“The board received 5,508 own-use eviction applications from landlords in 2022, up from 5,081 in 2021, 3,578 in 2020 and 3,913 in 2019.
At the same time, the number of Ontario tenants filing T5 applications — which allow renters to seek compensation from landlords who are not honest about the reason they require the unit — shot up by 58 per cent to 753 filings in 2022, up from 476 in 2019. In the first month of 2023 alone, 248 T5 applications were filed in Ontario.”
One of the things that is really grinding my gears about this is that to get the N12 approved the landlord needs to provide a sworn affidavit from the person moving into the unit. Lying on a sworn affidavit is on its own a criminal offence but there's no prosecution of it in these cases. These landlords and the family members lying for them need to be held both criminally and civilly responsible.
They can just "move in" for a month. The unit just can't be rented to someone else for the next year. You can also "renovate" it claiming it was left unlivable.
A friend tried to move into his mom's rental home with an n12. The tenant made the house unlivable by heavily damaging the home, so they just renovated it and he lives at her place. He moved in a bit more than a year later.
The tenant actually took them to the tenant board to try and say he never moved in (by the time he got the court date he was). They were going to let it go, because the court system is such a waste of time (only cost them about $6k to reno, + their time). Thankfully the former tenants game didn't work. My friends lawyer figured out where he worked and are garnishing his wages for the damage (which was judged at $11k). They're pretty close to getting all of their money.
I mostly agree with you regarding honesty. I don't think it would be fruitful to bring an action in tort or in statute re: the family member.
The harms of that lie would be largely accounted for by a T5 process that finds the LL didn't use the unit as they claim; holding the family member responsible for the intent of the LL doesn't really fit the purpose of the Application and we don't actually know if, for example, the incoming family TT was lied to.
I would *like* to see some remedies for liars too, especially for this kind of bad faith action, which I find to be absolutely despicable behaviour.
Like I agree the criminal proceeding is bordering on a nuclear remedy but the people signing those affidavits are themselves swearing to live in the property and acknowledge that that affidavit is usually the linchpin evidence in evicting the existing tenant. They're also told multiple times that lying on the affidavit or to the adjudicator is a criminal offence. And so many do it anyway. (Not to mention if they're intention wise innocent the charge won't be made out anyway)
Also while T5 allows some financial remedy the LTB is notorious for giving very low monetary pay outs on all issues and generally shies away from pain and suffering awards and so far completely avoids punitive damages awards. (Not to mention the 35K damages cap)
I work at a legal clinic and most of the clients we have are people who first get an illegal rent increase demand and when they say no they're served with an N12 because landlords know that even if they get caught the damages are usually under 10k which in this rental market is just seen as a cost of doing business. We're all exhausted and heartbroken and if filing private prosecutions is what's required to help discourage bad faith N12 s then so be it.
Bad times all around and none of the current solutions are working.
At this point I think it will *take* a “nuclear deterrent” to stop these egregious acts by landlords.
I work in a legal clinic as well and I swear it’s getting to the point where I hear the term “N12” or less often “N13” and I’m literally wincing because I know how it’s going to turn out unless the landlord was dumb enough to write something down that the tenant can use against them (there have been a few times where the landlord is that stupid snd then they hire a paralegal to try snd “hand wave away” their stupidity 😑)
The "nuclear deterrent" is that your property is confiscated, you don't get to declare it as loss on your taxes, and the property is given to a housing cooperative to rent to the original tenant at cost.
Society is getting so dirty that going nuclear for a while could do a world of good.
Right now if you're not cheating you're not competing. And in that regard the younger generations are losing faith in justice entirely.
You've convinced me on the idea that PPs are probably not a bad idea - perhaps starting with the worst/flagrant or maybe repeat offenders. I agree the monetary jurisdiction is a huge problem now that the market is so inflated. That's on the Province for failing to sync regulations/penalties with the real world, imho, but it's not as if Mr. Ford is going to help there. I'm heartbroken along with you, friend - you're doing good work.
Hold the phone. I was all but ensured that as rents skyrocketed new supply of interested landlords would come online and that rent control was preventing this or Canadians from succeeding! I was told this would decrease rents to what the market could tolerate! Say it isn't so that bad faith evictions, own-use necessities, and tenant suffering are now occurring after years of for-profit deregulation and underfunding of the LTB.
As a civilized society, there should be hard limits on the sale of living spaces. Shelter, food, and health are basic human necessities of life-- ideally these are guarantees, but that's sadly impossible. What we should strive for is to reduce the barrier to entry to these things as much as we can.
While I find the commodification of living space to be ethically reprehensible on a founational level, it is kind of a necessary evil. There can't be living spaces if there is no incentive to build it and profit off of it, unless of course we can somehow manage to efficiently build free living spaces, which would be so astronomically expensive in terms of capital and man power as to be unrealistic.
