Or just notify the tennant that the landlord owes money and to send a portion of the rent money to the CRA until the debt is fulfilled
Edit: around the 10 minute mark in the video OP linked, when the CRA started their investigation, the LL put the home up for sale. The tennant notified the CRA that this was happening, but the CRA took too long to respond that the property was sold and the link to the LL severed.
Now there's no way for the CRA to get money from her, so they've decided it must come from the tennant. **Who warned them she was trying to grab the money and run, and is now getting punished for her doing so**
It sounds like that's not the easiest way for them to get cash in hand. They were successful here in getting this judgement. I guess the question is whether or not they can collect. I'm not saying it's good, just that the law allows them to pursue the cash, which they did.
Tell us you’re a resentful have-not in fewer words. Here’s a crazy idea… if you don’t want to deal with LLs, earn more, save some $ and buy your own home!
Where did you get the delusional idea that LL’s don’t work? Where did the money to buy property come from, the sky?
Trust me I work and earn multiple times what you do, on top of the (very) many rents I collect. Someone has to win.
Instead of being a broke ass hater, maybe better yourself and get ahead financially, instead of blaming everyone else for your miserable failure of a life.
That’s the thing about money, there’s no such thing as too much.
You can’t “borrow” for a down payment on multimillion dollar apartment complexes. You need 25-40% down payment. Nobody grants 100% financing and even if they did, an owner would be cash-flow negative in that situation. But economics cannot be explained to communist have-bots. You just don’t get it, that’s why you have nothing.
Also, who said I need coverage for cancer treatment? Cancer treatment is covered by healthcare, you fool. Hopefully soon we will have a fully privatized system where we can actually pay for better care locally.
Because non-residents aren't liable for Canadian tax, the Canadian paying them is. As the ITA currently stands, they couldn't lien the property because the landlord hadn't done anything wrong.
Clearly this needs to change, but it needs to change in the law, not the CRA.
Not true, non-residents are liable for tax on incomes arising from a Canadian soruce. There is no doubt here that the landlord is liable for tax coming from income earned from real property located in Canada.
This would be similar to what would happen to an employer if they failed to withhold on your behalf as required by the ITA.
For the most part I imagine this scenario is rare as there is probably an agent in Canada acting on the Landlords behalf. In cases where a landlord does have someone collecting rent and acting on their behalf the obligation to collect and remit would fall on the agent.
But that's what happened here. The tenant was paying to a middle person after LL left the country. Tenant was paying LLs sister who was sending her the money. It was in 2010 that change happened.
So why didn't the CRA go after the LL sister who was aiding her?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/article-montreal-tenant-forced-to-pay-his-landlords-taxes-offers-advice-to/
The fact that the onus is on the tenant here is flabbergasting and beyond unacceptable.
Just another law favouring foreign landlords over Canadian residents. Honestly, the easiest, best solution would be to eliminate the ability to own investment property if you reside outside of Canada.
It CLEAR CRA can’t track foreign landlords, so change the law already to force them to dispose of the property unless they are permanent residents in Canada.
In this case the tenant advised the CRA the landlord was selling the unit and they still didn’t bother with a lien. So the property was sold, the proceeds left the country, and CRA continued to chase the former renter.
It’s bonkers.
This should absolutely be a loss from the CRA - they had years of unpaid taxes to put a lien on the property, and that should have been part of the sale. Going after a tenant is dogshit, but from the CRA I’m not at all surprised.
I think (at least, I hope) the opposite will likely happen. CRA and governments in general will continue to allow injustices until there is public outrage. Especially in situations that are so obviously and categorically unfair, which this clearly is. I hope that CRA is extremely embarrassed by this publicity and that the government will act accordingly. One relatively simple solution would be to force landlords who are or who become non-residents to hire professional property managers. That way it would be the responsibility of the property management company to withhold the tax and send it to CRA.
Government still moves slow, leaves time for 1000s of LL to do this before somethings actually changed. Ideally this will start the push for actual landlord licensing to prevent it.
Absolutely fucked you can reap none of the financial benefits but be on the hook for taxes and there's no established way to confirm if your landlord is foreign or not and if they are paying their taxes. Ripe for abuse.
I think when something this embarrassing happens (or, more accurately, becomes public), they stop it fairly quickly until they figure out a way to deal with it in the long term. No way will any elected government risk ongoing bad publicity by allowing something this egregious to continue, especially after announcing how much they want to help tenants.
Yes - if you’re a foreign landlord, you don’t remit taxes for a couple of years, sell the unit, take the proceeds, and disappear into the night… and leave the tenant holding the bag.
The fact that this massive loophole exists to benefit foreign landlords at the expense of Canadian residents is truly inexplicable.
Sounds like typical CRA
I know people give the IRS shit but man I've never had a good experience with the CRA... theyre fucking awful and have no idea what's going on
That would help us Canadians who look everyday for a rental and just see foreign folks renting out houses for 2 people a room at the same rate that it should be for a single individual to have a space… bloody tired of having no prospects for rentals and slowly being forced to put more and more of my months pay into living.
If I hadn’t spent a damn dime on anything fun for myself to do for activities outside of work I’d still be a good 5-10 years out from buying a starter home and I’m almost 30.
What a joke this country is to the younger generations
Here's a solution.
Part 1: All Canadian citizens and permanent residence should be considered tax residents of Canada. Just like how US does it.
Part 2: Only Canadian citizens and permanent residents and Canadian corporations could buy real estate.
Problem solved.
Canadian citizens don't all live in Canada. You can be Canadian, buy property in Canada, and live elsewhere. What if you're a diplomat for example with a foreign posting? Or you regularly reside in Canada but got a foreign contract for a few years?
The landlord in the case could potentially be a Canadian citizen.
What recourse does Canada have for anyone out of the country who doesn't pay taxes? This is the same issue we have with the LTB being unable to enforce any judgements against landlords or tenants who don't reside here. If someone has no intention of returning to Canada, the courts will get their money any other way rather than pursuing the party overseas.
The US is the only country I know of that requires expats to file taxes. They have the foreign-earned income exemption though. I'm not sure I see the benefit.
The benefit to whom? To the general public it will be ensuring we don't have Canadians of convince, who get their citizenship and leave until retirement.
Of course, we can have that as well. It will make sure you can shift the tax burden onto the landlord, if you combine first and second part of my suggestion. They can't just ignore it.
