Housing affordability is a crisis in Canada

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, suds said:

We have individual rights (or civil rights) which are usually laid out in a country's constitution. We  have human rights which are more international in scope such as the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. And then there's the ordinary 'right' which is a privilege or power that belongs to a person by law. Maybe you're all getting a little too hung up over exactly what a right is?  Just my opinion.

It's true that we do not have property rights in Canada other than a single statement saying that the government has to pass a law to take your property.

But it's not a matter of being hung up or not. Even simple properties these days and apartments can cost half a million to a million dollars for a fairly low end stuff. Would you want to invest that without knowing that you had some sort of protections And the government wouldn't just deal the revenues or use the property for social purposes without compensation?

Historically people didn't think about it too much, but that's exactly what has happened over the last 5 years. Not only do you have no rights, but the various gov's have show a very real willingness to force you to give up rights to your property including the right to charge cost of living increases, the right to collect money or evict people, the right to short term rentals etc without warning or consultation and such changes affect existing contracts

So if you agreed to something and signed a deal believing you knew the rules and the costs you could suddenly find the gov't doing their best Darth Vader impression and saying "I'm altering the deal. Pray i don't alter it further". 

Even what laws there are such as the res tenancy acts which can be changed on a whim don't mention rights for the landlord.  They're just full of restriction. You can't raise your rent other than what we say, you must give 3 months notice to get your property back (and they're looking to extend that to a flipping YEAR if you can believe that). 

They don't guarantee the landlord anything.  There's no protections at all for the landlords and now we're getting fewer and fewer and the ones we've got are not the ones you'd like to rent from. 

[suds]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's true that we do not have property rights in Canada other than a single statement saying that the government has to pass a law to take your property.

From what I have read, property rights can be traced back to 1215 (the year the Magna Carta was signed). They are also included in the English Bill of Rights (1689). Since the BNA Act (1867) was to have a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom which was primarily an unwritten one, and the BNA Act is part of our constitution, then the property rights recognized in 1215 and the English Bill of Rights should have some significance in Canada. Countries can have constitutions that are written or 'codified' such as our 1982 Charter, or unwritten such as with English Common Law. Our Supreme Court recognizes both. So do we have property rights or not? Or is it judged on a case to case basis? To be clear, I'm interested in the property rights aspect, not the landlord/tenant part. Your thoughts?

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You left out the evil laugh, and clasped hands, then following it up with: "you fools, the world soon will be mine. MIIIINE *lengthy evil laugh*

I felt it was implied.    It certainly seems that way when you look at the gov'ts actions. 

35 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Then Justin Trudeau realizing he had a hot mic all along, blaming it on Jagmeet's cowardice, and microphone technicians not doing their job.

Suuuuurrreee......   hey you know cough syrup is meant to be taken by the capful right?

35 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

This, would have been more believable than what you're selling.

You mean reality?   well sure - we know you have a tough time accepting that.  Facts basically make you gag 

But everything i said is fact.  And you can't produce a single thing that refutes that. 

1 minute ago, suds said:

From what I have read, property rights can be traced back to 1215 (the year the Magna Carta was signed).

There are those who claim that, and it formed an important part in some of the court challeges over firearms laws .The courts have not upheld that as being true sadly. 

2 minutes ago, suds said:

Since the BNA Act (1867) was to have a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom which was primarily an unwritten one, and the BNA Act is part of our constitution, then the property rights recognized in 1215 and the English Bill of Rights should have some significance in Canada.

I'll stop you there.  While there may be some truth to that although the courts have never bought into that argument at all, it wouldn't matter any more.  

Our charter of rights and freedoms expressly allows for property to be taken by 'due process', meaning if the gov't passes a law then they can take your property. This was hotly debated at the time and several provinces did not want property rights enshrined because they wanted the right to force people to give up property if they needed it for a road or airport or because it looks like a scary gun or the like. There is no requirement for compensation. There isn't even a requirement to use the notwithstanding clause or anything. 

And while there are recognized laws about interfereing unreasonably with people's "Use and Enjoyment" of property, none of them apply to the gov't.

The gov't doesn't even have to pass a law anymore in most cases to mess with landlords, it's all done under regulation so there isn't even a vote in the provincial house.  

There's no rights at all for the landlord.  All there are is restrictions and requirements.  And that's a problem if we want more landlords. 

 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, suds said:

From what I have read, property rights can be traced back to 1215 (the year the Magna Carta was signed). They are also included in the English Bill of Rights (1689).

Oh you sweet innocent child.  This is way too smart and complex for the person you're responding to.  

[CdnFox]

53 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

So a landlord doesn't have the right to collect a rental deposit?

 

A laldlord has no right at all.

The gov't allows rental deposits but restricts the landlord as to what and how much he can collect and when he must return it.  And the gov't can change that on a whim. 

Can you show ANYWHERE that it's guaranteed as a right rather than a restriction as to what they can do? 

No? Hmmm. 

You seem to feel if the gov't says "you CANNOT DO something without our express permission" that somehow this represents a right. That's not how rights work. 

So.  Still no examples? did you have something that WASN'T a gov't imposed restriction to offer as a  'right'?

23 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Oh you sweet innocent child.  This is way too smart and complex for the person you're responding to.  

From the man who didn't know where our constitution came from till I pointed it out

 

[Moonbox]

Yap yap yap yap yap. 🙄

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Yap yap yap yap yap. 🙄

Awww   was the post too long for you little guy?    

What kind of imbecil  actually takes the time to write back "yap yap yap"?  LOL man i have emotionally scarred you. 

On the other hand it IS one of your more intelligent posts   The Chihuahua Look suits you

Edited September 23 by CdnFox

[Moonbox]

If you're saying categorically retarded things, that's the best response you're going to get.  You're literally too stupid to debate with.  

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

If you're saying categorically retarded things, that's the best response you're going to get.  You're literally too stupid to debate with.  

If i'm saying categorically retarded things then in your case i'm writing for my audience  

And "the constitution came before parliament" isn't actually technically retarded. It's an accurate statement.  Go punch your social studies teacher. 

And i see that you couldn't provide any examples of 'rights' either huh. Imagine that.  

Edited September 23 by CdnFox

[DUI_Offender]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That has happened before. 

As long as there's more people than there are rental spaces we're going to see more and more of this. 

Soon the kind of landlord you're talking about will be the only ones left along with the big corporate orgs. 

This has never happened before.

[Moonbox]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If i'm saying categorically retarded things then in your case i'm writing for my audience  

Your audience is yourself, and nobody else...so I guess you're right in a way.  🤡

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Your audience is yourself, and nobody else...so I guess you're right in a way.  🤡

LOL oh really? Did i hack your account and i'm responding to myself? LOLOLOL  "NOBODY READS YOUR STUFF!!!"  he said, replying to his stuff for the 20th time....... 

I take it you're in melt down mode again.  Are we going to see you go full hissy fit? It's been a little while for you   Remember - it's all the fault of my post count, the length of my posts, a word that doesn't mean what every one else thinks it means, and if all else fails just call me a poopy head and post childish memes. You'll be fine  

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Still no proof.

 

Yeah. You've still provided no proof.  The onus is on you to provide proof that these rights exist and as you say - you still have provided no proof. 

Because they don't exist    You're a complete 1diot  

Quote

What are you even talking about?

Oh i'm sorry, did i type too fast for you?   CAN.... YOU... PROVIDE...... PROOF??!?!!? 

No? Thought not. 

Quote

If you say so.

Well, me and pretty much the rest of the sane world but sure. 

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Right to entry, right to increase rent every 12 months, right to evict for just cause, etc.

None of those are rights. We've discussed this.  You don't have the right to increase the rent every 12 months. The gov't may give you permission and tell you how much you can do  so but they can also say no increase this year. You don't have the right to evict, the gov't can say 'nope' and did for 2 years. You don't evne have a right to entry, that can be denied and the gov't only allows it under terms and conditions they set. 

