Residential Tenancies Act - Ontario

[Renegade]

Effective Jan 31, 2007 Ontario has introduced new legislation the Residential Tenancies Act which replaced the Tenant Protection Act.

This legislation was unnecessary and more over unfairly penalizes and restricts the ability of landlords.

This legislation was brought to pander for votes and evidence that it was not necessary is presented here: Comparing TPA to Previous Regimes April 2006 v2

As a supplier of a commodity in a competitive market, why is it even necessary to legisate landlords? How many other suppliers are compelled to continue to supply the customer even when the customer doesn't pay the bill?

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.pdf

[M.Dancer]

Effective Jan 31, 2007 Ontario has introduced new legislation the Residential Tenancies Act which replaced the Tenant Protection Act.

This legislation was unnecessary and more over unfairly penalizes and restricts the ability of landlords.

This legislation was brought to pander for votes and evidence that it was not necessary is presented here: Comparing TPA to Previous Regimes April 2006 v2

As a supplier of a commodity in a competitive market, why is it even necessary to legisate landlords? How many other suppliers are compelled to continue to supply the customer even when the customer doesn't pay the bill?

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.pdf

The old act gave a lot of power to tenants....why is it necessary to have an act? Because decent living conditions are something that everyone should expect, even people not sophisticated enough to understand the system. It is all too easy to say, you don't like rats, move....but some landlords operate like mobsters and you need to be able to legislate a minimum level of care.

So now a new act? I intend to read it, evicting someone with due cause was justb way to difficult undeer the old act.

[Renegade]

Because decent living conditions are something that everyone should expect, even people not sophisticated enough to understand the system. It is all too easy to say, you don't like rats, move....

The system works for everything else, why not housing? It really doesn't take much sophstication to decide that if I don't like what my landlord offers, I move or renegotiate.

but some landlords operate like mobsters and you need to be able to legislate a minimum level of care.

Mobsters have leverage in that they have the power to use physical violence. No landlord I know has that power. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by operating like mobsters.

So now a new act? I intend to read it, evicting someone with due cause was justb way to difficult undeer the old act.

Brace yourself. It just got harder to evict someone.

[M.Dancer]

How many other suppliers are compelled to continue to supply the customer even when the customer doesn't pay the bill?

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.pdf

Not many other customers can be put in a position where a rent strike is the only recourse to get the landlords attention. Again, it isn't a simple just move answer. Lets say (and this is often the case) the furnace breaks down in december and the landlord doesn't move at all to fix it....

In my own case I have had landlords try to extort money from me. The main sewage drain was blocked and sewage came up through my toilet and tub....

A week later I got call from their agent saying how generous they were in only charging my $800 even though it was my fault. And if I didn't want to pay, they would understand and accept 30 days notice.

I made Inquiries......I spoke to their agent and said I had spoken to a master plumber who would testify in courst on my behalf that it was a physical impossibility for someone to block an 8 inch drain through a toilet....and I expected reparations for the sewage in my bathroom.

I could have moved....but screwing the bastards was more enjoyable......the moral of this story is someone else might have been pressured to pay and having the act at least ensures that they don't have to and if they did, they could get their money back.

[M.Dancer]

but some landlords operate like mobsters and you need to be able to legislate a minimum level of care.

Mobsters have leverage in that they have the power to use physical violence. No landlord I know has that power. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by operating like mobsters.

Physical intimidation. Threats.....

[M.Dancer]

As a supplier of a commodity in a competitive market, why is it even necessary to legisate landlords?

I suppose when it comes to offering goods or services that are essential to health and well being, all suppliers in this regard are legislated.

Consider the farmers....meat, vegetables, all have guidlines.....can't put out meat from diseased cattle no matter what the demand could yield......

[M.Dancer]

Okay forst thing I see which makes sense is the interest a landlord must give on the last months rent.

Old system the landlors was required to pay 6% while increases on older building were capped at 2.9....so the lamdlod would after topping up the last month's rent to match the increase, write a piddling cheque for the difference.

Now interest is tied to the rent increase so that there is no need to issue cheques.

[Renegade]

Not many other customers can be put in a position where a rent strike is the only recourse to get the landlords attention. Again, it isn't a simple just move answer. Lets say (and this is often the case) the furnace breaks down in december and the landlord doesn't move at all to fix it....

If the act was not in place, what woudl a tennat do? He could move. He could have the furnace fixed and sue the lanlord for the amount. He could withold rent until it was fixed. More likely he would fix it and withold that amount in rent and force the landlord to sue him. How is it you think a tennat doesn't have that power anyway?

In my own case I have had landlords try to extort money from me. The main sewage drain was blocked and sewage came up through my toilet and tub....