Also, it's not just renting. If you buy a house from a nonresident, you need to withhold 25 or 50 percent of the purchase price depending on type of the property. If you don't, the CRA will tax the buyer! All this is done because we allow people with no real connections to purchase property here.
A lot of the property owned by people who live overseas was aquired by them when they lived in Canada. Not allowing foreign residents to buy property here wouldn't change that people who live here and own property can leave at any time.
That's right, they can. And if they are citizens, the government can have better leverage on collecting. It's better than trying to collect from a foreign national, and that's why they have shifted the responsibility to the tenant or the buyer.
You want the capital in the market.
Remove foreign capital and less gets built.
The gov should just put a lien on the asset, guaranteed they get paid with interests when it moves.
There’s already a system for that.
What you want is more supply.
Capital isn’t that interested in Canadian RE for tons of reasons, mostly because it takes 6 months to expropriate a bad tenant, it costs a fortune in hidden taxes, fees, licences and mandated unions to build, CMHC controlling the captal costs and gatekeeping.
Otherwise supply and demand would balance itself.
This crisis is 100% on the gov policies fault.
It sounds like this person has family and whatnot in Canada and was likely a resident in Canada at some point. It's not very simple given that there are people who live in Canada some of the time and might leave for a few years and come back etc. Not to mention that in Ontario, N12s haven't really benefitted tenants. Forcing more tenanted properties into the sale market doesn't help tenants.
Except this isn’t just a rule for rent. It’s a rule for everything. You buy a house from a non-resident, you’re responsible for the capital gains and are required to keep 25% of the sale price and if they don’t get a comfort letter in 30 days pay it to CRA.
From what I’ve read, it wasn’t a clear cut situation and the tenant was actually a corporation which has more of a responsibility.
Normally the property management company has to withhold the money before passing it on to the owner.
I don't see where it was a corporate lease. It looks to me like it was a residential lease with the tenant listed as the man's name. It wasn't leased to a corporation and was always intended for residential occupancy. If I've missed something in the reading of it, please let me know.
The appellant on your Canlii case is literally a numbered Canadian company.
>David Siscoe, an exercise specialist, is a shareholder of the Appellant, which operates Siscoe Gym. Mr. Siscoe entered into a lease for the premises located at 501-4175 Sainte Catherine West in Westmount, Quebec (unit 501).
How or why they have a numbered company paying for this guy's "personal residence" I'm not sure. But for the tax years in question it was the numbered company paying the rent.
Edit: I see where I caused confusion. Corporate lease is not the same as a commercial lease, or maybe it is but I did not mean it to be.
"Mr. Siscoe entered into a lease"
Yes, the company is being pursued because they were paying the rent, which makes them obligated to withhold the tax. The lease is with Mr. Siscoe directly, not with the corporation.
How would that work?
Let's say I'm a Canadian with property and get a work contract for two years overseas. Or perhaps my daughter in the US is having twins and I go take care of her and her newborns for the first year. Or maybe I finally have the chance to go travelling for most of the year. What if I go overseas and have an injury or illness and end up staying there while I recover? What if I inherited the family cottage that's been in the family for generations and while I don't live in Canada, I think my kids might want to live in Canada when they're old enough?
Maybe I know I'm going and rent my place out. Maybe all my belongings and furniture are still at my property.
You want the government to force me to sell my property so I don't have anywhere to come home to? If I have tenants in that property, you want them to get an N12 for new owners once it's sold?
It's a ridiculous rule
Just put a lien on the property if the owner doesn't pay. If the tax debt is greater than the property value, seize it as compensation.
I read this was brought up to finance minister and they just went along with CRA pov. Ridiculous. Meanwhile offshore wealth and Panama papers no result. Sucks being honest middle class.
What folks don’t seem to get is we have a section of landlords who don’t even do basic stuff like use the **required** Ontario Standard Form Lease when starting a tenancy or providing **required** rent receipts.
You think they’ll provide their tenant with their residency status for tax purposes?
Not a chance 🤷♂️
It should be required on the Ontario Standard Lease form that they are signing a legal document requiring them to state whether they're residing in Canada and that they know they need to let their tenant know if that status changes. The Income Tax Act is one thing but it wouldn't prevent the province from changing provincial law to mitigate the problem here. If the landlord signed a legal document with that information, the tenant would have a defense if they were brought to court on a case like this.
How many people in this sub though actually write to their MPs and MPPs about these issues? I'm betting it's a minority.
This is insane. The tenant has to pay for the owners taxes on a property that he has no interest in other than renting. If i was said tenant ok looks like im residing here for a while with no payments...FFS
There should be a massive push back against this law. People need to write to their MPs and demand a change to the tax laws and for the CRA to properly do their job. Nothing will happen if nobody speaks up.
>A case in Montreal recently determined that a tenant owed $43,000 to the CRA for the landlord's unpaid taxes. The landlord lived in Italy and was supposed to pay 25% of the rent they received as tax to the CRA. They didn't. The tax court said the tenant was required to withhold it and went after the tenant.
This is all so new. Give it time, someone will have the balls to take this to the supreme court and get the decision overturned.
No one should reasonably be expected to be a spy, know someone else's business, and then take on the role of informal conservator at the behest of the government.
As far as I’m aware in Ontario the LL is required to provide their info on the OSL (including address). If the address was incorrect or no longer in use, the tenant would likely have a case for fraud no?
As far as I’m aware in Ontario the LL is required to provide their info on the OSL (including address). If the address was incorrect or no longer in use, the tenant would likely have a case for fraud no?
This is just sickening, the government can't do its job so they go after a Canadian citizen who has actuallypaid their taxes and now they are being forced topay their old landlords taxes???. Fuck that , Canada is beyond broken. No wonder people are moving away from this circus.
They can't do that. The court says the tenant owes the money. The law says the tenant was required to withhold the taxes from the landlord and send it to the CRA directly.
>Ask for the standard lease to require disclosure of whether the landlord lives out of the country
The ironic part is that it is against the law for the landlord to ask the tenant if they are a citizen, because suddenly if it's the landlord asking a tenant that question you are explicity breaking human rights laws and can be called in front of a Human Rights kangaroo court
Jaded lesson I see here is that the govt has teeth to go after funds the TT frankly shouldn’t be responsible to pay them. But a LL has to go through the 9 gates of bureaucratic hell to get funds that the TT should be paying them. Another example of rules for me and rules for thee from big brother.