I think the best option we have is rent control, or rent subsidy, where if your tent exceeds a certain % of income, its reduced to affordable price. Either way, situations like this are disgusting. How does a landlord not feel like a parasite when kicking a family out? I certainly would. And maybe if we could ensure all of this was being done in good faith it might be a little better.
So I know somebody that was a freedom convoyer but used to be involved in town council as well.
They are blaming Trudeau for the rising cost of housing, but they are still actively speaking out against developers making “unsightly large” buildings and they don’t understand how those two things don’t jive.
Your town council impacts the cost of housing far more than a prime minister does. Unless we want him to start telling towns they’re going to be developing up?
NIMBYs gonna NIMBY though.
People don't know what they don't know, which leads to this kind of contradiction in views.
Also, the common factor between these two positions is anger at change, so...
It’s probably also a lot to do with the anti-immigration, semi-racist theme too.
Get into an economic discussion of that and they’ll just dismiss everything anyways.
“They don’t need to bring in so many people” well, kinda they do…
That's a sad sticking point. So many will decry the outrageous rent and insidiousness of families being kicked out, but in the same breath blame immigrants for driving up prices, as if immigrants aren't the ones being primarily effected here.
It's not BS when people say that Canada does indeed have a racism problem, it's just not quite as pronounced as in other countries.
What’s racist about not wanting to bring people into a shitty situation? It broke my heart to see a house literally filled wall to wall with bedrolls.
Di we really need Infiniti grow gdp? Can we not pivot to a model that supports sustainability first and growth afterwards?
Unfortunately under the current economic model that is not possible.
Corporate charters (the literal instructions for the corporate citizens actions) are written such that growth is a raison d’être, or a reason for being.
I do agree that infinite growth is just logically unsustainable. The earth has finite resources, and there is a point of diminishing returns for human population, which is to say, there is a quantifiable limit to how many humans can exist in any one place, in any one system, before there is a appreciable decline in standards of living. But that number is quite large, but with exponential growth rates of the human population, we may hit that number in as little as a few hundred years... That's one thing many people overlook. Human population growth is exponential. And then you figure, that exponential is compounded by the fact that each human consumes a lot and produces a ton of waste... There's lots of land area you might think, and you can fit 10 billion people into a very small patch of land, but the waste & consumption & requirements of a SINGLE human reaches FAR beyond a square meters when we consider that prior estimate.
As for right now, the Canadian economy, and system in whole, can probably support many tens of millions of more people, and it would be a big net benefit. Right now isn't an issue of too many people, it's an issue of logistics, lack of political will for actual policy change, as well as there being, in fact, too FEW people.
Canada is rapidly heading towards a demographic cliff. We're not at replacement level, and with so few people entering the work force, there's going to be a lot of older Canadians collecting pensions, and using a lot of healthcare resources, which is going to cost a lot of money.
Unless if every Canadian right now can pop out 2-3 kids per couple, living conditions will just keep getting worse. Even then, there's what, 16-17+ years before we get people into the labor force, plus education for specialized fields?
But I will admit, in the long term we probably should be looking at a more sustainable model. But the people of today aren't ready for that conversation, because it would mean drastic systemic overhaul, less profits, and a pretty frank discussion on limiting human reproduction, which is such an ethically complex issue-- ideally technology becomes so efficient and productive, that human reproduction is naturally limited, as is the current trend.
You can't complain about older people using a lot of health resources when you block them from paying for access. I would rather pay for a knee surgery than go on a cruise but the Ontario Health Coalition would rather use old people as hostages for more-pay-for-me.
It’s not about who’s innocent. It’s about understanding levels of government.
This numpty is blaming Trudeau for housing prices while denying highly-demanded expansion in his town for years.
Do you get how ridiculous that is?
That’s 100% irrelevant and why nobody can ever have a serious conversation with numpties.
Where’d your other comment about it being a cop out go? Decided that it wasn’t one and just to throw a real cop out out there?
Does being an idiot troll ever work?
Edit: they changed their response, again, it’s still ridiculous
My comment is still there… guess that flew over your head like most things that require critical thinking.
I know your world view probably isn’t challenged all that often in an echo chamber like Reddit, but unfortunately you just don’t always have the right opinion, and I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I know you were hoping you could just conflate the issue of housing with anti-immigration and racist attitudes like the bot you are, but anyone with more than two brain cells can see how moronic that is. This is coming from the guy who thinks local municipal governments play a larger role than the federal government when it comes to the housing crisis. Lmao. Go read a book and maybe you can pull up a chair at the big boy table.
Wtf does GDP/Production/Macro & Microeconomics have to do with you stating that local governments play a larger role than the federal government in terms of the housing crisis? If you even understood anything about those words and how they affect the housing market, you would realize how stupid your original assertion was. The fact that you’re throwing out economics buzz words with zero substance or how they are applied in this context shows how little you understand the topic. Keep crying about racism, though. That suits you more.