A week later I got call from their agent saying how generous they were in only charging my $800 even though it was my fault. And if I didn't want to pay, they would understand and accept 30 days notice.

I made Inquiries......I spoke to their agent and said I had spoken to a master plumber who would testify in courst on my behalf that it was a physical impossibility for someone to block an 8 inch drain through a toilet....and I expected reparations for the sewage in my bathroom.

I could have moved....but screwing the bastards was more enjoyable......the moral of this story is someone else might have been pressured to pay and having the act at least ensures that they don't have to and if they did, they could get their money back.

But is this any different than if Bell sent you a $800 phone bill for calls you didnt make. What woudl be your recourse if they did and threatned to cancel your service if you didn't pay?

[M.Dancer]

But is this any different than if Bell sent you a $800 phone bill for calls you didnt make. What woudl be your recourse if they did and threatned to cancel your service if you didn't pay?

You could live wiothout a phone in a second, but to be put on the street in January could kill. So you have the luxury of time with Bell....

[Renegade]

Okay forst thing I see which makes sense is the interest a landlord must give on the last months rent.

Old system the landlors was required to pay 6% while increases on older building were capped at 2.9....so the lamdlod would after topping up the last month's rent to match the increase, write a piddling cheque for the difference.

Now interest is tied to the rent increase so that there is no need to issue cheques.

Reducting the interest rate from 6% was one of the few things which made sense in this legislation.

I suppose when it comes to offering goods or services that are essential to health and well being, all suppliers in this regard are legislated.

Consider the farmers....meat, vegetables, all have guidlines.....can't put out meat from diseased cattle no matter what the demand could yield......

Well the legislation goes far beyond the quality of the product offered. Even farmers aren't compelled to deliver their goods when their supplier doesn't pay them.

[Renegade]

But is this any different than if Bell sent you a $800 phone bill for calls you didnt make. What woudl be your recourse if they did and threatned to cancel your service if you didn't pay?

You could live wiothout a phone in a second, but to be put on the street in January could kill. So you have the luxury of time with Bell....

Actually I was referring to you example of the blocked pipe. While urgent it wasn't life-threatening. Replace "Bell" with "Enbridge" or whomever is your favourite supplier of an "essential" service.

---------------------

IMO, if you to protect an essential service, fine, but both sides need to be protected, not just the consumer.

For example a tenant is required to put up last month's rent up front. IMV, that one month should be the entire buffer the tenant has. If he is more than a month late in the rent, the landlord shoudl have the power to reoccupy the premisis without notice.

[M.Dancer]

Well the legislation goes far beyond the quality of the product offered. Even farmers aren't compelled to deliver their goods when their supplier doesn't pay them.

No and landlords aren't required to rent to a person who hasn't paid either. Matter of fact in Ontario they get two months rent up front. Sometimes tennants default and I bet sometimes the farmers cusomers are slow to pay....now whether the farmer stops delivering or gives his custumer time is his decision. But after 14 days the landlords can start the eviction process.

My friend is a Sheriff, he evicts people all the time

[Renegade]

But after 14 days the landlords can start the eviction process.

The landlord has two months rent only at the start of the month, by the end of the month it is only one month's buffer. Let's say the landlord does start proceeding 14 days after a missed payment, assuming the tenant has put up a months deposit, that gives the landlord only 16 days before the tenant's money runs out. It is highly unlikely under the new legislation that he will get the tenant evicted in 16days. The tenant has the power to drag this out for much longer.

At least the farmer can stop delivery of further goods, a power denied to the landlord.

[guyser]

. He could withold rent until it was fixed. More likely he would fix it and withold that amount in rent and force the landlord to sue him. How is it you think a tennat doesn't have that power anyway?

Well they didn't, unless I am out of date on the tenant act.

When a tenant withheld rent for the purpose of forcing the landlord to repair things, he would be found in breach of the landlord tenant act. He would have to put that money in trust and advise the landlord or lawyer. Outherwise he could be booted.

In my own case I have had landlords try to extort money from me. The main sewage drain was blocked and sewage came up through my toilet and tub....

A week later I got call from their agent saying how generous they were in only charging my $800 even though it was my fault. And if I didn't want to pay, they would understand and accept 30 days notice.

I made Inquiries......I spoke to their agent and said I had spoken to a master plumber who would testify in courst on my behalf that it was a physical impossibility for someone to block an 8 inch drain through a toilet....and I expected reparations for the sewage in my bathroom.

I could have moved....but screwing the bastards was more enjoyable......the moral of this story is someone else might have been pressured to pay and having the act at least ensures that they don't have to and if they did, they could get their money back.

You went through all that? As soon as the backup occurred the landlord would have recd a call, and if nothing forthcoming I would have called the plumber and given the name of the landlord and come fix it. The plumber would then produce a bill in the landlords name and he would have to pay it.

