Jump to content

Residential Tenancies Act - Ontario


Recommended Posts

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....

The economic switching cost is a different argument than physical intimidation. There are many instances where there are high economic switching costs and it doesn't result in physical intimidation. When I switch mortgages, there are high cost to switch (apprasial, legal). Even when I set up cable, Rogers charged $75.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"At the eviction hearing a tennant can raise any issue the tenant wants and the Board must hear the evidence."

The Landlord also has the same right. More to the point, if you read the RTA even though the tenant can bring up anything they want, it won't mean a thing if they haven't paid. If they haven't paid there rent, no arguements they raise can go to that issue or prevent an eviction for not paying rent. Even if the landlord is harassing the tenant, the issue of harassment and arrears of rent are seperate legal issues. The Board might fine a landlord for harassing a client, but they will not let a tenant stay who does not pay rent. You missed the point on that. It makes no diff. letting tenants bring up what-ever they want if it doesn't go to the arrears of rent arguement.

"The landlord is not notified prior of the issue the tennant will raise "

Again you have to be a bit more realistic. If you think landlords have no clue as to the arguements the tenant will make you are joking....there is no suprise...they know what will be raised...how much suprise is there in saying the landlord was rude, didn't fix the apartment or harassed the tenant? It aint rocket science.

"and therefore cannot prepare for it and may not be able to respond to it at the hearing."

The Board has the power to adjourn any proceeding to allow the Landlord time to prepare a response to allegations that require time to respond-its part of the rules of natural justice, so you are wrong-however the board proceedings are also informal so when a tenant brings up stuff like the landlord is rude or mean or harassed him/her, landlords most of the time don't want extra time to respond, they simply respond at the hearing and what you also have to understand is, 90% of such arguements are ignored by the Board-they only get involved if there is a serious allegation and someone could be physically hurt, on most of this he said she said stuff they tell each party to cool it and settle it with a mediator or they simply rule on who did the damage-board members want witnesses when it gets into a he said she said fight-they aren't stupid.

"The landlord will likely need a deferrment in order to respond to the issue leading to additional costs for him and loss of rent."

Clearly you are not going to the Landlord Tenant Board to see how it really works. This rarely happens.

"At the next hearing there is nothing preventing the tenant from bringing up a different issue."

Wrong again. At the first hearing when the tenant brings up all kinds of other issues, the Board Member will flush out every single arguement they have and quickly throw out most of them and only deal with ones that can be proven through a witness. So if there is an adjournment which is rare, the Board member usually stays seized of the matter and if a tenant suddenly brought up new issues at the second hearing, the first thing the Board member would say was why did you nto bring it up the first time -because if they can't answer that, their arguements are thrown out-that is how it really works.

"The cycle can go on endlessly. this is nothing but "trial by ambush" and is unheard of in any other legal process."

You are absolutely wrong because that is not what happens at the hearings. The Board members take control and do not allow the proceedings to drag out as you have said for the reasons I stated above. I have no idea what Board hearings you are talking about because in the ones I go to none of what you are describing has ever happened.

"[*]The landlord can be forced to rent to someone they don't have a contract with."

No the RTA does not say that and again I do not know what law you are referring to. A landlord can't be forced to rent to anyone. Read the provisions for subletting and assignments of rent. The landlord can evict any one in the dwelling who takes over the dwelling without the landlord's consent.

"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. "

What are you talking about? When a landlord rents out an apartment or dwelling and they do a credit check, they are supposed to do a credit check of both spouses. If they don't they should have. Spouses are responsible for each other's debts jointly and severally, so what you are saying makes no sense. If the husband has a good credit history it doesn't matter if his spouse has none. Vice versa if the husband has no credit history or a bad one and his wife has a good one, then it also doesn't matter. If you are a landlord anr you rent to spouses and you think one is a bad credit risk and the other isn't then you have the right not to rent to them.

" A tenant can unilaterally leave a premisis at the end of the lease for any reason at all."