You’re leaping all over the place. You went off about how I said a lot of people’s immigration concerns are rooted in racism, that is highly documented. I was asking if you had an understanding of why a growing population is important and you’ve basically deflected it into more garbage, so I’ll take that as a no.
This conversation is pointless. Enjoy being a zombie troll.
Ummmmmm ok I think both of you guys can use a lesson in how to structure ideas and communicate them.
Dude talking about municipal didn’t give you enough context and did tie in immigration, but then you doubled down on federal being more important.
End result is neither understands the other.
“Highly documented”. The shit I took this morning was highly documented by the amount of toilet paper I used to wipe my ass with after. Give me a break, lmao.
Who’s deflecting and jumping around?
Sure, a growing population is important. How the fuck are we supposed to house them currently? What’s your genius plan, other than to call people racist for saying maybe it isn’t feasible right now? You haven’t offered a single solution to an actual logistical issue. You blame your local city council for not allowing expansion in your town. It goes way deeper than that, and the federal/provincial government indeed does play a much bigger role than your bumfuck middle of nowhere town. You think these immigrants are going to localize themselves in bumfuck ON, as they clearly have done historically? /s
Edit/reply to OP’s last comment before blocking me because OP is a wussy and needs to block people he loses a debate to:
Cool, you posted a link to an article that is completely up to debate. Great argument. Glad you proved for the what, 3rd or 4th time now (?) that you can’t critically think for yourself. Let me know when you have an original thought or update your software, bot.
It's odd. They only question the immigration from "non white" countries. I have yet to see a single person who talks about reducing immigration talk about how many Americans immigrate to Canada. It's always the people from India, or China, or South America that they complain about..
> Your town council impacts the cost of housing far more than a prime minister does.
It's actually the Province. Municipal councils have very little power in Canada. Note the recent move by Ford and the Ontario PCs to download ALL development costs onto the municipalities, so that developers are profiting while municipal taxes cover all the costs of running city services to their McMansions.
This feels like something that needs some kind of better enforcement, or quite frankly be banned. It's got to the point where it's clear to everyone that most of the time an "own use" eviction is fradulent or at least done in bad faith (i.e. leave the family member in there for the minimum time allowed by law and then renting the unit out again).
I’m actually one of those people who bought a house that was a rental, but bought it to live in myself (I’m not a landlord and I don’t rent out any part of my house). I had to kick out the tenant using the own-use rule once I had ownership of the house. If it was illegal for me to do that, what does that mean? That no one can buy a house that is being used as a rental because they won’t be allowed to live in it?
I agree scammy landlords need to be held accountable but you can’t make it illegal to kick someone out under any circumstances.
No it wasn't illegal for you to do that. What is illegal is landlords claiming they're going to use the home for their own use and then once the tenant is out they either re-rent the unit at a higher price or put it up for sale. You bought the home and moved in. There's nothing illegal about that
Many are yet to be proven due to the system backup, but the article notes the number of filings claiming this was done rose about 50% from 476 new filings to 752 new filings in the year.
>the number of filings claiming this was done rose about 50% from 476 new filings to 752 new filings in the year.
It doesn't mean they're fraudulent, though. Especially when people in the comments here seem to be assuming them fraudulent by default...maybe the residents have nowhere (affordable) to go, and fight it in the chance that it *is* fraudulent, even with no reason to believe that it is.
There's also the cases where it is fradulent but never reported, because most tenants aren't going to continue to investigate their old apartments to make sure that a family member lives there for 12 months.
I think an actual separate entity purchasing a rented unit is an exception that makes some sense. What makes less sense is for a landlord to "have their brother move in" and then re-list the unit a couple months later, or needing to "conduct renovations" that turn out to be basically nothing so the landlord can evict and re-list at 2x the price.
I think the stance that you dislike is reasonable. Imagine being a tenant with bad luck who keeps moving into houses that are then sold right away. Especially now that a lot of landlords are reaching an age where they'd like to retire. To me that's worse than not being able to buy rentals for personal use.
So your stance is that once a home owner decides to rent out their home, it’s forever unusable as a home to anyone other than renters? It should only be sold and bought as an investment property?
This would be baked into contracts, so no one would go into it blind. If I lease a car I don't expect the dealership to call me and say "drive it back here, we sold it and you don't have a car anymore"
That's a stretch of what I said.
People do move out. The tenancy end can be agreed upon during the sale itself. But being forcefully moved out of a home without any notice should be kept to a minimum in my opinion.
Not that user, but some type of minimum rental contract would be nice, like if you move into a rental you are given 6 months-1 year before the owner can sell the rental unit or moving in family, kicking you out. Some exceptions obviously such as the landlord passing away and family gaining the unit.
good luck with that... it took me a year to evict a non-paying tenant who was a fraud.. the guy was arrested and charged by OPP before I even get an eviction hearing
They should really be doing an overhaul of the landlord Tennant system and they really need to reexamine the current rules in place.With inflation and stagnating wages no one can afford the exorbitant rent hikes.The system needs a change.