Capital costs on a rental are the landlords baby. I have no interest in the house other than livng there, and as such, do not and will not pay for services. But now I only have a one sided arguement with the landlord..me.

And someone mentioned the furnace needing repairs? Well , it doesnt need repairs from May to November now will it? not likely, so just wait and when the heating season comes into fruition, the city (a ll of them) has a minimum heat temp, so call the city and sic the goonies on the landlord that way.

[Renegade]

Well they didn't, unless I am out of date on the tenant act.

When a tenant withheld rent for the purpose of forcing the landlord to repair things, he would be found in breach of the landlord tenant act. He would have to put that money in trust and advise the landlord or lawyer. Outherwise he could be booted.

I think you missed the part where I said: "If the act was not in place"

[Renegade]

Physical intimidation. Threats.....

Why is it that your landlord has the power to physically intimidate you whereas your grocer does not?

[guyser]

Why is it that your landlord has the power to physically intimidate you whereas your grocer does not?

My grocer does not have a key.

re-my earlier post, I missed the "if the act were not in place"....apologies.

[Renegade]

Why is it that your landlord has the power to physically intimidate you whereas your grocer does not?

My grocer does not have a key.

But what does the key have to do with the ability to weild phyiscal threats? The landlord is powerless to use the key without breaking the law. Your car dealer also has the key to your car. Your banker also has the key to your account. Do they also have the ability to physically intimidate you?

re-my earlier post, I missed the "if the act were not in place"....apologies.

Sure. No problem.

[guyser]

But what does the key have to do with the ability to weild phyiscal threats? The landlord is powerless to use the key without breaking the law. Your car dealer also has the key to your car. Your banker also has the key to your account. Do they also have the ability to physically intimidate you?

Technically the landlord has access, or can claim he called etc, and then it is a he said she said scenario,meaning if the cops are called.

Car dealer-pure theft, unless leased.

Banker- they already steal from us, so lets put that one aside shall we?

A landlord does have intimidation factors in his favour over the others as he can directly face you and his business is where you live. The other two quoted , and I know they are purely examples, do not have your housing as their concern. Thus they have to break down a door to get you.

A landlord doesnt.

When one is in their house, they are feeling, for the most part, secure. None of the others mentioned can upset that feeling like a landlord can. They are supposed to give you 24 hr notice, written IIRC, or in the event of an emergency they can just enter.

That is the intimidation.

[Rue]

"Residential Tenancies Act...unnecessary and more over unfairly penalizes and restricts the ability of landlords..."

Have you even read the RTA? Get real. The RTA balances the rights of both tenants and landlords.

You might want to argue over the formula that allows rent increases as being unfair to landlords but other then that the RTA is pretty neutral.

We have an RTA so that landlords don't take the law into their own hands with bad tenants and to provide both tenants and landlords a civilized way to resolve disputes so they don't end up in a fight.

Most matters that end up at the Landlord Tenant Board in any province, are evictions being requested because the tenant hasn't paid rent.

The bottom line is a tenant who doesn't pay rent can drag out the process a couple of months, tops.

The key and all landlords know it, is to do proper screening of tenants.

Believe it or not some tenants need protection from unethical landlords.

In Toronto, the mentally disabled and new (poor) immigrants are often taken advantage of and asked to pay illegal rent and expenses and to live in filth.

The RTA tries to balance that with the bad tenants.

Its actually a good piece of legislation. Landlords are not complaining about the RTA. They might have concerns over the rent increase formula but not the rest of the act. Its actually easier to read and the forms are easier to use.

[Rue]

Physical intimidation. Threats.....

Why is it that your landlord has the power to physically intimidate you whereas your grocer does not?

You have two rights when a Landlord harasses you. One is to call the police if he is threatening you physically and file an assault complaint and if need be get a physical restraint order. The other right is to apply to the Landlord Tenant Board, claiming the Landlord is interfering with your right to enjoy your rental unit and is harassing you. In such a case, the Landlord Tenant Board can issue an order telling the Landlord to cease and desist or levy a hefty fine.

So you have rights. You just can't take the law into your own hands.

[Renegade]

A landlord does have intimidation factors in his favour over the others as he can directly face you and his business is where you live. The other two quoted , and I know they are purely examples, do not have your housing as their concern. Thus they have to break down a door to get you.

A landlord doesnt.

When one is in their house, they are feeling, for the most part, secure. None of the others mentioned can upset that feeling like a landlord can. They are supposed to give you 24 hr notice, written IIRC, or in the event of an emergency they can just enter.

That is the intimidation.

