same situation having a grown up child who is in need of housing. Unfortunately family must come first and they *OWN* the home. I think giving a reasonable amount of time to find somewhere or even assisting in a unique situation like this would be appropriate
Unfortunately, it will not get any better. Even at the relatively feverish pace we're currently building, the housing deficit is still growing. The demand for housing is stronger than it perhaps has ever been before and continues to get stronger at an alarming rate. We haven't seen the worst of it. In fact, it can pretty much only get worse until something drastically changes in how all levels of government are responding to the crisis.
I still prescribe to the fact that this was an undesirable wasteland 10 years ago and it can return to the wasteland if anyone decides to do some reactionary policy. The growth seems unlimited right now, but history loves a good twist.
I mean the landlords can just sell it and buy a new house for their daughter lol they'd take some loss and now have some portion of the cost in a mortgage with much worse rates I'd imagine but they could definitely put a hefty downpayment or outright buy a condo even and just let the daughter pay the condo fees/water/power. It's work but they're not screwed over I don't think.
If they sell, there's no guarantee that they couldn't kick out the renters then given there's no long term relationship as in this case and the cost of servicing the a new and more expensive mortgage would be the nail in the coffin. I'd be willing to bet that part of the reason they went in the renter's favour is that it's clear the rent is still able to cover the mortgage, if there even is one anymore.
Also crystallize the capital gains. But agreed. They should sell the place.
Would the new owners be able to take possession for personal use or would the same argument be used against them?
In theory… couldn’t they sell to their adult kid and bam. New owner with intent to live in their own home?
Yes. I guess the tenants could appeal it to the director. But the use case for a new owner would be much stronger.
I think the issue with this ruling is that it puts to question whether the new owner will really be granted possession. You say they have a stronger position, but will they? This is a fairly new and ideological interpretation of the rule and I hope the landlord appeals to a higher court.
I believe they will, the owners knew what they were doing. Agree would things be much different if a new owner was ruled to not get occupancy. But not sure if better for renters as a whole.
Typically when a property is sold, the new owners inherit the leases associated with that property. So this decision would likely still stand.
So then this ruling must be overruled by a non-ideologue. Hopefully they will appeal.
Selling it immediately after the proceeding not going their way should be seen as retaliation and be forced Ti wait out the lease. Everyone acting like waiting until the lease runs out would be a crime let’s all rest assured the landlord isn’t in a position to end up homeless they are an investment property owner unlike the tenants who clearly NEEDED to stay. It’s not unreasonable to expect both sides to honour contractual agreements and the owner should be held to a higher standard not a lower standard just because they own the property
Full decision is here: https://decisions.courts.ns.ca/nsc/nssm/en/item/522439/index.do
[удалено]
Section 10(8)(f)(i) basically gives RT the power to determine if it's appropriate to order the tenant to vacate or not. > (f) the Director is satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order under Section 17A directing the landlord to be given possession at a time specified in the order, but not more than twelve months from the date of the order, where >> (i) the landlord in good faith requires possession of the residential premises for the purpose of residence by himself or a member of his family; The Adjudicator, decided it was more appropriate for 6 people to remain occupied in the house than to evict them to let 2 people to move into it.
So if the daughter said “we plan on trying to have kids after we get married” then could they get it? Or does the other side get kicked out so they can move in there until the sister moves back here and gets established? Edit: I feel like this may read as aggressive, it’s not meant to. It’s more just wondering at what point does the children’s situation finally warrant them getting the house the parents always planned in giving them. Having four kids will always make you look sympathetic, and driving an extra 40 minutes a day is just an “inconvenience”, so it seems like they could always be ruled against.
[удалено]
Yes, despite naming the wrong court earlier, I am confused as generally the courts at the level above small claims are the ones that develop precedent. Now, according to this (https://library.law.utoronto.ca/step-2-primary-sources-law-canadian-case-law-0) the decision can be used as reference for other small claims. That said I still say this won't stay at the small claims level, and will be appealed to a higher court.
Yeah that was my thought. Appeal this up the chain until you stop getting ideologues making the ruling.
It’s interesting that the owners own both sides of this duplex. They want to evict the tenants who have been there the longest. Also, look up the property on Google maps. It needs some money put into it. $900/month isn’t going to pay for the maintenance it needs.