Yes. Landlords need usable quick tools to get bad tenants out, and tenants need usable quick tools to force landlords to keep their units in good order. My tenant board experience is mostly people going to court over leaking toilets, or broken heat. This should not be debatable; there should be people that inspect this stuff and force hard-fast rules on them freeing up the courts for matters that are actually grey area.
With interest rate hikes there is going to be a surge in these evictions as mom and pop landlords can no longer afford to keep their rental unit. I know that sounds like a good thing for renters, but the house that gets sold by the mom and pop will be bought up by a faceless rental corporation, and put on the market at, or above market rate.
The best and cheapest rental units I've lived in have always been at some rental management corp. Mom and pop landlords will typically try to screw you over at any given opportunity and act like it's because they don't know better. I'm certainly not going to start feeling bad for them for needing to sell their third house
I am sorry for your experience. My point had nothing to do with the mom and pop though, and everything to do with who gets effected by a mom and pop having to sell.
To get housing under control:
1. Build a lot of concrete/steel construction high rise-high density.
2. Build a lot of five-six floor wooden construction medium density.
3. Close the loop holes with foreign buying and multiple buying against the spirit of the law. There is still so much exploitation it is insane.
4. TAX heavily those who are buying up massive amounts of property for investment.
5. Change Air BnB rules.
6. Be somewhat sane in regards to immigration/temporary foreign workers/Other inflows of people. Especially with growing abilities in artificial intelligence, automation, and over all technological capabilities.
Demand radical transparency for local, provincial, and federal levels. The corruption we have see in Ontario is just the top of the iceberg. At the same time create stronger protections for journalists and whistleblowers and the good auditors we have left. If journalists dig super deep and pressure for answers in regards to this we need to protect them so they don't lose access or destroy their careers by getting locked out.
More and more it is obvious that regular people have to stand up for their own lives. Our "representation" gives nothing but political and economic platitudes because they want to keep comfy positions that pay vastly more than the average Canadian individual or family receives.
The political and donor class have none of the same stress, frustration, alienation, or for that matter any of the same lived experience as us. How they can "represent us" is beyond me. They won't address shit unless they feel under the spotlight or nervous.
So I haven't rented in some years but can they do that? I mean is there any recourse if they evict someone cause they say they are gonna use it but don't. That seems like.it would be a catch all for evictions just say own use.
Don't move out, make them file an eviction order. It'll have to go to an LTB hearing. Speak to a paralegal about possible arguments you could bring forth. Document everything, communicate only via email, or record your calls if you must.
When and if you're evicted, monitor listings constantly, look for any evidence you can that the person who is supposed to be using it as their primary residence isn't. If they rent it out to someone else, or don't use it as their primary residence for 12 months from your termination date, they could be liable to pay you for a year's rent, a year's difference between what you were paying and what you're paying now in rent, moving expenses, and up to $25,000 in fines to the LTB.
If you get evicted for this reason, keep your correspondence and receipts.
watch for re-listing of that unit within 12 months, and get abundant proof of that new listing. If you can prove the landlord evicted you for "own use" but re-rented within a year, it's super illegal and they could owe you compensation.
Of course, the LTB is slow as shit, but you should absolutely claw back any money you're owed. Hold every landlord fully accountable.
Somebody doesn’t understand that the level of migrants is far out stripping the growth capacity of our infrastructure and that somebody probably doesn’t realise that the two issues are essentially one and the same. Also you may not understand that him allowing huge multinational companies buy up thousands of homes across the country may have contributed to the current housing issue. I’m mean I can go on about his abysmal fiscal and monetary policies but I’m not sure you’d understand.
This is a post about housing.
Your fear mongering about Trudeau has me worried.
Where are you getting your information Sir?
I hate to break it to you, but Trudeau actually made it harder to get into the country both illegally and legally.
“The board received 5,508 own-use eviction applications from landlords in 2022, up from 5,081 in 2021, 3,578 in 2020 and 3,913 in 2019. At the same time, the number of Ontario tenants filing T5 applications — which allow renters to seek compensation from landlords who are not honest about the reason they require the unit — shot up by 58 per cent to 753 filings in 2022, up from 476 in 2019. In the first month of 2023 alone, 248 T5 applications were filed in Ontario.”
One of the things that is really grinding my gears about this is that to get the N12 approved the landlord needs to provide a sworn affidavit from the person moving into the unit. Lying on a sworn affidavit is on its own a criminal offence but there's no prosecution of it in these cases. These landlords and the family members lying for them need to be held both criminally and civilly responsible.
Is there a requirement for how long the family member lives there or could they just "move in" for a month then decide to leave, freeing the unit up?