Uh hello what are you talking about. The tenant must give a notice period when they leave. If they don't respond to the landlord with a notice to renew the lease then the lease is up at the end of the term and they leave. What are you trying to suggest-we put tenants under house arrest and never let them leave at the end of their lease? Its a contract for heaven's sake. Contract's expire. If they expire and you don't renew them, you leave. The tenant pays first and last month's rent at the beginning of the lease.

"No such symetrically arrangment is accorded the landlord."

Would you please look at the notice periods for termination required for both sides. It most certainly is symetical. Are you reading the same statute?

"He can only termiate the arrangement for a small number of specific reasons."

Wrong wrong and wrong again. A landlord is not required to continue a lease with a tenant if they have good reason. If the tenant has not broken any laws and continues to pay their rent, and has been lawful and wants to stay, tghe landlord can not just throw them out so they can get a new tenant and jack up the rent since with every new tenant you can jack up the rent higher then what rent control allows from year to year.

Think about what you are saying. If landlords could simply say to lawful peace abiding tenants they must leave at the end of the lease-you would have thousands of tenants forced to move constantly and rents being jacked up out of control. Nice try misrepresenting that one. What the RTA does say is if the landlord wants to move in their own relatives, demolish the dwelling, convert it to a condo or renovate or repair it, it has to show good cause and other then with the relatives, the tenant gets first right of refusal provided they have paid their rent. What you say makes no sense. If a tenant is a good tenant and pays their rent and are law abiding and peaceful, the landlord has NO reason to get rid of them unless its to move in relatives or the grounds I stated above which you misrepresented.

"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."

Well I have heard enough. I am not sure if you understand the RTA or have ever been to the board for hearings. I am not even sure where you get your conceptions from.

"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 above comment I must agree with you on. This is the problem for landlords. Its true. Its the weakness with it. when a tenant destroys a dwelling it drags on physically removing them. You are right about the above and if that is what you are referring to, I have to agree with you. I also said to you I have to agree the rental increase formula could cause landlords hardship although in theory its not supposed to and allows landlords to be compensated when taxes go up but allow tenants a rebate if taxes go down.

I also concede your point that screening tenants is problematic and hard to do.

"I believe landlords need protection from unethical tenants. "\

Again I can't disagree with the above. Its a fair comment.

"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."

Well again I am not arguing with you on that point because you are raising a political issue not a legal one.

You are right in the sense that rent control is a restriction on the concept of a free marketplace determining the level of rent. I am as you noticed only giving you hemmeroids over the legal issues not the political ones.

"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.

"

Seriously after that, many landlords changed their mind. When new laws come in people get their nose all out of joint until about 6 months to a year of using the legislation then they usually say...oops all the stuff we are worried about never came true.

I agree with you that certain landlords and their reps did not like the RTA but I would also tell you there were many more tenant groups that complained saying the RTA was bias in favour of landlords.

So I tend to take both sides who say the RTA is unfair and say to them, well yah, you are looking at it from your narrow perspective and agenda and interests and I can appreciate that but when the government comes up with the law honestly it doesn't try to pander to one side more then the other-when it came to the RTA they did the usual jello routine of wiggling from one extreme to the other trying to find a middle point for their legislation.

Yes it has some problems. Specifically the one you mentioned about tenants smashing the place up or committing drimes out of the dwelling. Its true it is hard on the landlord. It drags out because the RTA doesn't want the landlord taking things into their own hands and getting hurt or getting themselves sued.

Look I was just there and watched a hearing. The tenant had gotten one adjournment. Showed up again saying he never did get a lawyer because he was depressed and broke. The Board member said he was proceeding. The landlord brought out their witnesses. Man oh man. The tenant chased someone with an axe trying to murder them, was constantly high on drugs, selling driugs from his place, pimping from his place. Just a nightmare. I agree with you in that case the hearing was dragged out. It was delayed three weeks from the original hearing but this time round the Board member let the tenant say what-ever he wanted then ordered an eviction. The police were one witness. There is no doubt the landlord lost money on this idiot who did damage. Some of it is a tax write off as you know.