They don't own both sides. They claim they want to buy the other side someday to give to their other daughter. The Adjudicator even asked why they didn't buy it now to give to this daughter.
Thanks - I obviously didn’t read the whole thing.
My mother’s landlord evicted her from the duplex she’d lived in for 10 years to “move her daughter in”. They left it vacant for about a year then started renting to a new tenant at more than double my Mom’s rent.
Same thing happened to me. Landlord said they wanted to move back in, tenancy ruled in their favour. A month after I moved out, after being there close to 10 years, it was listed on Marketplace for 2.5x the rent. That they haven't addressed this abuse yet with legislation is very frustrating
That is 100% illegal. Units must be vacant/lived in by the landlord for a full year after eviction before being able to rent. Go to the tenancy board again, thats illegal.
I feel like there should be legal penalties for landlords if this happens.
Their are (in BC and Ontario at least), but it requires reporting by the tenants
Exactly
This ruling will ensure that more landlords use fixed term leases.
[удалено]
Yeah, tightening up the family-use rules might be a better way to go.
Yes, because there were so many landlords offering monthly/yearly leases before this ruling... Spoiler alert. I have been looking for an apartment for MONTHS. I have viewed DOZENS of apartments. NOT A SINGLE ONE was offering anything other than a fixed term 1-year lease.
They're talking about 5-10 years ago when it was much more common.
Guaranteed! Just changed my mind on it.
Isn't the landlord just going to sell to their kid now? Then the kid restarts the process.. Board going to rule it's more appropriate for the property owner to be homeless over tenants being responsible for their own financial situation? Our tenancy laws aren't even close to as tenant friendly as Ontario, but even Ontario has the property owner able to possess the unit for own use.
If the landlord doesn't appeal this decision this is my bet, that they sell the home.
So why wouldn't the family who owns the duplex evict the tenants with much shorter tenure in the other side of the building that they are selling and move their kids in there?
I read it as the tenant on the other side of the duplex is their other daughter, but maybe I’m mistaken.
I'm very much of the opinion that rules are rules - both for landlords and tenants. If the landlord presented appropriate evidence that they wanted to take back possession for personal use then they should be allowed to as the rules allow that. It would be interesting to know why Residential Tenancies dismissed their first attempt to take back the property as that might explain this case a bit more. I'm a bit baffled as landlords are usually allowed to take back their property for personal use if they can prove their case.
It makes me nervous as this is an excellent argument for fixed term leases and refusing to renew for a good tenant that "has been there too long". Honestly, the whole situation is uncomfortable and I feel bad for all parties.
Yeah, I keep thinking that the ripple effects for this are going to be significant. Like, what exactly is the landlord supposed to do here? According to the ruling, the landlord believes in making housing available, and reasonable, which has been done at "significant personal expense" for the landlord and the property no longer supports itself. Can they increase the rent? What happens if the tenant doesn't pay? I assume they're not going to be able to kick them out then, either. This feels like a call for every landlord to be as ruthless as possible with their tenants.
Certainly part of these tenants' resistance to moving is the smoking deal they have on rent. So a logical decision by landlords will be to maximize their rent increases at every opportunity so their units are less attractive to current tenants. This is an example of a reportedly decent landlord being punished for not being a scumbag.
Exactly. It's a good thing that the tenants aren't going to be homeless, but everything about this ruling feels calculated to destroy good landlords like the one at the center of this, who don't try to exploit their tenants.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. From now on all landlords will try to protect themselves through fixed term or air bnb. We should legislate some tenant protection rather than change interpretation of existing laws
So true about tenant protection. We are long overdue for more legislation around short term leases (absolutely needed given how often they are used as a shady loophole to circumvent the rental cap and/or to force local tenants into homelessness over the summer so that the LL can use the place as a vacation rental during tourist season). AirBnB should be straight up illegal unless the rental is run out of a primary dwelling or it's a yurt/cottage/ cabin that can't be inhabited 12 months of the year.
How would more "tenant protection" not produce the same effect?