None of those are rights. They are permissions granted by the gov't.  You're referring to regulations which forbid anything the gov't doesn't allow as being a 'right'.  An 8 year old knows  that's not what  a right is.  THat's like claiming that 'murder' is a 'right' because we have a law about it. 

While laws must reflect rights, a law is NOT a right in and of itself.

Rights are  ideals that relate to the general, everyday affordances for a person and are automatically granted to all people. They can be as simple as the right to speak, travel, or to freely choose your sexuality or the like.  You have a right to vote, as has been upleld by the courts, and nobody can take that away.

A law is an enforceable direction that can be met with punishment if not followed.  You can ONLY raise rents this much, otherwise you will face punishment. YOu CAN NOT evict someone if we dont' say so, or you'll face punishment. You may NOT enter your property except under the terms we lay out or you'll face punishment. 

Landlords have no rights. They are only restricted by law. 

If you don't feel like a complete re tard at this point, you should. 

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

How is the right to entry not a right?

Because it's not a right to entry. It is gov't directed permission to do so under specific circumstances. 

If the gov't is giving you permission, or threatening you with a penalty if you fail to comply with their condition, it's probably not a right by any reasonable recognized definition of the term. 

You can tell if something is a right or not because there's no penalty attached for non compliance.  You have the right to be gay. You are not punished if you are gay, you are not punished if you are not gay. You are not told when or under what conditions you can be gay. There is no gov't regulation to being gay.  You just get to do it if that's your choice and the gov't is not allowed to interfere. 

In comparison you are NOT allowed to enter a tenant's unit except where the gov't has given permission, even if they have agreed to waive that requirement in general in writing. You MUST comply with the gov'ts instructions, if you want to go in, and are forbidden to do so otherwise and if you do there are serious penalties. 

You see how that's different. 

26 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

But you can raise them.

No. The gov't can say no rental raises tomorrow. 
They can even demand you lower them. 

So you can only do what the gov't says. THat's not a right. 

27 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Valid grounds for eviction are listed quite noticeably.

So your saying the gov't will grant it's permission. That's not a right.  AND the gov't can WITHDRAW it's permission tomorrow.  So there you go. 

28 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

That goes against their rights to raise rents, which you yourself just admitted to.

Nope, they don't have the right to raise rents.  Tomorrow the gov't may say "You know what, lower rents by 10 percent".  And there's nothing landlords can do. 

29 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I  feel my argument is better than yours.

No you don't.  That's like arguing the sun rises in the west and claiming you feel your argument is better 

You haven't provided any evidence, i have. You've provided absolutely no examples or listed any documents containting rights for landlords. You've tried to pass off regulation and restrictions as 'rights' which is just plain silly. 

You know you're wrong.  What you're doing is just repeating your lies for whatever reasons, but this isnt about the argument anymore.  If what you are saying was true you would have provided evidence of it 7 pages ago. 

So really, insulting you and laughing at you is all this is about   You don't actually have an argument, this stopped being a discussion a while back and now it's just me making fun of your stupid. And its pretty obvious you know that  

[CdnFox]

53 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Which I listed. Allowing the landlord to enter, making it their right to do so.

 

It's not a right.  As i've noted. 

So you're just lying for the sake of lying.  Well there you go  

Sorry to see that grade three education was just too high a hurdle for you   

What a sad life you must lead to think that the only 'rights' you have are ones where the gov't restricts what you do  That's not what rights are. 

Just think of all the rights those slaves in the south had back in the day!!  They had the right to work the fields when told, the right to eat whatever food they were given, the right to get beaten whenever the master felt like,  holy smokes they sure had a lot of rights! 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You've opined quite a few times. It doesn't make it a fact.

 

Of course it does. If i state a fact it's a fact. I've demonstrated already to both you and moonbat (who didn't realize what the constitution was) that rights spring from the constitutional documents, not provincial or federal law.  And i've linked to those documents and shown there's nothing in there that gives landlords rights.  There's also nothing i found in the tribunals. 

But YOU are the one making positive claims. YOU say there ARE rights.  I've already proven provincial and federal law aren't "rights", they're restrctions. And you haven't been able to come up with a single right. 