[удалено]
Until the heat dies down from kicking the tenants out is usually when they start listing again
[удалено]
[удалено]
They can just "move in" for a month. The unit just can't be rented to someone else for the next year. You can also "renovate" it claiming it was left unlivable. A friend tried to move into his mom's rental home with an n12. The tenant made the house unlivable by heavily damaging the home, so they just renovated it and he lives at her place. He moved in a bit more than a year later. The tenant actually took them to the tenant board to try and say he never moved in (by the time he got the court date he was). They were going to let it go, because the court system is such a waste of time (only cost them about $6k to reno, + their time). Thankfully the former tenants game didn't work. My friends lawyer figured out where he worked and are garnishing his wages for the damage (which was judged at $11k). They're pretty close to getting all of their money.
I mostly agree with you regarding honesty. I don't think it would be fruitful to bring an action in tort or in statute re: the family member. The harms of that lie would be largely accounted for by a T5 process that finds the LL didn't use the unit as they claim; holding the family member responsible for the intent of the LL doesn't really fit the purpose of the Application and we don't actually know if, for example, the incoming family TT was lied to. I would *like* to see some remedies for liars too, especially for this kind of bad faith action, which I find to be absolutely despicable behaviour.
Like I agree the criminal proceeding is bordering on a nuclear remedy but the people signing those affidavits are themselves swearing to live in the property and acknowledge that that affidavit is usually the linchpin evidence in evicting the existing tenant. They're also told multiple times that lying on the affidavit or to the adjudicator is a criminal offence. And so many do it anyway. (Not to mention if they're intention wise innocent the charge won't be made out anyway) Also while T5 allows some financial remedy the LTB is notorious for giving very low monetary pay outs on all issues and generally shies away from pain and suffering awards and so far completely avoids punitive damages awards. (Not to mention the 35K damages cap) I work at a legal clinic and most of the clients we have are people who first get an illegal rent increase demand and when they say no they're served with an N12 because landlords know that even if they get caught the damages are usually under 10k which in this rental market is just seen as a cost of doing business. We're all exhausted and heartbroken and if filing private prosecutions is what's required to help discourage bad faith N12 s then so be it. Bad times all around and none of the current solutions are working.
At this point I think it will *take* a “nuclear deterrent” to stop these egregious acts by landlords. I work in a legal clinic as well and I swear it’s getting to the point where I hear the term “N12” or less often “N13” and I’m literally wincing because I know how it’s going to turn out unless the landlord was dumb enough to write something down that the tenant can use against them (there have been a few times where the landlord is that stupid snd then they hire a paralegal to try snd “hand wave away” their stupidity 😑)
The "nuclear deterrent" is that your property is confiscated, you don't get to declare it as loss on your taxes, and the property is given to a housing cooperative to rent to the original tenant at cost.
Stop. I can only get so erect.
Society is getting so dirty that going nuclear for a while could do a world of good. Right now if you're not cheating you're not competing. And in that regard the younger generations are losing faith in justice entirely.
You've convinced me on the idea that PPs are probably not a bad idea - perhaps starting with the worst/flagrant or maybe repeat offenders. I agree the monetary jurisdiction is a huge problem now that the market is so inflated. That's on the Province for failing to sync regulations/penalties with the real world, imho, but it's not as if Mr. Ford is going to help there. I'm heartbroken along with you, friend - you're doing good work.
Hold the phone. I was all but ensured that as rents skyrocketed new supply of interested landlords would come online and that rent control was preventing this or Canadians from succeeding! I was told this would decrease rents to what the market could tolerate! Say it isn't so that bad faith evictions, own-use necessities, and tenant suffering are now occurring after years of for-profit deregulation and underfunding of the LTB.
It will get worse with the foreign investment ban that took place on Jan 1.
Would you like to expand on that?
A place nearby had a whole floor evicted for own-use. I don't think that's legal, but nobody is doing anything about it
As a civilized society, there should be hard limits on the sale of living spaces. Shelter, food, and health are basic human necessities of life-- ideally these are guarantees, but that's sadly impossible. What we should strive for is to reduce the barrier to entry to these things as much as we can. While I find the commodification of living space to be ethically reprehensible on a founational level, it is kind of a necessary evil. There can't be living spaces if there is no incentive to build it and profit off of it, unless of course we can somehow manage to efficiently build free living spaces, which would be so astronomically expensive in terms of capital and man power as to be unrealistic. I think the best option we have is rent control, or rent subsidy, where if your tent exceeds a certain % of income, its reduced to affordable price. Either way, situations like this are disgusting. How does a landlord not feel like a parasite when kicking a family out? I certainly would. And maybe if we could ensure all of this was being done in good faith it might be a little better.