In any business you run a risk when you deal with people. Its not a perfect world. You just hope you can do a credit screening properly.

So sorry, I do not agree with your analysis of the RTA but I concede some points. By the way I am not condescending. It just sounds that way when you write these things. I appreciate your opinions. Just debating them. Don't let the tone of my responses mislead you. I enjoy this debate. I respect your opinions. Just playing devil's advocate because you wrote in about a subject you obviously care about, so someone's gotta keep you on your toes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Landlord also has the same right. More to the point, if you read the RTA even though the tenant can bring up anything they want, it won't mean a thing if they haven't paid. If they haven't paid there rent, no arguements they raise can go to that issue or prevent an eviction for not paying rent. Even if the landlord is harassing the tenant, the issue of harassment and arrears of rent are seperate legal issues. The Board might fine a landlord for harassing a client, but they will not let a tenant stay who does not pay rent. You missed the point on that. It makes no diff. letting tenants bring up what-ever they want if it doesn't go to the arrears of rent arguement.

Again you have to be a bit more realistic. If you think landlords have no clue as to the arguements the tenant will make you are joking....there is no suprise...they know what will be raised...how much suprise is there in saying the landlord was rude, didn't fix the apartment or harassed the tenant? It aint rocket science.

The Board has the power to adjourn any proceeding to allow the Landlord time to prepare a response to allegations that require time to respond-its part of the rules of natural justice, so you are wrong-however the board proceedings are also informal so when a tenant brings up stuff like the landlord is rude or mean or harassed him/her, landlords most of the time don't want extra time to respond, they simply respond at the hearing and what you also have to understand is, 90% of such arguements are ignored by the Board-they only get involved if there is a serious allegation and someone could be physically hurt, on most of this he said she said stuff they tell each party to cool it and settle it with a mediator or they simply rule on who did the damage-board members want witnesses when it gets into a he said she said fight-they aren't stupid.

Clearly you are not going to the Landlord Tenant Board to see how it really works. This rarely happens.

Wrong again. At the first hearing when the tenant brings up all kinds of other issues, the Board Member will flush out every single arguement they have and quickly throw out most of them and only deal with ones that can be proven through a witness. So if there is an adjournment which is rare, the Board member usually stays seized of the matter and if a tenant suddenly brought up new issues at the second hearing, the first thing the Board member would say was why did you nto bring it up the first time -because if they can't answer that, their arguements are thrown out-that is how it really works.

You are absolutely wrong because that is not what happens at the hearings. The Board members take control and do not allow the proceedings to drag out as you have said for the reasons I stated above. I have no idea what Board hearings you are talking about because in the ones I go to none of what you are describing has ever happened.

Forgive me Rue, but evey single one of your counterpoints to the points I raised is based upon your opinion of what the board would or could do, or your experience that of how "that is how it really works". You have not pointed anywhere in the law to show what I have stated can't happen. Your experience aside, I prefer to rely on the advice of experienced legal council in thes matters. Here's what they have to say:

The government of Ontario has introduced new Residential Tenancies legislation which, if passed into law,

will have punitive consequences for most landlords and property managers. The legislation has some good

points, but these are more than offset by its bad points.

Tenants will be able to bring motions without notice to the landlord to prevent the Sheriff from

enforcing an eviction order, even if the date for enforcement has passed and the Sheriff is minutes

away from changing the locks. The tenant’s motion, based solely on the tenant’s contention that the

rent has been paid, would result in an automatic stay of enforcement of the eviction and the landlord

will then have to apply to the Tribunal for a further hearing to allow the eviction to proceed. Expect

long delays when enforcing eviction orders against “professional tenants”, together with substantial

arrears

Tenants will be free to raise “all issues relevant to landlord/tenant matters” at hearings. Currently,

tenants cannot raise maintenance or privacy issues at hearings involving rent arrears. For landlords and

property managers, this means that “professional tenants” and legal aid clinics will regularly make

unsubstantiated allegations of landlord misconduct in order to delay and avoid eviction or the obligation to

pay rent arrears.