 

I guess you're the kind who feels if they lie hard enough somehow magically your fairy godmother will appear and waive her wand and make it true   

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Dramatic, for sure. Sensical? Not one bit.

Yes, that's my point. Your premise is NON SENSICAL! 

Well done. 

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You're stating alternative facts. That's the issue.

 

They're absolutely true facts, that's the point. If they weren't you'd have been able to post SOMETHING showing it's wrong.  And you haven't. 

 

Quote

"Point to me in this Bible where it states that NHL players should be making 10 million a year. HA you CAN'T. Am schooling you"

If i can't, the logical conclusion is that the bible does not say that nhl  players should be making 10 million. 

How is that not obvious? how do you not see that simple fact. How stupid do you have to be not to get that if it's not in there, what that means is IT"S NOT IN THERE.  And that would mean there's no biblical dogma around hockey players. 

There's nothing in the instruments of federation or charter of rights that would grant landlords the rights to ANYTHING.  And no court rulings pronouncing they have rights or the like.

So there aren't any. 

You are literally so dense that you're arguing that if a document DOESN"T contain something that must mean it exists. 

 

 

Quote

What you're doing is lying by omission, and gaslighting until it sticks.

There's no omission here at all.  And no gaslighting. Our rights come from the documents of confederation and the charter.  There's nothing in there.  There are no "rights" for landlords.  And any laws or regulation can be changed at a whim by the gov't and has been many times. 

Those are simple run of the mill facts.  You have not been able to dispute it once.

 

Quote

You're literally doing what you're accusing me of. You're one classic narssissist. O_o

Kid - the SIMPLE FACTS ARE THERE ARE NO RIGHTS FOR LANDLORDS AND YOU HAVENT" SHOWN A SINGLE ONE IN 8 PAGES!! 

 

Quote

Mirroring, gaslighting. All thats missing is you constantly tooting your own horn, and being a toxic person that can only communicate via conflict that tries to build negative advocates based on their opinions that match yours.

THe only one projecting here is you.  And there's no gaslighting. 

 

Quote

 

I haven't seen the latter parts from you, yet. That was sarcasm.

Oh, and notice your personal insults tend to be childish and weak. 

My noticing character traits about you tend to be spot on accurate?

Your alcoholism, your narssisism. Your toxicity, and inability to retain healthy relationships in life?

This being where you can fill that void?

 

Wahhh wahhhh  i can't provide any evidence for my position and i look stupid so i'll  just switch to ad hominems!!! Waaaaaaaaahhhh

Your parents must be so proud. 

 

Quote

Insults being the only thing that you're good at, and miss the mark with them all the time.

So i'm really good at them but i'm totally not good at them. 

Well  at least your logic and debate skills are consistent. 

 

Quote

That silence you're hearing as nobody agrees with you (many poking holes in your story), forcing you to keep arguing with me giving you more validity. Trying to pass it off as a "hobby"?

Moonbox is not "Many" unless you count the voices in his head.  And he did 't poke holes in anything. 

 

Quote

If I don't put an end to this debate, you were legit going to continue until December.

You can stop being a lying ignorant pr*ck anytime you like.  Frankly - i suspect you still will be by december but that's up to you. 

 

There are no rights for landlords and your weird  hissy fits and mental defects don't change that. 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

There are no rights for landlords and your weird  hissy fits and mental defects don't change that. 

The right of landlords spelled out in Provincial Statute.   A 5+ page tantrum and a bunch of useless ranting doesn't magically reorganize reality and the Law to save you from this shockingly stupid claim.  

Here's a refresher for you below:

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17/v8

Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario:

Purposes of Act

1. The purposes of this Act are to provide protection for residential tenants from unlawful rent increases and unlawful evictions, to establish a framework for the regulation of residential rents, to balance the rights and responsibilities of residential landlords and tenants and to provide for the adjudication of disputes and for other processes to informally resolve disputes.  2006, c. 17, s. 1.