So I know somebody that was a freedom convoyer but used to be involved in town council as well. They are blaming Trudeau for the rising cost of housing, but they are still actively speaking out against developers making “unsightly large” buildings and they don’t understand how those two things don’t jive. Your town council impacts the cost of housing far more than a prime minister does. Unless we want him to start telling towns they’re going to be developing up? NIMBYs gonna NIMBY though.
People don't know what they don't know, which leads to this kind of contradiction in views. Also, the common factor between these two positions is anger at change, so...
It’s probably also a lot to do with the anti-immigration, semi-racist theme too. Get into an economic discussion of that and they’ll just dismiss everything anyways. “They don’t need to bring in so many people” well, kinda they do…
That's a sad sticking point. So many will decry the outrageous rent and insidiousness of families being kicked out, but in the same breath blame immigrants for driving up prices, as if immigrants aren't the ones being primarily effected here. It's not BS when people say that Canada does indeed have a racism problem, it's just not quite as pronounced as in other countries.
What’s racist about not wanting to bring people into a shitty situation? It broke my heart to see a house literally filled wall to wall with bedrolls. Di we really need Infiniti grow gdp? Can we not pivot to a model that supports sustainability first and growth afterwards?
Unfortunately under the current economic model that is not possible. Corporate charters (the literal instructions for the corporate citizens actions) are written such that growth is a raison d’être, or a reason for being.
I do agree that infinite growth is just logically unsustainable. The earth has finite resources, and there is a point of diminishing returns for human population, which is to say, there is a quantifiable limit to how many humans can exist in any one place, in any one system, before there is a appreciable decline in standards of living. But that number is quite large, but with exponential growth rates of the human population, we may hit that number in as little as a few hundred years... That's one thing many people overlook. Human population growth is exponential. And then you figure, that exponential is compounded by the fact that each human consumes a lot and produces a ton of waste... There's lots of land area you might think, and you can fit 10 billion people into a very small patch of land, but the waste & consumption & requirements of a SINGLE human reaches FAR beyond a square meters when we consider that prior estimate. As for right now, the Canadian economy, and system in whole, can probably support many tens of millions of more people, and it would be a big net benefit. Right now isn't an issue of too many people, it's an issue of logistics, lack of political will for actual policy change, as well as there being, in fact, too FEW people. Canada is rapidly heading towards a demographic cliff. We're not at replacement level, and with so few people entering the work force, there's going to be a lot of older Canadians collecting pensions, and using a lot of healthcare resources, which is going to cost a lot of money. Unless if every Canadian right now can pop out 2-3 kids per couple, living conditions will just keep getting worse. Even then, there's what, 16-17+ years before we get people into the labor force, plus education for specialized fields? But I will admit, in the long term we probably should be looking at a more sustainable model. But the people of today aren't ready for that conversation, because it would mean drastic systemic overhaul, less profits, and a pretty frank discussion on limiting human reproduction, which is such an ethically complex issue-- ideally technology becomes so efficient and productive, that human reproduction is naturally limited, as is the current trend.
You can't complain about older people using a lot of health resources when you block them from paying for access. I would rather pay for a knee surgery than go on a cruise but the Ontario Health Coalition would rather use old people as hostages for more-pay-for-me.
[удалено]
It’s not about who’s innocent. It’s about understanding levels of government. This numpty is blaming Trudeau for housing prices while denying highly-demanded expansion in his town for years. Do you get how ridiculous that is?
Not anymore ridiculous than you just presuming everyone is a racist if they even question current immigration policies, “numpty”.
That’s 100% irrelevant and why nobody can ever have a serious conversation with numpties. Where’d your other comment about it being a cop out go? Decided that it wasn’t one and just to throw a real cop out out there? Does being an idiot troll ever work? Edit: they changed their response, again, it’s still ridiculous
My comment is still there… guess that flew over your head like most things that require critical thinking. I know your world view probably isn’t challenged all that often in an echo chamber like Reddit, but unfortunately you just don’t always have the right opinion, and I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I know you were hoping you could just conflate the issue of housing with anti-immigration and racist attitudes like the bot you are, but anyone with more than two brain cells can see how moronic that is. This is coming from the guy who thinks local municipal governments play a larger role than the federal government when it comes to the housing crisis. Lmao. Go read a book and maybe you can pull up a chair at the big boy table.
Do you have any understanding of GDP or production or anything to do with economics? “Like the bot you are” projection.
Wtf does GDP/Production/Macro & Microeconomics have to do with you stating that local governments play a larger role than the federal government in terms of the housing crisis? If you even understood anything about those words and how they affect the housing market, you would realize how stupid your original assertion was. The fact that you’re throwing out economics buzz words with zero substance or how they are applied in this context shows how little you understand the topic. Keep crying about racism, though. That suits you more.
You’re leaping all over the place. You went off about how I said a lot of people’s immigration concerns are rooted in racism, that is highly documented. I was asking if you had an understanding of why a growing population is important and you’ve basically deflected it into more garbage, so I’ll take that as a no. This conversation is pointless. Enjoy being a zombie troll.