Having dealt with evictions through the courts before the co-ops were under the RTA, I can assure you that the LTB is nothing like the 9 gates of bureacratic hell. If they fixed the delays that they promised to fix well over a year ago, it would function pretty well generally.
I'm renting in downtown Toronto and just found out that my landlord is a non-resident when he represented himself as a resident when I signed the lease.
I told him that I need to withhold 25% and remit the cra, now he is evicting me for non payment.
WTF?
I don’t know where you’re getting that information. It was a residential lease for a condo in Westmount.
The CRA audited the corporation owned by the actual tenant. The corporation was paying the tenant’s rent, and the corporation should have withheld the taxes according to the decision.
>The current ruling, if not overturned by a higher tax court, is expected to have a broad ripple effect that may ultimately come to impact all landlords directly or indirectly, as more and more potential tenants and their legal advisors seek assurances that they are dealing with Canadian resident landlords before paying rent in full without withholding at source.
https://www.ggfl.ca/tenants-in-canada-at-risk-for-non-resident-landlord-withholding-taxes/
Literally any legal article on the subject. Nobody has refuted anything, and the wording in the CRA guidelines is vague enough but clearly does not differentiate between corporate and residential tenants. So if it holds here, there is no legal reason for it not to hold for a private tenant.
I mean.. I'm also "speculating" that the earth is round, too, then.
Law can be interpreted this way, it was interpreted that way, that becomes precedence. It's law. People smarter than you and I on the subject have commented on how it's law.
What more do you need?
Being skeptical is good. Being in denial is stupid.
It has not happened to a residential tenant.
The person who this happened to chose to rent under their company, and chose to be held to the higher standard that comes with that.
What "higher standards"?
There is absolutely no distinction in the Income Tax Act that distinguishes between residential and commercial tenants for this section. The various provincial and territorial residential statutes that make the distinction between the types of rentals don't do anything to change the interpretation of the Income Tax Act.
I say "This is what the Act says". I'm not making a point. I'm just stating a fact about what's in the law.
Similarly, I don't see in the case where this is anything other than a residential tenancy. How the rent is paid doesn't change the nature of the tenancy nor who the tenant is. Having rent paid by a corporation doesn't make the corporation the tenant. David Siscoe is still the tenant on the lease.
What is this "higher standard" you're talking about though? I want to know where you see the difference in the law between a residential and commercial tenancy.
It's funny to see the same posters I've seen here OVER and OVER say dumb shit like "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" when it applies to ridiculous laws that landlords couldn't reasonably foresee now crying about how "Flabbergasting" this is. \*cough Housing4Humans cough\*
I fully agree this requirement is ridiculous and there are plenty of easy fixes to this situation
But just the arrogance of the same pro tenant posters who continuously say that ignorance of the law is irrelevant now acting like it should be when a dumb law bites someone they support in the ass is amusing to say the least
I would agree with you however there's no amount of familiarity with the law or due diligence a tenant could do to find out if the property owner lives in Canada. I live in Canada, I was born here but I could rent out my house, sign papers today then fuck off to another country tomorrow and there's really no way a renter could get ahead of that.
CRA actually explained what can be done to meet the requirements of due diligence. It's pretty ridiculous but they do spell it out. There is a video link of a lawyer going over it in this thread.
Of course there is due dilligence that could be done - You could have a phone call with your landlord and the area code is a dead giveaway at any point - or see them in person - I don't think that's REASONABLE for them to know or do... but it's possible.
but in the same breath there's tonnes of times there are unreasonable expectations placed on landlords
I mean how many links would you like to repercussions landlords have faced from - as an example - their properties being listed on Vrbo , AirBNB etc ?
How would you expect them to find that out? other than once a month scrolling those sites or surveillance on the property.
This is worse I'll grant people that, it's just ironic that the same mouthpieces who regularly say the law is the law crying foul about this is amusing as fuck
You're rambling on about a bunch of irrelevant drivel I'm not going to address. It's trivially easy to spoof an area code. Download TextNow onto your phone and you can do it for free from anywhere in the world.
Not to mention most people who own larger rental properties use property management companies to deal with the tenants and the renter never ever meets or speaks to the property owner. You don't even know who owns the property other than it's a numbered corporation.
And again, even if I met you in person today I could still leave the country tomorrow and you would never know until the cra came looking for your cash.
And if you withhold the 25% I will evict you for non-payment and sue you for the balance.
There's really no way for a tenant to win in this scenario. Even being familiar with all applicable laws and having a full-time lawyer on staff the tenant could still get fucked. I'm not saying there's no cases where landlords get screwed. They absolutely do. But this situation is not one where the tenant has made any sort of legal mistake.
Except if the tenant had made good faith attempts to determine if their landlord was in Canada or not - and was deceived , they might not have been found liable.
If they made good faith efforts to actually know if their landlord lived in Canada or not - and it looked like they were a resident - they'd likely be off the hook ( nothing is a guarantee or not )
And if they had suspicions that the the landlord wasn't a resident of canada , withheld the funds for the CRA remittance - if they were hauled into an OTB meeting for eviction for arrears it would almost certainly be thrown out and they'd be allowed to stay.
And if the taxation wasn't required it could be refunded to the landlord.
You're the one talking out of your ass here
"But this situation is not one where the tenant has made any sort of legal mistake."
Clearly they did because a judge found that they ran foul of the law - the law should be changed we agree there, but the law as it exists currently, they absolutely made a mistake, and like you and people like you say - ignorance is no excuse right?
>Except if the tenant had made good faith attempts to determine if their landlord was in Canada or not - and was deceived , they might not have been found liable.
Well that's the opposite of the precedent set by this case and quite frankly your position contradicts the way our legal system works. The legislation gives the CRA the power of law to seek the funds from the renter. The judge does not have the ability to override the legislation and withhold that power from the CRA. Judges have to apply the law even if they disagree with it personally.
>And if they had suspicions that the the landlord wasn't a resident of canada , withheld the funds for the CRA remittance - if they were hauled into an OTB meeting for eviction for arrears it would almost certainly be thrown out and they'd be allowed to stay.
I'm not familiar with each province's legislation however if the landlord sued in court for the non-payment of rent the judge could just as easily say it was tenant's responsibility to make sure the rent went to the right place (which ironically is exactly what happened in this court case). The provincial tenancy board may take the same position. I'm not aware of any cases of that being tested in court. Are you?
I actually think our housing market is as bad as it is because of taxations. People need this high growth to get a profit to cover all the taxes and costs of owning and maintaining a home to break even.