Your basic argument boils down to that somehow housing is "special". The actions you describe the landlord as being capable of, are illegal, with or without a Landlord-tenant act. Anyone can intimidate another if they are willing to resort to illegal acts. There is recourse through courts and police. I don't see any case in your arguments to support the need for such biased legislation.

[Renegade]

Have you even read the RTA? Get real. The RTA balances the rights of both tenants and landlords.

Yes I have. It doesn't balance the rights equally. Please save the condescension.

You might want to argue over the formula that allows rent increases as being unfair to landlords but other then that the RTA is pretty neutral.

Besides the issue you raised, how about the fact that:

1. At the eviction hearing a tennant can raise any issue the tenant wants and the Board must hear the evidence. The landlord is not notified prior of the issue the tennant will raise and therefore cannot prepare for it and may not be able to respond to it at the hearing. The landlord will likely need a deferrment in order to respond to the issue leading to additional costs for him and loss of rent. At the next hearing there is nothing preventing the tenant from bringing up a different issue. The cycle can go on endlessly. this is nothing but "trial by ambush" and is unheard of in any other legal process.
   
2. The landlord can be forced to rent to someone they don't have a contract with. A person claming "spouse" status of the contracted tenant is now included in the definition of tenant. For example, lets say a landlord carefully screens a tenant for a good tenant history. At the end of the term, a "spouse" with bad credit show up and claims to be a tennant under the lease.
   
3. A tenant can unilaterally leave a premisis at the end of the lease for any reason at all. No such symetrically arrangment is accorded the landlord. He can only termiate the arrangement for a small number of specific reasons.
   

There are more. So when you say the legislation balances the rights of landlords and tenants, it does not seem justified by the actual legislation.

We have an RTA so that landlords don't take the law into their own hands with bad tenants and to provide both tenants and landlords a civilized way to resolve disputes so they don't end up in a fight.

You may have a point if the legislation gave the landlords the same rights as any other vendor of a service, but it does not. You may point if it was nothing but a streamlined dispute-resolution mechanism but it is much more. It severely restricts what a landlord can do with his property, the term of a contract he can sign, and who he can sign it with.

Most matters that end up at the Landlord Tenant Board in any province, are evictions being requested because the tenant hasn't paid rent.

The bottom line is a tenant who doesn't pay rent can drag out the process a couple of months, tops.

Exactly. More than that the tenant can destroy the property within that time. There are many business who would not survive the loss of revenue for several months as well as the destruction of their assets, yet you expect that landlords shoud.

The key and all landlords know it, is to do proper screening of tenants.

Of course. This legislation will only encourage landlords to be more risk adverse in picking tenants. If it is easy to evict or terminate a lease, a landlord is more willing to lease to a tenant with marginal credit. If there is a higher cost or is harder to evict the landlord will raise the bar on qualifications. Besides the landlord, the ones who will be hurt are the low-income tenants with marginal credit.

Believe it or not some tenants need protection from unethical landlords.

I believe it, as I believe landlords need protection from unethical tenants.

In Toronto, the mentally disabled and new (poor) immigrants are often taken advantage of and asked to pay illegal rent and expenses and to live in filth.

Again in a free society any vendor should have the ability to sell his good at any price he wishes. A consumer is free to refuse. It is only "illegal rent" because the government says it is.

Its actually a good piece of legislation. Landlords are not complaining about the RTA. They might have concerns over the rent increase formula but not the rest of the act. Its actually easier to read and the forms are easier to use.

Who says they are not complaining? Did you see the presentaion I linked to? It was created when the legislation was proposed to show that the legislation was not needed and should not be passed.

[Renegade]

You have two rights when a Landlord harasses you. One is to call the police if he is threatening you physically and file an assault complaint and if need be get a physical restraint order. The other right is to apply to the Landlord Tenant Board, claiming the Landlord is interfering with your right to enjoy your rental unit and is harassing you. In such a case, the Landlord Tenant Board can issue an order telling the Landlord to cease and desist or levy a hefty fine.

So you have rights. You just can't take the law into your own hands.

Neither landlord nor tenant has the right to take law into their hands. This is true for the landlord-tenant relationship but is also true for and vendor-consumer relationship. Since the tenant already has recourse to call the police and use the courts for illegal acts by the landlord such as physical intimidation, it is unnecessary to layer additional recourse through a Landlord Tenant Board.

[M.Dancer]

Physical intimidation. Threats.....

Why is it that your landlord has the power to physically intimidate you whereas your grocer does not?

The main difference is it won't cost you hundreds of dollars to switch grocers. Moving is a real expense and a hassle, not to mention that is you feel that you have to move quickly, you forego your last months rent....

Now I'm not talking about myself, but people who are not at the top of their game. They need basic protection from unscrupulous dealers. Not everyone has an extra last months rent lying around or a grand to cover a move....