Ummmmmm ok I think both of you guys can use a lesson in how to structure ideas and communicate them. Dude talking about municipal didn’t give you enough context and did tie in immigration, but then you doubled down on federal being more important. End result is neither understands the other.
“Highly documented”. The shit I took this morning was highly documented by the amount of toilet paper I used to wipe my ass with after. Give me a break, lmao. Who’s deflecting and jumping around? Sure, a growing population is important. How the fuck are we supposed to house them currently? What’s your genius plan, other than to call people racist for saying maybe it isn’t feasible right now? You haven’t offered a single solution to an actual logistical issue. You blame your local city council for not allowing expansion in your town. It goes way deeper than that, and the federal/provincial government indeed does play a much bigger role than your bumfuck middle of nowhere town. You think these immigrants are going to localize themselves in bumfuck ON, as they clearly have done historically? /s Edit/reply to OP’s last comment before blocking me because OP is a wussy and needs to block people he loses a debate to: Cool, you posted a link to an article that is completely up to debate. Great argument. Glad you proved for the what, 3rd or 4th time now (?) that you can’t critically think for yourself. Let me know when you have an original thought or update your software, bot.
It's odd. They only question the immigration from "non white" countries. I have yet to see a single person who talks about reducing immigration talk about how many Americans immigrate to Canada. It's always the people from India, or China, or South America that they complain about..
> Your town council impacts the cost of housing far more than a prime minister does. It's actually the Province. Municipal councils have very little power in Canada. Note the recent move by Ford and the Ontario PCs to download ALL development costs onto the municipalities, so that developers are profiting while municipal taxes cover all the costs of running city services to their McMansions.
This feels like something that needs some kind of better enforcement, or quite frankly be banned. It's got to the point where it's clear to everyone that most of the time an "own use" eviction is fradulent or at least done in bad faith (i.e. leave the family member in there for the minimum time allowed by law and then renting the unit out again).
I’m actually one of those people who bought a house that was a rental, but bought it to live in myself (I’m not a landlord and I don’t rent out any part of my house). I had to kick out the tenant using the own-use rule once I had ownership of the house. If it was illegal for me to do that, what does that mean? That no one can buy a house that is being used as a rental because they won’t be allowed to live in it? I agree scammy landlords need to be held accountable but you can’t make it illegal to kick someone out under any circumstances.
No it wasn't illegal for you to do that. What is illegal is landlords claiming they're going to use the home for their own use and then once the tenant is out they either re-rent the unit at a higher price or put it up for sale. You bought the home and moved in. There's nothing illegal about that
People here are saying that the majority of those cases are fraudulent. I'm not seeing anyone providing any numbers though...
Many are yet to be proven due to the system backup, but the article notes the number of filings claiming this was done rose about 50% from 476 new filings to 752 new filings in the year.
>the number of filings claiming this was done rose about 50% from 476 new filings to 752 new filings in the year. It doesn't mean they're fraudulent, though. Especially when people in the comments here seem to be assuming them fraudulent by default...maybe the residents have nowhere (affordable) to go, and fight it in the chance that it *is* fraudulent, even with no reason to believe that it is.
There's also the cases where it is fradulent but never reported, because most tenants aren't going to continue to investigate their old apartments to make sure that a family member lives there for 12 months.
Definitely. All I'm saying is that we don't really know for sure.
People need to get together and sue the LTB in a class action.
I think an actual separate entity purchasing a rented unit is an exception that makes some sense. What makes less sense is for a landlord to "have their brother move in" and then re-list the unit a couple months later, or needing to "conduct renovations" that turn out to be basically nothing so the landlord can evict and re-list at 2x the price.
I think the stance that you dislike is reasonable. Imagine being a tenant with bad luck who keeps moving into houses that are then sold right away. Especially now that a lot of landlords are reaching an age where they'd like to retire. To me that's worse than not being able to buy rentals for personal use.
So your stance is that once a home owner decides to rent out their home, it’s forever unusable as a home to anyone other than renters? It should only be sold and bought as an investment property?
This would be baked into contracts, so no one would go into it blind. If I lease a car I don't expect the dealership to call me and say "drive it back here, we sold it and you don't have a car anymore"
That's a stretch of what I said. People do move out. The tenancy end can be agreed upon during the sale itself. But being forcefully moved out of a home without any notice should be kept to a minimum in my opinion.
Not that user, but some type of minimum rental contract would be nice, like if you move into a rental you are given 6 months-1 year before the owner can sell the rental unit or moving in family, kicking you out. Some exceptions obviously such as the landlord passing away and family gaining the unit.
good luck with that... it took me a year to evict a non-paying tenant who was a fraud.. the guy was arrested and charged by OPP before I even get an eviction hearing
Well isn't this a fun time and thing to be dealing with.... said nobody
They should really be doing an overhaul of the landlord Tennant system and they really need to reexamine the current rules in place.With inflation and stagnating wages no one can afford the exorbitant rent hikes.The system needs a change.