Here We Go....Again!!!

No the RTA does not say that and again I do not know what law you are referring to. A landlord can't be forced to rent to anyone. Read the provisions for subletting and assignments of rent. The landlord can evict any one in the dwelling who takes over the dwelling without the landlord's consent.

"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. "

What are you talking about? When a landlord rents out an apartment or dwelling and they do a credit check, they are supposed to do a credit check of both spouses. If they don't they should have. Spouses are responsible for each other's debts jointly and severally, so what you are saying makes no sense. If the husband has a good credit history it doesn't matter if his spouse has none. Vice versa if the husband has no credit history or a bad one and his wife has a good one, then it also doesn't matter. If you are a landlord anr you rent to spouses and you think one is a bad credit risk and the other isn't then you have the right not to rent to them.

Here's a quote from an article written by Joe Hoffer, a lawyer specializing in residential tenancies law, in Canadian Moneysaver magazine (May 2007)

The definition of "tenant" has been expanded to incude a person claiming to be a "spouse" of the tenant. Landlords are forced ito contractual relationships with strangers. This new right is only triggered at the end of a tenancy thereby depriving the landlord of the rigth to increase rent to "market" on turnover and leaving the landlord with a new "tenant" and a clean slate, regardless of rent arrears accrued before the spouse claims "tenant" status.

However, since I can't find support for this in the Act, I will withdraw this particular point.

Uh hello what are you talking about. The tenant must give a notice period when they leave. If they don't respond to the landlord with a notice to renew the lease then the lease is up at the end of the term and they leave. What are you trying to suggest-we put tenants under house arrest and never let them leave at the end of their lease? Its a contract for heaven's sake. Contract's expire. If they expire and you don't renew them, you leave. The tenant pays first and last month's rent at the beginning of the lease.

No I said nothing about the notice period. What I said that they can leave for any REASON at all. I agree that they should have this option. As you said "Its a contract for heaven's sake. Contract's expire." My point is that if tenants have this option, so should landlords, see my response below.

Would you please look at the notice periods for termination required for both sides. It most certainly is symetical. Are you reading the same statute?

Again I never mentioned that the notice period was not symetric. I am referring to the abilty to terminate the relationship at the end of the contract.

"He can only termiate the arrangement for a small number of specific reasons."

Wrong wrong and wrong again. A landlord is not required to continue a lease with a tenant if they have good reason. If the tenant has not broken any laws and continues to pay their rent, and has been lawful and wants to stay, tghe landlord can not just throw them out so they can get a new tenant and jack up the rent since with every new tenant you can jack up the rent higher then what rent control allows from year to year.

The specific cause the lanlord can terminate the lease are as follows:

  1. Landlord or his immediate family requires the unit
  2. The Landlord sells the unit and the seller or his family will occupy the unit
  3. The unit will be demolished
  4. The unit will be converted to a condo
  5. The tenant fails to pay the rent
  6. Tenant misrepresents his income
  7. Tenant performs illegal acts in the unit
  8. Tenant causes damage to the unit
  9. Tenants behaviour prevents other tenants from reasonable enjoyment or impairs the saftey
  10. Too many people occupy the unit

As I said it is a specific list. Any other "good reason" won't do. Note that it is only the landlord who is restricted in the reasons for termination, not the tenant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about what you are saying. If landlords could simply say to lawful peace abiding tenants they must leave at the end of the lease-you would have thousands of tenants forced to move constantly and rents being jacked up out of control. Nice try misrepresenting that one. What the RTA does say is if the landlord wants to move in their own relatives, demolish the dwelling, convert it to a condo or renovate or repair it, it has to show good cause and other then with the relatives, the tenant gets first right of refusal provided they have paid their rent. What you say makes no sense. If a tenant is a good tenant and pays their rent and are law abiding and peaceful, the landlord has NO reason to get rid of them unless its to move in relatives or the grounds I stated above which you misrepresented.