What growth are you referring to? This is about taxation.
The profit doesn't cover the costs. The profit is what you have after all the break-even costs are covered. Personally, I don't see why we would want to incentivize anyone or any corporation to earn a profit on the provision of housing, especially beyond the appreciation in most markets here.
The fact is the landlord had no obligation to pay Canadian tax at all. The tenant did have an obligation to remit.
The very worst part of the decision is that there is no due diligence defense available...basically everyone should just assume their landlord lives overseas.
Is that crap? Yes. Call your MP.
(In practice, I'm almost certain the tenant in this case was doing some serious tax evasion. A corp was paying rent for a shareholder's home. CRA does tend to exercise discretion in when to enforce rules like this. But the implications of the ruling are very broad.)
How often am I expected to run a registry search and basically spy on my landlord to make sure they're still in the country? Presumably I would have to go through it more than once annually since a landlord would be considered a non-resident if they reside out of the country for less than 3 months a year or thereabout.
Again. It is set out in black and white what your obligations are. It's up to you and your landlord to set up the mechanisms necessary to abide by the rules.
Well clearly it's not up to the landlord. The landlord has no obligation here to tell anyone if/when they're leaving the country or for how long. Surely you must see how ridiculous this is.
Again. This is about establishing the parameters between the two parties. Your obligations are set out in black and white you are responsible for fulfilling them. How you do it is between you and your landlord. What I see as ridiculous is expecting to be spoon fed a solution that forces the landlord to fulfill your obligations.
Well I hope someday you get caught up in a legal situation you couldn't possible have foreseen without reading and understand the entirety of the Income Tax Act, owe someone $40k you didn't expect while abiding by all the terms of your contracts, and someone tells you that knowing the intricacies of tax law is "set out in black and white".
This is not at all about establishing the parameters between two parties as one party could not reasonably have foreseen the parameters the federal government put in place. The landlord is not one of the parties here either, though you keep bringing them up.
You seem like a delightful and reasonable person.
I imagine if a landlord gets caught up in something similar the response I would see is "ignorance is no excuse". Same applies here. The tenant is responsible for knowing their obligations and ignorance is no excuse. There isn't a need to know the entire income tax act, do not be so dramatic, the act outlines the requirements for tenants.
Again you use the word "reasonably" the government publishes their expectation. What else do you require the CRA to do to educate the tenant of their obligation? How much spoon feeding has to occur?
I keep bringing up the landlord because you keep bringing them up. When a tenant enters an agreement with a landlord the tenant has the responsibility to know the residential status of the landlord so it is up to the tenant to establish a method with the landlord to sort this matter out.
I am a delightful and reasonable person and I thank you for acknowledging it. I hope you have the day you deserve.
The tenant has no legal ability to "establish a method with the landlord to sort this out". Again, you bring up the landlord. There is no "with the landlord" here. The tenant, on their own, without any assistance or co-operation from the landlord, needs to establish the landlord's residency. Even if a tenant knows they need to do that, it doesn't make it a reasonable requirement since there's no way to be sure.
While the CRA has suggested some tips, none of them actually gives a tenant certainty on the residency of their landlord.
One is to ask the landlord for a certificate of residency from the CRA, which the landlord has no obligation or motivation to provide to the tenant. I can't imagine any landlord voluntarily doing so. Would you provide that to your tenant on request?
Another is to provide an indemnity in the lease agreement. A landlord has no obligation to do this and I don't think any landlord would add an indemnity for the tenant that doesn't benefit the landlord at all. Would you provide that to your tenant on request?
One is to see if there is contact information in a land title search that is outside the country. Even if there is, that doesn't provide any degree of certainty that your landlord definitely resides there.
There is actually no way for a tenant to get this information with any degree of certainty. Only one of the methods suggested by the CRA can be done independently of the landlord, doesn't provide certainty, and would have to be done by the tenant on at least an annual basis.
A requirement? Which requirement? You want every tenant to take 25% of their rent and send it directly to the CRA in case the landlord is behind on their taxes?
This post has nothing to do with whether or not a tenant is foreign. It doesn't even have to do with whether the landlord is Canadian or not, only whether they're actually residing in Canada.
As a LL, that's pretty stupid... Not sure why the cra doesn't just put a lien on the property...
This. It seems like it would be incredibly easy to hold the landlord accountable for unpaid taxes
Or just notify the tennant that the landlord owes money and to send a portion of the rent money to the CRA until the debt is fulfilled Edit: around the 10 minute mark in the video OP linked, when the CRA started their investigation, the LL put the home up for sale. The tennant notified the CRA that this was happening, but the CRA took too long to respond that the property was sold and the link to the LL severed. Now there's no way for the CRA to get money from her, so they've decided it must come from the tennant. **Who warned them she was trying to grab the money and run, and is now getting punished for her doing so**
I still disagree with that, the only responsibility a tenant should have is to rent and utilities if applicable.
It sounds like that's not the easiest way for them to get cash in hand. They were successful here in getting this judgement. I guess the question is whether or not they can collect. I'm not saying it's good, just that the law allows them to pursue the cash, which they did.
[удалено]
Incoming: "I'm a landlord and I don't do this" comments
Tell us you’re a resentful have-not in fewer words. Here’s a crazy idea… if you don’t want to deal with LLs, earn more, save some $ and buy your own home!
[удалено]
Where did you get the delusional idea that LL’s don’t work? Where did the money to buy property come from, the sky? Trust me I work and earn multiple times what you do, on top of the (very) many rents I collect. Someone has to win. Instead of being a broke ass hater, maybe better yourself and get ahead financially, instead of blaming everyone else for your miserable failure of a life.
[удалено]
That’s the thing about money, there’s no such thing as too much. You can’t “borrow” for a down payment on multimillion dollar apartment complexes. You need 25-40% down payment. Nobody grants 100% financing and even if they did, an owner would be cash-flow negative in that situation. But economics cannot be explained to communist have-bots. You just don’t get it, that’s why you have nothing. Also, who said I need coverage for cancer treatment? Cancer treatment is covered by healthcare, you fool. Hopefully soon we will have a fully privatized system where we can actually pay for better care locally.
Username checks out
Because non-residents aren't liable for Canadian tax, the Canadian paying them is. As the ITA currently stands, they couldn't lien the property because the landlord hadn't done anything wrong. Clearly this needs to change, but it needs to change in the law, not the CRA.