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

[CdnFox]

37 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The right of landlords spelled out in Provincial Statute. 

 

Provincial statues don't spell out rights. 

Here's a refresher for you below. 

Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Canada.ca

Provincial statues spell out restrictions. They say what must be done and what can't be done.  They don't impart rights.

I know you don't understand how the constitution works or what the charter is... Do we need to have another talk about what the constitution and charter is?

Here's a rule of thumb. Anything that has a penalty associated with it is probably not a right. 

[Moonbox]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Provincial statues spell out restrictions. They say what must be done and what can't be done.  They don't impart rights.

You dropped a link, but no quotes or references to what you're saying.  More useless make-believe from our resident know-nothing. 🤡🤡

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You dropped a link, but no quotes or references to what you're saying. 

The document in it's entirely explains what a constituion and charter is.  Sadly you needed to read all of it

 

Quote

More useless make-believe from our resident know-nothing. 🤡🤡

So the charter of rights and the constitution DOESN"T create rights? LOL  Our rights of canadaians are not in the charter or the constitution but in the provincial laws and regulations?

See, THIS is why i gave you the whole thing to read. 

You have to know how stupid this is making you look.   

[Moonbox]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So the charter of rights and the constitution DOESN"T create rights? LOL  Our rights of canadaians are not in the charter or the constitution but in the provincial laws and regulations?

The Charter and Constitution outline some rights.  Statutes and Legislation outline others.

It's the second part that you can't quote, because it's make-believe.  🤡

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The Charter and Constitution outline some rights.  Statutes and Legislation outline others.

They don't. This was addressed right at the beginning. And several times since

Think about it for 5 seconds. If you could create rights using laws then why would we need the charter of rights and freedoms? Why would we need agreement from half the population and seven of the provinces in order to make a change?

federal and provincial laws are not rights. They are restrictions.  A right is something you have even when the gov't doesn't want you to. 

The Constitution says that the Charter takes priority over all other legislation in Canada because it is part of the "supreme law of Canada." It applies to all government action, meaning to the provincial legislatures and Parliament, and to everything done under their authority. This means that governments must take the Charter into account in developing all laws and policies. It also means that when an individual goes to court because he or she believes that Parliament or a legislature or a government official has violated rights or fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the Charter, the court may declare the law invalid if it conflicts with the Charter or provide any other "appropriate and just" remedy.

The constitution and the Charter are where all of our rights come from. Which is why all other law must comply with them. 

The gov't setting  a restriction on you is not a 'right'.

No federal or provincial law grants rights, because that law can be changed without your permission at any time, and without the protections required by the Charter and constitution. 

But according to you if the gov't passes a law on jaywalking you suddenly have the right to cross the street where you didn't before?

 

Why am i needing to explain this to you.  A 4 year old gets that rules are not rights. 

 

 

 

[Moonbox]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They don't. This was addressed right at the beginning.

Like you've been told many times, by many different people, you insisting on something doesn't make it reality.  

Here you are now, having proudly puked all over your keyboard once again, but having said absolutely nothing useful.  🤡

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Like you've been told many times, by many different people, you insisting on something doesn't make it reality.  

 

The voices in your head are not 'many people'.  We've been over this. 

And i've posted a number of links and quotes now showing that is the case. Our rights as people derive from the documents that form our constitution. And they don't confer any property rights or rights for landlords. 

 

Quote

Here you are now, having proudly puked all over your keyboard once again, but having said absolutely nothing useful.  

You must be talking to your mirror again.  Nothing to show any rights.  just restrictions. 

We have the rights conferred by the constitution and the charter. Those rights cannot be taken away without very special legal processes. A gov't cannot do so on a whim, and they can only do so for a short period of time if they can do it at all. 

The rights and freedoms the Charter protects (justice.gc.ca)

Notice that nothing in there is for landlords. 

Now, do you have some document somewhere that states that provincial  legislation which can be changed on a whim at any time confers human rights to people?  Or how that would be even possible if it can be taken away at a whim?

No? Nothing?  Well there you go

Edited September 25 by CdnFox