As you said previously "Its a contract for heaven's sake. Contract's expire.". How is it your tune is different when it comes to landlords ability to engage in a contract? Can a landlord decide not to renew as a tenant can?

As far of the implication of "you would have thousands of tenants forced to move constantly and rents being jacked up out of control", market forces dictate rents, not landlords. Even if he were allowed to do so, a landlord cannot raise rents beyond market rates because if he raises it beyond the barrier to move, the tenant will simply move to lower costs premisis. Is it "fair"? Of course it is. Landlords and home owners face this situation all the time. At the end of their term, mortgage rates are reset to the prevailing market rate. If they don't like it they can find a different mortgage provider or they can move to more affordable accomodation. Why should renters be sheltered from market forces at a cost to the landlord when other segments are not?

Well I have heard enough. I am not sure if you understand the RTA or have ever been to the board for hearings. I am not even sure where you get your conceptions from.

I admit that I have not been to a board hearing since the new law is in place. As of January, in fact I am no longer even a landlord. I base my opinions based upon the RTA and legal opinions on it.

The above comment I must agree with you on. This is the problem for landlords. Its true. Its the weakness with it. when a tenant destroys a dwelling it drags on physically removing them. You are right about the above and if that is what you are referring to, I have to agree with you. I also said to you I have to agree the rental increase formula could cause landlords hardship although in theory its not supposed to and allows landlords to be compensated when taxes go up but allow tenants a rebate if taxes go down.

I also concede your point that screening tenants is problematic and hard to do.

"I believe landlords need protection from unethical tenants. "

Again I can't disagree with the above. Its a fair comment.

At least we agree on somethings. I'm not saying that the Act is all bad. It has some good provisions, however my take is that it overall is strongly biased toward tenants.

Well again I am not arguing with you on that point because you are raising a political issue not a legal one.

You are right in the sense that rent control is a restriction on the concept of a free marketplace determining the level of rent. I am as you noticed only giving you hemmeroids over the legal issues not the political ones.

This is really the core issue. We can argue point by point on the specifics of the law, but my position at the core is that any such legislation restricts a free market and unfairly shelters tenants at a cost to landlords.

Seriously after that, many landlords changed their mind. When new laws come in people get their nose all out of joint until about 6 months to a year of using the legislation then they usually say...oops all the stuff we are worried about never came true.

Given that the act only took force at the end of Jan, it is too early for anyone to have a change of heart. I certainly have not. I suspect most landlords will only experience the new measures once leases are up or when they have to actually evict tenants. Their first-hand experience won't be known for years.

I agree with you that certain landlords and their reps did not like the RTA but I would also tell you there were many more tenant groups that complained saying the RTA was bias in favour of landlords.

So I tend to take both sides who say the RTA is unfair and say to them, well yah, you are looking at it from your narrow perspective and agenda and interests and I can appreciate that but when the government comes up with the law honestly it doesn't try to pander to one side more then the other-when it came to the RTA they did the usual jello routine of wiggling from one extreme to the other trying to find a middle point for their legislation.

Yes it has some problems. Specifically the one you mentioned about tenants smashing the place up or committing drimes out of the dwelling. Its true it is hard on the landlord. It drags out because the RTA doesn't want the landlord taking things into their own hands and getting hurt or getting themselves sued.