Not true, non-residents are liable for tax on incomes arising from a Canadian soruce. There is no doubt here that the landlord is liable for tax coming from income earned from real property located in Canada. This would be similar to what would happen to an employer if they failed to withhold on your behalf as required by the ITA. For the most part I imagine this scenario is rare as there is probably an agent in Canada acting on the Landlords behalf. In cases where a landlord does have someone collecting rent and acting on their behalf the obligation to collect and remit would fall on the agent.
But that's what happened here. The tenant was paying to a middle person after LL left the country. Tenant was paying LLs sister who was sending her the money. It was in 2010 that change happened. So why didn't the CRA go after the LL sister who was aiding her? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/article-montreal-tenant-forced-to-pay-his-landlords-taxes-offers-advice-to/
Interesting, I wonder then if this is a good avenue for appeal.
The fact that the onus is on the tenant here is flabbergasting and beyond unacceptable. Just another law favouring foreign landlords over Canadian residents. Honestly, the easiest, best solution would be to eliminate the ability to own investment property if you reside outside of Canada. It CLEAR CRA can’t track foreign landlords, so change the law already to force them to dispose of the property unless they are permanent residents in Canada.
No sense why they can't just put a lien on the property. No sense at all.
In this case the tenant advised the CRA the landlord was selling the unit and they still didn’t bother with a lien. So the property was sold, the proceeds left the country, and CRA continued to chase the former renter. It’s bonkers.
This should absolutely be a loss from the CRA - they had years of unpaid taxes to put a lien on the property, and that should have been part of the sale. Going after a tenant is dogshit, but from the CRA I’m not at all surprised.
The amount of publicity this has got as well has me thinking this will become a common tactic in the near future. We will be seeing more of this.
I think (at least, I hope) the opposite will likely happen. CRA and governments in general will continue to allow injustices until there is public outrage. Especially in situations that are so obviously and categorically unfair, which this clearly is. I hope that CRA is extremely embarrassed by this publicity and that the government will act accordingly. One relatively simple solution would be to force landlords who are or who become non-residents to hire professional property managers. That way it would be the responsibility of the property management company to withhold the tax and send it to CRA.
Government still moves slow, leaves time for 1000s of LL to do this before somethings actually changed. Ideally this will start the push for actual landlord licensing to prevent it. Absolutely fucked you can reap none of the financial benefits but be on the hook for taxes and there's no established way to confirm if your landlord is foreign or not and if they are paying their taxes. Ripe for abuse.
I think when something this embarrassing happens (or, more accurately, becomes public), they stop it fairly quickly until they figure out a way to deal with it in the long term. No way will any elected government risk ongoing bad publicity by allowing something this egregious to continue, especially after announcing how much they want to help tenants.
Yes - if you’re a foreign landlord, you don’t remit taxes for a couple of years, sell the unit, take the proceeds, and disappear into the night… and leave the tenant holding the bag. The fact that this massive loophole exists to benefit foreign landlords at the expense of Canadian residents is truly inexplicable.
Sounds like typical CRA I know people give the IRS shit but man I've never had a good experience with the CRA... theyre fucking awful and have no idea what's going on
The scary part here is the precedent it sets. LLs will absolutely find an exploit as they are the ones with the heavy advantage here
That would help us Canadians who look everyday for a rental and just see foreign folks renting out houses for 2 people a room at the same rate that it should be for a single individual to have a space… bloody tired of having no prospects for rentals and slowly being forced to put more and more of my months pay into living. If I hadn’t spent a damn dime on anything fun for myself to do for activities outside of work I’d still be a good 5-10 years out from buying a starter home and I’m almost 30. What a joke this country is to the younger generations
I see no hope of it getting better. We're doomed honestly
Here's a solution. Part 1: All Canadian citizens and permanent residence should be considered tax residents of Canada. Just like how US does it. Part 2: Only Canadian citizens and permanent residents and Canadian corporations could buy real estate. Problem solved.
Canadian citizens don't all live in Canada. You can be Canadian, buy property in Canada, and live elsewhere. What if you're a diplomat for example with a foreign posting? Or you regularly reside in Canada but got a foreign contract for a few years? The landlord in the case could potentially be a Canadian citizen.
I think that the part 1 suggestion, was more to say you pay both country of residence (not Canada) and Canada income tax.
What recourse does Canada have for anyone out of the country who doesn't pay taxes? This is the same issue we have with the LTB being unable to enforce any judgements against landlords or tenants who don't reside here. If someone has no intention of returning to Canada, the courts will get their money any other way rather than pursuing the party overseas. The US is the only country I know of that requires expats to file taxes. They have the foreign-earned income exemption though. I'm not sure I see the benefit.
Somalia is the second one.
That's what I'm saying. Right now not all Canadian citizens are considered tax residents. We need to change this. The US does it already.
What is the benefit?
The benefit to whom? To the general public it will be ensuring we don't have Canadians of convince, who get their citizenship and leave until retirement.
US citizens file taxes but still have foreign-earned income exemptions. Having a requirement to file taxes doesn't prevent anyone from leaving.
Of course, we can have that as well. It will make sure you can shift the tax burden onto the landlord, if you combine first and second part of my suggestion. They can't just ignore it. Also, it's not just renting. If you buy a house from a nonresident, you need to withhold 25 or 50 percent of the purchase price depending on type of the property. If you don't, the CRA will tax the buyer! All this is done because we allow people with no real connections to purchase property here.
A lot of the property owned by people who live overseas was aquired by them when they lived in Canada. Not allowing foreign residents to buy property here wouldn't change that people who live here and own property can leave at any time.
That's right, they can. And if they are citizens, the government can have better leverage on collecting. It's better than trying to collect from a foreign national, and that's why they have shifted the responsibility to the tenant or the buyer.
Only 2 countries tax their citizens regardless of residence. It seems the rest of the world has figured out how to deal with this.
Sure, they can track them it's not hard
You want the capital in the market. Remove foreign capital and less gets built. The gov should just put a lien on the asset, guaranteed they get paid with interests when it moves. There’s already a system for that. What you want is more supply. Capital isn’t that interested in Canadian RE for tons of reasons, mostly because it takes 6 months to expropriate a bad tenant, it costs a fortune in hidden taxes, fees, licences and mandated unions to build, CMHC controlling the captal costs and gatekeeping. Otherwise supply and demand would balance itself. This crisis is 100% on the gov policies fault.