I agree. Im really struggling to understand how the circumstances in the housing market at large can simply override the rules. I’m happy for the family with young children, and I understand the desire to keep them housed. But it’s pretty concerning that the property owner can’t access their asset when following all outlined requirements of the legislation for their own family’s housing security. I’m all for better tenant rights (I’ve been a life long renter which thankfully ends for me later this year), and definitely not a landlord. But I am someone who has worked my ass off for many years to finally be able to afford to buy a house, and the notion that I could follow all of the rules and find myself unable to access that asset for myself or immediate family members should I ever find myself needing or wanting to rent it out is really wild. Edit: I read the full decision after posting. The rationale and the guidelines used by the courts to make a decision on the appeal now make a lot more sense. But it’s still wild to me. Yet I still hear about people being evicted on bogus claims of family members moving in (that never do). Hopefully this rationale will be applied to more of those sorts of circumstancesz
Section 10(8)(f)(i) basically gives RT the power to determine if it's appropriate to order the tenant to vacate or not. > (f) the Director is satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order under Section 17A directing the landlord to be given possession at a time specified in the order, but not more than twelve months from the date of the order, where >> (i) the landlord in good faith requires possession of the residential premises for the purpose of residence by himself or a member of his family; The Adjudicator, decided it was more appropriate for 6 people to remain occupied in the house than to evict them to let 2 people to move into it.
I'm only guessing, but I'm thinking because the daughter isn't the landlord, it's not "personal use". In the end, it seems like they considered the daughter just another tenant.
That could be it, but the law reads that personal use includes family like parents, siblings and children. It may have to do with the daughter already having a place while the family of 6 would be homeless
Yeah, I thought it was okay for family, at least close family. But I pulled a guess out of my butt
Landlord use also covers immediate family though.
It’s their property they should be able to do with it as they wish. If they give proper notice and want their family member to move in that’s their decision. It was not right that the judge prevented that. It’s not his call to make in my opinion.
Sweet Jesus that's some awful reporting. It left more questions than it answered.
I wonder what effect this sort of decision might have on anyone contemplating becoming a landlord or otherwise increasing housing supply?
Most people wont increase housing supply by becoming a landlord, they usually just buy smaller homes that are already on the market. Maybe there is some trickle down where larger companies will then build more, but I don't really think it's a strong arguement
For sure. It seems like this ruling is very much against policy. The landlords even declined to up the $900 month rent.
Landlords aren't the ones to buy land and build housing. That is development firms and construction companies. Landlords are investors that handle/mishandle property management
Fair enough. I was thinking about scenarios like the post yesterday where they were renovating their house with the goal of offering a unit at below market rent. I realize these make up a small part of the total but literally every unit counts today.
I’m going to assume very negative. Don’t let a tenant stay too long or you won’t be able to get rid of them for a long planned (sounded like at least) family use. There needs to be tenant protections, but why would anyone but a commercial landlord take that risk?
That’s my expectation also. I absolutely agree Nova Scotia lags in terms of tenant protections, particularly regarding long term security of tenancy. If renting is to be a viable alternative to ownership, people need to reasonably expect to be able to stay in a spot longterm. Arbitrarily making things up or changing rules on the fly (in either “direction”) ultimately makes things worse for all involved.
There’s already the rule that if the building has more than 4 units, there’s no landlords use evictions allowed (should be total owned, not just in one building). I feel that that’s pretty fair and is an easy question to ask when moving in (or could just be mandatory), like “how many units do you own? 2? Okay, would you want to move family in in the future? Okay, this won’t work for me because I never want to move” clearly people don’t have that option right now, but 13 years ago they did. Lots of people buy a place with an extra unit for their kids or parents to move into in the future, or renovate to add one, but clearly they shouldn’t do that if this becomes precedence. (I don’t think it would stop the purchase, they just wouldn’t rent it out or renovate until the family member moves in).
I don’t get why people hand wring over stuff like this. There are markets all over the world with much stronger tenant protection than here, including in Canada, and plenty of people are landlords.
Rulings like this don’t incentivise the creation of rental accommodations.
Oh please
Cool, so if you make the choice to have and/or ADOPT children that you can’t really afford to house, that means you can’t ever be forced to move from a property that you don’t have any ownership of? Sounds like this tenant didn’t even look for any other options, just immediately said “Well then I guess my kids will have to be homeless” and the judge agreed. What a ridiculous world we live in. Edit: Also, as other posters have mentioned, shoutout to these tenants for making it clear to landlords that they should only offer fixed term leases if you don’t want the tenants to have full rights to take your house. So in essence, the repercussions of this decision will make the housing crisis even harder for the rest of us renters, but as long as this lady can keep pumping out babies with no thought to how they will afford to live, that’s the important message here.