There will be extremism at both sides and pretty much no matter what, someone will call foul. Landlords do in the long run have a choice. They can deploy their investment somewhere else. Witness what happened with rental control legislation when it was implemented in the 70s. Rental stocks dropped and vacancy rates were miniscule. There are probably others like myself who will not likely be a landlord again. I had experience under the previous legislation and given that this Act is even less favourable to landlords, I can't see why I would undertake to be a landlord unless I had no other choice. Ultimately the consequence of biased legislation is to separate renters into two groups. A priviledged group with rent-controlled apartments at sub-market rents, and another group who either cannot find accomodtion or is faced with high prices for dwindliing stock. Look at the history of what happened in NY.

In any business you run a risk when you deal with people. Its not a perfect world. You just hope you can do a credit screening properly.

Even with proper screening as a landlord you are at a disadvantage if the law is biased against you.

So sorry, I do not agree with your analysis of the RTA but I concede some points. By the way I am not condescending. It just sounds that way when you write these things. I appreciate your opinions. Just debating them. Don't let the tone of my responses mislead you. I enjoy this debate. I respect your opinions. Just playing devil's advocate because you wrote in about a subject you obviously care about, so someone's gotta keep you on your toes.

I too enjoy debate and discussion so long as condescention, sarcasim, and rudeness are avoided. I thank-you for doing so and apoligize if I've misinterpreted your statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

The economic switching cost is a different argument than physical intimidation. There are many instances where there are high economic switching costs and it doesn't result in physical intimidation. When I switch mortgages, there are high cost to switch (apprasial, legal). Even when I set up cable, Rogers charged $75.

I'm talking about the costs associated with moving. Tell that to a senior citizen and see how many on fixed incomes can radily afford a $2000. expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about the costs associated with moving.

So am I. The cost of moving are analogous to switching costs of a consumer moving from one vendor to another. It doesn't matter if it is the cost to refinance a mortgage, or the set-up charge a utility would charge to set up a new account, or moving cost, it all falls into the bucket of switching costs. Perhaps if you think that moving costs are somehow different you can explain why.

Tell that to a senior citizen and see how many on fixed incomes can radily afford a $2000. expense.

First, you overestimate moving costs, unless you mean moving to a different city. I have recently moved and it cost me less than $350 in moving costs and I didn't lift a box and was for a whole housefull of contents.

In any case the moving costs are not the landlord's issue, they are the tennants. The landlords issue is the acquisition cost of a new tenant (Advertising, screenign, clean-up etc).

If your justification is that somehow we should subsidize the moving costs of people on fixed incomes, then it is not clear why it should be solely landlords doing the subsidization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and see how many on fixed incomes can radily afford a $2000. expense.

First, you overestimate moving costs, unless you mean moving to a different city. I have recently moved and it cost me less than $350 in moving costs and I didn't lift a box and was for a whole housefull of contents.

No I'm including the losing the last months rent.

Just as any service where health and welfare are involved, extra regulations are present. Anyone not liking that is free to become a commercial landlord. While they have more leeway to screw and gouge, the lawyers fees are greater.

PS, if it only cost you $350, you didn't have much to move or far to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I'm including the losing the last months rent.

Either you are including too much or not enough. If a tenant moves out prior to the end of the lease, they are not just liable for the 1 month rent up front, but the entire rent until the end of the lease. If they are moving in the last month of the rental agreemnt then it is simply the tenants choice of forfieting the last months rent, and I wouldn't include it as moving cost.

Just as any service where health and welfare are involved, extra regulations are present. Anyone not liking that is free to become a commercial landlord. While they have more leeway to screw and gouge, the lawyers fees are greater.

In virtually all case where health and welfare are involved, the regulation involved is to address safety issue, in this case it goes far beyond that and address financial considerations and moreover sets up a system outside the courts to address disputes.

You're correct, that landlords can choose to take their investment elsewhere, and they eventually will. However that is not justification for biasd legislations. If you follow your reasoning, any legislation, no matter how biased,is "fair" because the targets are free to leave if they don't like it.

PS, if it only cost you $350, you didn't have much to move or far to go.

My movers disagree with you. They said I had lots to move and I should have spent more time getting rid of old stuff prior to the move (they are right). However I didn't move very far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The landlord and tenent act does address safety issues.