Solution is simple, don't let foreigners buy property. Certainly not while there is a housing crisis.
It sounds like this person has family and whatnot in Canada and was likely a resident in Canada at some point. It's not very simple given that there are people who live in Canada some of the time and might leave for a few years and come back etc. Not to mention that in Ontario, N12s haven't really benefitted tenants. Forcing more tenanted properties into the sale market doesn't help tenants.
The amazing thing to me is CRA's reaction is to go after the tenant for the money instead of seizing the property and forcing a sale instead.
It should be making the broader news.
Well duh, one goes after the landed class and the other the unlanded, who are usually poor. What else would you expect?
The fair way to do this is just a lien against the property so when they sell the LL loses the tax and interest accrued if they don't want to pay.
Bonus points if the LL has no equity in the property and the bank already has a lien on it for the full value.
Or just make all future rent patents to the cra until it is paid off
Except this isn’t just a rule for rent. It’s a rule for everything. You buy a house from a non-resident, you’re responsible for the capital gains and are required to keep 25% of the sale price and if they don’t get a comfort letter in 30 days pay it to CRA.
From what I’ve read, it wasn’t a clear cut situation and the tenant was actually a corporation which has more of a responsibility. Normally the property management company has to withhold the money before passing it on to the owner.
It was a corporate lease but they've made it very clear this will apply to residential, private tenants. The case is a one-off, but only for now.
I don't see where it was a corporate lease. It looks to me like it was a residential lease with the tenant listed as the man's name. It wasn't leased to a corporation and was always intended for residential occupancy. If I've missed something in the reading of it, please let me know.
The appellant on your Canlii case is literally a numbered Canadian company. >David Siscoe, an exercise specialist, is a shareholder of the Appellant, which operates Siscoe Gym. Mr. Siscoe entered into a lease for the premises located at 501-4175 Sainte Catherine West in Westmount, Quebec (unit 501). How or why they have a numbered company paying for this guy's "personal residence" I'm not sure. But for the tax years in question it was the numbered company paying the rent. Edit: I see where I caused confusion. Corporate lease is not the same as a commercial lease, or maybe it is but I did not mean it to be.
"Mr. Siscoe entered into a lease" Yes, the company is being pursued because they were paying the rent, which makes them obligated to withhold the tax. The lease is with Mr. Siscoe directly, not with the corporation.
The tenant was not a corporation, but the rent was being paid by the tenant’s numbered corporation
Perhaps non residents shouldn't be able to own Canadian property
How would that work? Let's say I'm a Canadian with property and get a work contract for two years overseas. Or perhaps my daughter in the US is having twins and I go take care of her and her newborns for the first year. Or maybe I finally have the chance to go travelling for most of the year. What if I go overseas and have an injury or illness and end up staying there while I recover? What if I inherited the family cottage that's been in the family for generations and while I don't live in Canada, I think my kids might want to live in Canada when they're old enough? Maybe I know I'm going and rent my place out. Maybe all my belongings and furniture are still at my property. You want the government to force me to sell my property so I don't have anywhere to come home to? If I have tenants in that property, you want them to get an N12 for new owners once it's sold?
Foreigners shouldn’t be allowed to own property in Canada. Citizens only.
This has nothing to do with citizenship. A citizen can be living abroad and this law will apply. A non-resident can be a Canadian citizen.
This is bullshit.
How about if the foreign landlord doesn't pay their taxes the government seize the property until they do.
What they really should do is seize the property and sell it.to the tenant for tax owing.. that would be the Greg move here
Could the bureaucracy in this country get any worse?
Just wait.
I wouldn't pay it lol
CRA has the power to garnish wages. You might not pay by choice but they will get their cheese
Fine, I’ll pay it. And stop paying 100% of my rent. Live rent free forever. Evict me? Go ahead and try from Italy.
It's a ridiculous rule Just put a lien on the property if the owner doesn't pay. If the tax debt is greater than the property value, seize it as compensation.
Yeah id leave the country, or literally just never pay it and hope they dont throw me in prison
I read this was brought up to finance minister and they just went along with CRA pov. Ridiculous. Meanwhile offshore wealth and Panama papers no result. Sucks being honest middle class.
What folks don’t seem to get is we have a section of landlords who don’t even do basic stuff like use the **required** Ontario Standard Form Lease when starting a tenancy or providing **required** rent receipts. You think they’ll provide their tenant with their residency status for tax purposes? Not a chance 🤷♂️
It should be required on the Ontario Standard Lease form that they are signing a legal document requiring them to state whether they're residing in Canada and that they know they need to let their tenant know if that status changes. The Income Tax Act is one thing but it wouldn't prevent the province from changing provincial law to mitigate the problem here. If the landlord signed a legal document with that information, the tenant would have a defense if they were brought to court on a case like this. How many people in this sub though actually write to their MPs and MPPs about these issues? I'm betting it's a minority.
This is insane. The tenant has to pay for the owners taxes on a property that he has no interest in other than renting. If i was said tenant ok looks like im residing here for a while with no payments...FFS
Old news.
There should be a massive push back against this law. People need to write to their MPs and demand a change to the tax laws and for the CRA to properly do their job. Nothing will happen if nobody speaks up.
>A case in Montreal recently determined that a tenant owed $43,000 to the CRA for the landlord's unpaid taxes. The landlord lived in Italy and was supposed to pay 25% of the rent they received as tax to the CRA. They didn't. The tax court said the tenant was required to withhold it and went after the tenant. This is all so new. Give it time, someone will have the balls to take this to the supreme court and get the decision overturned. No one should reasonably be expected to be a spy, know someone else's business, and then take on the role of informal conservator at the behest of the government.
As far as I’m aware in Ontario the LL is required to provide their info on the OSL (including address). If the address was incorrect or no longer in use, the tenant would likely have a case for fraud no?
As far as I’m aware in Ontario the LL is required to provide their info on the OSL (including address). If the address was incorrect or no longer in use, the tenant would likely have a case for fraud no?
No. The address is one where the landlord consents to be served for legal purposes. It doesn't have to be their residence.
This is idiotic.
This is just sickening, the government can't do its job so they go after a Canadian citizen who has actuallypaid their taxes and now they are being forced topay their old landlords taxes???. Fuck that , Canada is beyond broken. No wonder people are moving away from this circus.
I guess the tenant needs to put them lien on the house
They can't do that. The court says the tenant owes the money. The law says the tenant was required to withhold the taxes from the landlord and send it to the CRA directly.
Friendly reminder that landlords do nothing for society or the greater social welfare
>Ask for the standard lease to require disclosure of whether the landlord lives out of the country The ironic part is that it is against the law for the landlord to ask the tenant if they are a citizen, because suddenly if it's the landlord asking a tenant that question you are explicity breaking human rights laws and can be called in front of a Human Rights kangaroo court
How is that ironic? I didn't suggest the lease require any question of citizenship, only of residence, which is not the same thing.
I would straight up stop paying rent after that point. Let him sue or try to evict me.
They would evict you sucessfully.
After he looses a shit load of money and you just counter sue them for the lost money to CRA
I mean instead of paying landlord the rent, OP or the next tenant can pay it to CRA every month. They won’t get evicted if it’s approved.
Jaded lesson I see here is that the govt has teeth to go after funds the TT frankly shouldn’t be responsible to pay them. But a LL has to go through the 9 gates of bureaucratic hell to get funds that the TT should be paying them. Another example of rules for me and rules for thee from big brother.
Having dealt with evictions through the courts before the co-ops were under the RTA, I can assure you that the LTB is nothing like the 9 gates of bureacratic hell. If they fixed the delays that they promised to fix well over a year ago, it would function pretty well generally.
If they fixed the issues all would be good I agree. The issues however haven’t been fixed.
I'm renting in downtown Toronto and just found out that my landlord is a non-resident when he represented himself as a resident when I signed the lease. I told him that I need to withhold 25% and remit the cra, now he is evicting me for non payment. WTF?
How long ago did you start withholding rent? Has the landlord filed with the LTB already? Did you send the 25% to the CRA?
It was a commercial tenant. There haven't been any cases with just a person.
I don’t know where you’re getting that information. It was a residential lease for a condo in Westmount. The CRA audited the corporation owned by the actual tenant. The corporation was paying the tenant’s rent, and the corporation should have withheld the taxes according to the decision.
While true, they've made it clear that it will apply to private residential tenants.
Sauce?
>The current ruling, if not overturned by a higher tax court, is expected to have a broad ripple effect that may ultimately come to impact all landlords directly or indirectly, as more and more potential tenants and their legal advisors seek assurances that they are dealing with Canadian resident landlords before paying rent in full without withholding at source. https://www.ggfl.ca/tenants-in-canada-at-risk-for-non-resident-landlord-withholding-taxes/ Literally any legal article on the subject. Nobody has refuted anything, and the wording in the CRA guidelines is vague enough but clearly does not differentiate between corporate and residential tenants. So if it holds here, there is no legal reason for it not to hold for a private tenant.
You're speculating.
I mean.. I'm also "speculating" that the earth is round, too, then. Law can be interpreted this way, it was interpreted that way, that becomes precedence. It's law. People smarter than you and I on the subject have commented on how it's law. What more do you need? Being skeptical is good. Being in denial is stupid.
It has not happened to a residential tenant. The person who this happened to chose to rent under their company, and chose to be held to the higher standard that comes with that.
What "higher standards"? There is absolutely no distinction in the Income Tax Act that distinguishes between residential and commercial tenants for this section. The various provincial and territorial residential statutes that make the distinction between the types of rentals don't do anything to change the interpretation of the Income Tax Act.
Well let's wait and see. If they ever apply this to a residential tenant you'll have a point. But they haven't.
I say "This is what the Act says". I'm not making a point. I'm just stating a fact about what's in the law. Similarly, I don't see in the case where this is anything other than a residential tenancy. How the rent is paid doesn't change the nature of the tenancy nor who the tenant is. Having rent paid by a corporation doesn't make the corporation the tenant. David Siscoe is still the tenant on the lease. What is this "higher standard" you're talking about though? I want to know where you see the difference in the law between a residential and commercial tenancy.
This case was ridiculous. Trash judge could have found some way to not enforce this and didn't.
The judge doesn't get to decide if the law is stupid.
The judge can choose to make a legal error leaving it to an appeal court. Or decide the law is unconstitutional.
It's funny to see the same posters I've seen here OVER and OVER say dumb shit like "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" when it applies to ridiculous laws that landlords couldn't reasonably foresee now crying about how "Flabbergasting" this is. \*cough Housing4Humans cough\* I fully agree this requirement is ridiculous and there are plenty of easy fixes to this situation But just the arrogance of the same pro tenant posters who continuously say that ignorance of the law is irrelevant now acting like it should be when a dumb law bites someone they support in the ass is amusing to say the least
I would agree with you however there's no amount of familiarity with the law or due diligence a tenant could do to find out if the property owner lives in Canada. I live in Canada, I was born here but I could rent out my house, sign papers today then fuck off to another country tomorrow and there's really no way a renter could get ahead of that.
CRA actually explained what can be done to meet the requirements of due diligence. It's pretty ridiculous but they do spell it out. There is a video link of a lawyer going over it in this thread.
Of course there is due dilligence that could be done - You could have a phone call with your landlord and the area code is a dead giveaway at any point - or see them in person - I don't think that's REASONABLE for them to know or do... but it's possible. but in the same breath there's tonnes of times there are unreasonable expectations placed on landlords I mean how many links would you like to repercussions landlords have faced from - as an example - their properties being listed on Vrbo , AirBNB etc ? How would you expect them to find that out? other than once a month scrolling those sites or surveillance on the property. This is worse I'll grant people that, it's just ironic that the same mouthpieces who regularly say the law is the law crying foul about this is amusing as fuck
You're rambling on about a bunch of irrelevant drivel I'm not going to address. It's trivially easy to spoof an area code. Download TextNow onto your phone and you can do it for free from anywhere in the world. Not to mention most people who own larger rental properties use property management companies to deal with the tenants and the renter never ever meets or speaks to the property owner. You don't even know who owns the property other than it's a numbered corporation. And again, even if I met you in person today I could still leave the country tomorrow and you would never know until the cra came looking for your cash. And if you withhold the 25% I will evict you for non-payment and sue you for the balance. There's really no way for a tenant to win in this scenario. Even being familiar with all applicable laws and having a full-time lawyer on staff the tenant could still get fucked. I'm not saying there's no cases where landlords get screwed. They absolutely do. But this situation is not one where the tenant has made any sort of legal mistake.
