Housing affordability is a crisis in Canada

[CdnFox]

 

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

A 4 year old knows landlords have rights.

 

No they don't. 

Still no cites? nothing showing rights? 

Yeah.  So you're still just trying to lie.  Yawn.

[suds]

Note to CdnFox.... I was wrong. The BNA Act explicitly says under Section 92.13 that property and civil rights falls under provincial jurisdiction. In Ontario for example, you presently have the right to own property, but not a constitutional right. So in theory they could simply change the law and take your property away from you by majority vote. I'm guessing that could also include any right to judicial review.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, suds said:

Note to CdnFox.... I was wrong. The BNA Act explicitly says under Section 92.13 that property and civil rights falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Yeah but that's been replaced. 

 

1 hour ago, suds said:

n Ontario for example, you presently have the right to own property, but not a constitutional right. So in theory they could simply change the law and take your property away from you by majority vote. I'm guessing that could also include any right to judicial review.

Well that's still  sort of the case even now, it certainly was the case before, the newer charter of rights and freedoms puts it SLIGHTLY differently. 

The newer charter and constitution act says that you have the right to use and hold property and such right cannot be removed except by due process.  What THAT means is that they can take your property at any time or tell you how to use it at any time provincially or federally - but they have to pass a law or regulation.  They can't just do it.  

So they can pass a law tomorrow that says "all of the property Suds owns shall now become property of the state at no cost and shall be used for rental".  They can totally do that. 

There are no real property rights, and this was a MAJOR point of discussion during the creation of the charter. 

At the end of the day the gov'ts at both levels wanted to retain the right to control your property and it's use. They wanted to be able to take it away if they needed it for something (like an airport, that's happened) or if they didn't like you having it in the first place  (firearms owners) or if they wanted to use your property free of charge to provide housing for some reason (covid, some other cases). We don't have rights to property in canada other than if they're going to take it they have to say so in law or regulation.  So we definitely do not have rights as landlords. 

Edited September 26 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

 

17 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

That landlords have no rights, specifically? None.

Tons do. Tons.

 

 

LOL well i guess that's your way of admitting you were full of sh*t all along     Glad you finally got there  

And this is why we're running into a problem more and more with landlords being big corrupt corps or asses. They have no rights, so they play the laws as much as possible to squeeze every drop of profit knowing the gov't could do something tomorrow to take that revenue away and they have no rights to stop it. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Not true.

 

True, and we  both know you're just lying for the sake of it now.  Too stupid to make a case, too stubborn to cope with the fact you were wrong. 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Which you can't prove.

Don't need to.  You know it and that's enough for me. 

Proved everything else tho, that's why you're bitter  

[suds]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The newer charter and constitution act says that you have the right to use and hold property and such right cannot be removed except by due process.  What THAT means is that they can take your property at any time or tell you how to use it at any time provincially or federally - but they have to pass a law or regulation.  They can't just do it.  

There's nothing in the 1982 Charter that says anything remotely similar to that which I can find.  But this may be of interest.....

A number of arguments have been put forward in favour of the constitutional protection of property rights.

First of all, there is the historical precedent. Property rights have played a central role in the evolution of Canadian society and indeed are an essential part of British parliamentary democracy. These rights can be traced back to the year 1215, when the Magna Carta was signed. The right to own property was also included in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. In 1948, Canada signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 of which reads:

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Property rights are also recognized in the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights, which affirms the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law. Clearly then, it is arguable that our Constitution should be brought into line with these historical documents.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Harrison v. Carswell,(3) commented upon property rights in Canadian law as follows:

Anglo-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, of any interest therein, save by due process of law.(4)

Section 26 of the Charter stipulates that:

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada.

Case law has construed this section to mean that the common law protection of property rights is at least not threatened by the Charter.(5) Only the inclusion of property in the Charter, however, would enable an individual whose property rights had been infringed to have recourse to the enforcement section of the Charter. Subsection 24(1) states in part that "[a]nyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court ... to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances."

https://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp268-e.htm#CONCLUSION

Edited September 26 by suds

[suds]

Ontario has also recognized the common law protection of property rights. So I can't really see them messing around with anyone's property rights unless due process was taken and it was absolutely necessary.

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, suds said:

There's nothing in the 1982 Charter that says anything remotely similar to that which I can find.  But this may be of interest.....

You're right, i'm wrong,  i thought it was in the charter but it's in the "bill" of rights not the charter of rights that it's in, as you note. Which means it's not a constitutionally protected thing and not really a right. the gov't can change that at any time. So it's largely useless. 