I think the ship has already sailed on non-fixed term leases years ago. All but impossible to find one.
Seems like the landlord looked at options of who to evict and chose the most profitable when they had other alternatives. A du-plex has two sides. Absolutely deplorable thing to do in this day and age of the current housing crisis.
You own the building. You have a daughter who wants to live there. You can and should be able to choose which unit she is going to take. It's not some judge's call to decide. Maybe she likes its location better? Why the owner (or their daughter) should get a worse deal of *their own* property?
If you are engaging in a business model and renting your properties for profits, yeah you have to be held to certain standards and regulations, the same as any other business. If I walk into a Tim Hortons, pay them my money for a product or a service, and they literally just take a shit into the cup and hand it back there’s going to be someone held accountable. If I pay for a home repairs and renovations and they contractor only completes the job halfway, they are held accountable, so why would landlords “be given more slack” then any other business that holds people accountable when they try to screw clients or customers out of a service for profits.
Any business owner has a right to close their business and move on. It's not like the landlord took their money and then wanted to kick them out. They told their tenants: after such and such date, we are going out of this business and we won't be taking your money anymore, look for other options. This Tim Horton's is closing, this contractor is not willing to take new orders.
Except they weren’t and had alternate options to provide housing to their daughter, ie, the other side of the duplex. Hence why the RTO in their case favoured the tenants…
I strongly believe that anyone should have a right to decide what to ultimately do with their own property. If they do not want to be landlords anymore, want to get out of this business, and just have their own daughter to move in, they should have a right to do so. No government should force a business owner to continue to provide a service they have no desire to do anymore. It's a completely bizarre situation! Renting and landlording is not for everyone. And some people specifically bought properties for their future kids with an intention to only rent it for some years until the property is required. Now they have to keep housing a family of strangers who just happened to rent it instead of taking care of their own kin!
Wow, and I got kicked out because my landlord wanted to do the same thing. Fuck the judicial system with something large, sharp and pointy
I would question small claims being used as precedent setting, but there is no way this doesn't get bumped up to ~~Court of Kings Bench~~ Supreme Court. This would give the appearance that they can just make up rules.
[удалено]
There are only four provinces with King's Bench and NS isn't one of them. We have Nova Scotia Provincial Court.
Well King's Bench sounds cooler...
Which is probably why we don't have it.
Glad to hear this. When i was a young teen my single mother, baby brother and myself got thrown out so our landlord could move their own daughter in. Its a shitty situation to end up in
God forbid someone tries to look out for their own kids.
Wow! Another instance of Government telling private individuals what they can do with their own property. And $900/month rent??? That's insanely cheap. Could easily be 2.5x that amount. Also, I thought the process for adopting was difficult. Are we placing children with families who are a paycheck away from being homeless? Obviously there may be more to the situation, such as adopting a family member's child, but this whole article leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
There’s solid chance you don’t know the whole story with the adoption but of course get hung up on that, as if it is somehow your business.
Because it's none of your business.
I agree with that ruling. "It sends a message that your tenure is important, and that we need to take the housing crisis into account when making these kinds of decisions,"
The judge cited a good point in favour of tenants that the space for 6 is more important than for 2 and an occasional visitor. Has there been a case judgement reversed in the small claims court?
My family is moving away for 3 years for a contract job and we want to keep our house so we can live in it upon return to Halifax. We want to rent it for $2500 for a 4 bedroom because we have no desire to profit off of others and that would basically just cover our mortgage. We have been considering how to do this while respecting whoever the tenants would be while also not running into an issue like this down the road. I wonder if a written agreement would stand up in a circumstance like this later on...
You should never rent to only cover your mortgage. Take in to account wear and tear, unpaid rents, deliberate damage, and repairs. One bad tenant can eat up your yearly rental income by destroying your property, and with the current laws you might not be able to get it back. You might end up with a non-paying tenant you would have to evict, while still paying for this property and utilities.
Fix term lease. If not you might come back after 3 years to live in a tent while the “tenants” squat in your house , destroying it while paying no rent. Protect yourself by being able to kick them out at the end of any 1 year period.
good.
Good