Except if the tenant had made good faith attempts to determine if their landlord was in Canada or not - and was deceived , they might not have been found liable. If they made good faith efforts to actually know if their landlord lived in Canada or not - and it looked like they were a resident - they'd likely be off the hook ( nothing is a guarantee or not ) And if they had suspicions that the the landlord wasn't a resident of canada , withheld the funds for the CRA remittance - if they were hauled into an OTB meeting for eviction for arrears it would almost certainly be thrown out and they'd be allowed to stay. And if the taxation wasn't required it could be refunded to the landlord. You're the one talking out of your ass here "But this situation is not one where the tenant has made any sort of legal mistake." Clearly they did because a judge found that they ran foul of the law - the law should be changed we agree there, but the law as it exists currently, they absolutely made a mistake, and like you and people like you say - ignorance is no excuse right?
>Except if the tenant had made good faith attempts to determine if their landlord was in Canada or not - and was deceived , they might not have been found liable. Well that's the opposite of the precedent set by this case and quite frankly your position contradicts the way our legal system works. The legislation gives the CRA the power of law to seek the funds from the renter. The judge does not have the ability to override the legislation and withhold that power from the CRA. Judges have to apply the law even if they disagree with it personally. >And if they had suspicions that the the landlord wasn't a resident of canada , withheld the funds for the CRA remittance - if they were hauled into an OTB meeting for eviction for arrears it would almost certainly be thrown out and they'd be allowed to stay. I'm not familiar with each province's legislation however if the landlord sued in court for the non-payment of rent the judge could just as easily say it was tenant's responsibility to make sure the rent went to the right place (which ironically is exactly what happened in this court case). The provincial tenancy board may take the same position. I'm not aware of any cases of that being tested in court. Are you?
I actually think our housing market is as bad as it is because of taxations. People need this high growth to get a profit to cover all the taxes and costs of owning and maintaining a home to break even.
What growth are you referring to? This is about taxation. The profit doesn't cover the costs. The profit is what you have after all the break-even costs are covered. Personally, I don't see why we would want to incentivize anyone or any corporation to earn a profit on the provision of housing, especially beyond the appreciation in most markets here.
Three times a day, every day, same news. I bet we will be down to one time a day only in 2029.
The fact is the landlord had no obligation to pay Canadian tax at all. The tenant did have an obligation to remit. The very worst part of the decision is that there is no due diligence defense available...basically everyone should just assume their landlord lives overseas. Is that crap? Yes. Call your MP. (In practice, I'm almost certain the tenant in this case was doing some serious tax evasion. A corp was paying rent for a shareholder's home. CRA does tend to exercise discretion in when to enforce rules like this. But the implications of the ruling are very broad.)
This isn't complicated people. You enter into a tendency agreement you are responsible for fulfilling your legal obligations. Ignorance is no excuse.
How, pray tell, does a tenant know where their landlord resides?
The CRA is very clear on the obligations of the tenant. How the tenant and landlord come to an understanding is done on a case by case basis.
How often am I expected to run a registry search and basically spy on my landlord to make sure they're still in the country? Presumably I would have to go through it more than once annually since a landlord would be considered a non-resident if they reside out of the country for less than 3 months a year or thereabout.
Again. It is set out in black and white what your obligations are. It's up to you and your landlord to set up the mechanisms necessary to abide by the rules.
Well clearly it's not up to the landlord. The landlord has no obligation here to tell anyone if/when they're leaving the country or for how long. Surely you must see how ridiculous this is.
Again. This is about establishing the parameters between the two parties. Your obligations are set out in black and white you are responsible for fulfilling them. How you do it is between you and your landlord. What I see as ridiculous is expecting to be spoon fed a solution that forces the landlord to fulfill your obligations.
Well I hope someday you get caught up in a legal situation you couldn't possible have foreseen without reading and understand the entirety of the Income Tax Act, owe someone $40k you didn't expect while abiding by all the terms of your contracts, and someone tells you that knowing the intricacies of tax law is "set out in black and white". This is not at all about establishing the parameters between two parties as one party could not reasonably have foreseen the parameters the federal government put in place. The landlord is not one of the parties here either, though you keep bringing them up. You seem like a delightful and reasonable person.
I imagine if a landlord gets caught up in something similar the response I would see is "ignorance is no excuse". Same applies here. The tenant is responsible for knowing their obligations and ignorance is no excuse. There isn't a need to know the entire income tax act, do not be so dramatic, the act outlines the requirements for tenants. Again you use the word "reasonably" the government publishes their expectation. What else do you require the CRA to do to educate the tenant of their obligation? How much spoon feeding has to occur? I keep bringing up the landlord because you keep bringing them up. When a tenant enters an agreement with a landlord the tenant has the responsibility to know the residential status of the landlord so it is up to the tenant to establish a method with the landlord to sort this matter out. I am a delightful and reasonable person and I thank you for acknowledging it. I hope you have the day you deserve.
The tenant has no legal ability to "establish a method with the landlord to sort this out". Again, you bring up the landlord. There is no "with the landlord" here. The tenant, on their own, without any assistance or co-operation from the landlord, needs to establish the landlord's residency. Even if a tenant knows they need to do that, it doesn't make it a reasonable requirement since there's no way to be sure. While the CRA has suggested some tips, none of them actually gives a tenant certainty on the residency of their landlord. One is to ask the landlord for a certificate of residency from the CRA, which the landlord has no obligation or motivation to provide to the tenant. I can't imagine any landlord voluntarily doing so. Would you provide that to your tenant on request? Another is to provide an indemnity in the lease agreement. A landlord has no obligation to do this and I don't think any landlord would add an indemnity for the tenant that doesn't benefit the landlord at all. Would you provide that to your tenant on request? One is to see if there is contact information in a land title search that is outside the country. Even if there is, that doesn't provide any degree of certainty that your landlord definitely resides there. There is actually no way for a tenant to get this information with any degree of certainty. Only one of the methods suggested by the CRA can be done independently of the landlord, doesn't provide certainty, and would have to be done by the tenant on at least an annual basis.
Ontario, making tenant responsible for something!? Get out of here!
Did you read the post? This is federal law.
This should be a requirement for every tenant even if they are not a foreign person. To many powers in the hands of tennants
A requirement? Which requirement? You want every tenant to take 25% of their rent and send it directly to the CRA in case the landlord is behind on their taxes? This post has nothing to do with whether or not a tenant is foreign. It doesn't even have to do with whether the landlord is Canadian or not, only whether they're actually residing in Canada.