Consider if there were no regulations...

January the landlord decides that Heat will no become the lessees responsibility. Heat is shut off to apartments, tenants are expected to heat their units themselves. Tenants have the option of moving or buying heaters.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The landlord and tenent act does address safety issues.

There would be no objection from me if act restricted it's coverage to safety issues.

Consider if there were no regulations...

January the landlord decides that Heat will no become the lessees responsibility. Heat is shut off to apartments, tenants are expected to heat their units themselves. Tenants have the option of moving or buying heaters.....

The tenant also has the option of suing the landlord for breach of contract. No additional regulation is required to permit this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The landlord and tenent act does address safety issues.

There would be no objection from me if act restricted it's coverage to safety issues.

Consider if there were no regulations...

January the landlord decides that Heat will no become the lessees responsibility. Heat is shut off to apartments, tenants are expected to heat their units themselves. Tenants have the option of moving or buying heaters.....

The tenant also has the option of suing the landlord for breach of contract. No additional regulation is required to permit this.

Except suing could take years....during the meanwhile, your ass freezes off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except suing could take years....during the meanwhile, your ass freezes off

For better or worse, suits are the mechanisms for dispute resolution and includes provision for damages. If I am a homeowner and I have a contract with a utility to supply oil for heat, and the utility suddenly cuts me off, I too will freeze my ass off. My recourse is the same,... to sue.

If the courts are sufficient resolution mechanism for the rest of society, I fail to see why renters should not be subjected to the same process and delays as everyone else. If the courts are not timely or efficient enough for renters to use, then the same is true for everyone else as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except suing could take years....during the meanwhile, your ass freezes off

For better or worse, suits are the mechanisms for dispute resolution and includes provision for damages. If I am a homeowner and I have a contract with a utility to supply oil for heat, and the utility suddenly cuts me off, I too will freeze my ass off. My recourse is the same,... to sue.

If the courts are sufficient resolution mechanism for the rest of society, I fail to see why renters should not be subjected to the same process and delays as everyone else. If the courts are not timely or efficient enough for renters to use, then the same is true for everyone else as well.

No, your recourse is to find another supplier who is more than likely, earger for your business...althought the likey hood of a gas supplier cutting you off because they are teired of the expense of supplying you id remote.

Landlords are pretty lucky in Canada. Lucky we don't have squatting laws like they do in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, your recourse is to find another supplier who is more than likely, earger for your business...althought the likey hood of a gas supplier cutting you off because they are teired of the expense of supplying you id remote.

If am locked into a low-priced long-term utility contract which is below market rates, there is financial incentive for the supplier to abandon the contract. You are only speculating that they wouldn't cut me off. The question at hand is the dispute resolution mechanism, not whether or not they are likely to cut me off.

The recourse of finding another supplier is the same as for tenants. They too can find another supplier who is eagar for their business

You avoid addressing the issue. Why are tennants different than the rest of society in being awarded an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and one which is biased in their favour?

Landlords are pretty lucky in Canada. Lucky we don't have squatting laws like they do in the UK.

Sure, and debtors are lucky there is no more debor's prisons. The justification that someone else has it worse seems extremely weak.

The government is free to pass as many retarded laws as they want to. The landlords may not have the voting clout that tenants do, but they have another power, Economic. They will vote with their dollars on if they are satisified with the restrictions the government places.

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

The problem with being a landlord for investment purposes, is that if you get into the business you generally do if for long term as the switching costs from one investment to another is high. Furthmore, every couple of years the govenment changes the rules. IMO, as a business being a landlord is fraught with risk, regulatory risk being one of them. There are much easier, liquid, and safer investments. Eventually other landlords who are wise enough will see that.

Personally this legislation doesn't affect me in the least. I'm not a landlord now, nor do I intend to be again.

I'm not a renter, either. I feel sympathy for the landlords who have to put up with this legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...