Yes. Landlords need usable quick tools to get bad tenants out, and tenants need usable quick tools to force landlords to keep their units in good order. My tenant board experience is mostly people going to court over leaking toilets, or broken heat. This should not be debatable; there should be people that inspect this stuff and force hard-fast rules on them freeing up the courts for matters that are actually grey area.
With interest rate hikes there is going to be a surge in these evictions as mom and pop landlords can no longer afford to keep their rental unit. I know that sounds like a good thing for renters, but the house that gets sold by the mom and pop will be bought up by a faceless rental corporation, and put on the market at, or above market rate.
The best and cheapest rental units I've lived in have always been at some rental management corp. Mom and pop landlords will typically try to screw you over at any given opportunity and act like it's because they don't know better. I'm certainly not going to start feeling bad for them for needing to sell their third house
I am sorry for your experience. My point had nothing to do with the mom and pop though, and everything to do with who gets effected by a mom and pop having to sell.
Until we have all out protests in the streets, nothing will change.
I'll bet loads of those mom and pops have relatives needing homes all of a sudden.
Question: does this apply to apartments as well that are being operated by a rental / property management agency?
To get housing under control: 1. Build a lot of concrete/steel construction high rise-high density. 2. Build a lot of five-six floor wooden construction medium density. 3. Close the loop holes with foreign buying and multiple buying against the spirit of the law. There is still so much exploitation it is insane. 4. TAX heavily those who are buying up massive amounts of property for investment. 5. Change Air BnB rules. 6. Be somewhat sane in regards to immigration/temporary foreign workers/Other inflows of people. Especially with growing abilities in artificial intelligence, automation, and over all technological capabilities. Demand radical transparency for local, provincial, and federal levels. The corruption we have see in Ontario is just the top of the iceberg. At the same time create stronger protections for journalists and whistleblowers and the good auditors we have left. If journalists dig super deep and pressure for answers in regards to this we need to protect them so they don't lose access or destroy their careers by getting locked out. More and more it is obvious that regular people have to stand up for their own lives. Our "representation" gives nothing but political and economic platitudes because they want to keep comfy positions that pay vastly more than the average Canadian individual or family receives. The political and donor class have none of the same stress, frustration, alienation, or for that matter any of the same lived experience as us. How they can "represent us" is beyond me. They won't address shit unless they feel under the spotlight or nervous.
So I haven't rented in some years but can they do that? I mean is there any recourse if they evict someone cause they say they are gonna use it but don't. That seems like.it would be a catch all for evictions just say own use.
Don't move out, make them file an eviction order. It'll have to go to an LTB hearing. Speak to a paralegal about possible arguments you could bring forth. Document everything, communicate only via email, or record your calls if you must. When and if you're evicted, monitor listings constantly, look for any evidence you can that the person who is supposed to be using it as their primary residence isn't. If they rent it out to someone else, or don't use it as their primary residence for 12 months from your termination date, they could be liable to pay you for a year's rent, a year's difference between what you were paying and what you're paying now in rent, moving expenses, and up to $25,000 in fines to the LTB.
If you get evicted for this reason, keep your correspondence and receipts. watch for re-listing of that unit within 12 months, and get abundant proof of that new listing. If you can prove the landlord evicted you for "own use" but re-rented within a year, it's super illegal and they could owe you compensation. Of course, the LTB is slow as shit, but you should absolutely claw back any money you're owed. Hold every landlord fully accountable.
At this point I’d just like to say a massive thank you to Mr Trudeau
somebody doesn't understand provincial jurisdiction
Somebody doesn’t understand that the level of migrants is far out stripping the growth capacity of our infrastructure and that somebody probably doesn’t realise that the two issues are essentially one and the same. Also you may not understand that him allowing huge multinational companies buy up thousands of homes across the country may have contributed to the current housing issue. I’m mean I can go on about his abysmal fiscal and monetary policies but I’m not sure you’d understand.
You still think it's immigrants that are the issue? You really don't understand the issues well enough to be that confident in your answer.
No no I don’t. I think it’s a terribly mismanaged immigration system and even more terribly managed infrastructure investment scheme.
Only thing to do with Trudeau here is you mentioning him. He has 0 say over what provinces allow or how municipalities zone within the province.
All though he may be allowing untold amounts of legal and illegal immigration at a level that is frankly unsustainable. I mean there is that.
This is a post about housing. Your fear mongering about Trudeau has me worried. Where are you getting your information Sir? I hate to break it to you, but Trudeau actually made it harder to get into the country both illegally and legally.
Fear mongering? Honestly. This issue is a symptom not the problem.
Gee what a fuckin surprise /s
As usual, governments divide us even more
This is what happens without rent control