So we have even less property rights and landlords have even fewer rights than i thought.  Not that it was that much protection anyway. 

 

Quote

 

A number of arguments have been put forward in favour of the constitutional protection of property rights.

First of all, there is the historical precedent. Property rights have played a central role in the evolution of Canadian society and indeed are an essential part of British parliamentary democracy. These rights can be traced back to the year 1215, when the Magna Carta was signed. The right to own property was also included in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. In 1948, Canada signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 of which reads:

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Property rights are also recognized in the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights, which affirms the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law. Clearly then, it is arguable that our Constitution should be brought into line with these historical documents.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Harrison v. Carswell,(3) commented upon property rights in Canadian law as follows:

Anglo-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, of any interest therein, save by due process of law.(4)

Section 26 of the Charter stipulates that:

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada.

Case law has construed this section to mean that the common law protection of property rights is at least not threatened by the Charter.(5) Only the inclusion of property in the Charter, however, would enable an individual whose property rights had been infringed to have recourse to the enforcement section of the Charter. Subsection 24(1) states in part that "[a]nyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court ... to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances."

https://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp268-e.htm#CONCLUSION

 

Well that's a good summation but i know there's been even more arguments put forward. 

But the problem is that while we SHOULD have property rights.... we don't. The gov't can dictate the use or ownership of or any element of our property at any time. 

And both federal and provincial gov'ts  have shown a willingness to use it 

So a person who's spent a million bucks to buy a unit to rent out can have that investment destroyed by the federal or provincial gov't on a whim, and we've seen it done.  The gov't just decided that for some reason landlords should be responsible for the social safety net and pay people's rent out of their own pocket. And they shouldn't be allowed to recover for inflation.  And so on. 

Why would anyone be surprised that nobody wants to build a rental unit and why the only people buying them are exactly who you DON"T want as a landlord. 

 

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, suds said:

Ontario has also recognized the common law protection of property rights. So I can't really see them messing around with anyone's property rights unless due process was taken and it was absolutely necessary.

well define 'absolutely necessary'.  they banned evictions for non payment of rent in ontario during covid, and do rental and other property controls as well.  And they've certainly required property to be handed over to the state and such. 

Most provinces have some sort of "property rights' legislation but it goes right out the window the moment they want it to.  Nothing is actually a right at the federal or provincial levels, that's why we have a construction and a charter. 

 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You can't. That's enough for me 😁

 

LOL, yes it's pretty obvious that you find lying to yourself to be all you need to get by   

The rest is bullshit i've already addressed. Which is just more proof that you've been lying to me and yourself all the way along

There's no rights for landlords. 

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Translation, you can't. 🤣

Translation, i did    

Your Translation,  "I know you did but unfortunately i'm too much of a man-child to cope with it normally so i'll just keep posting lies till i feel better"   

You go little guy, whatever it takes to help you sleep at night   

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

You can't, and are now flailing. 

Awwww muffin   Running out of lies to tell? how distressing for you  

Quote

3 emoji proof. You come out with them usually when losing an argument, handily.

They come out when i'm laughing at people  Often because they're acting in a hilariously jack assed fashion that their spouses would be embarrassed by.  Honestly watching you sink into desperation here is getting pretty funny   (there's four for you , give your wife my sympathies for her life choices  )

[CdnFox]

50 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Enjoy your karma.

My Karma already ran over your dogma. So i'm good  

[Guest]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

My Karma

Enjoy it.

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Enjoy it.

Holy shit kid!!  Did you literally go back and delete ALL your posts?

You were SO ASHAMED of your posts and other people seeing it that you literally went back and deleted them  

Unreal   Well clearly i broke your fragile intellect there  

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

fragile intellect

At least I have intellect. O_o

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

At least I have intellect. O_o

Not anymore apparently  Be sure to sweep up those pieces. 

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 Be sure to sweep up those pieces. 

Of your broken argument? I'll need a Dyson.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Of your broken argument? I'll need a Dyson.

Sure - that's why you went and deleted all your posts.  Because MY argument was broken  

You don't need a dyson. You need a therapist and anger management training  

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Because MY argument was broken

Correct. Waste of time, to boot. So speaking in your language, moving forward. Stupidity.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Correct. Waste of time, to boot. So speaking in your language, moving forward. Stupidity.

And that's why you deleted all of your posts  

Wow. I really damaged you didn't I.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I really damaged you didn't I.

Thats what your dad said.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Perspektiv said:

Thats what your dad said.

ahh more of your 'family oriented' sex fantasies.  Well i suppose you can't help yourself. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

'family oriented' sex fantasies. 

Tell us more.

Village id**t: