Monday, June 24, 2024

Renting with roommates in Ontario? Here are the rights and regulations you should know.

 

Renting with roommates in Ontario? Here are the rights and regulations you should know.

Are you one of the many people in Ontario living with roommates? The amount of roommate households in Canada has grown by approximately 54% since 2001 and is currently the fastest growing household type. In Ontario, there are several types of co-living arrangements you can be a part of; however, being able to tell which one you fall under can be difficult. Here are some of the most common roommate arrangements in Ontario

1. Joint Tenants

What they are

  • A joint tenancy is the most common co-living arrangement landlords use when renting to two or more adults.

What to consider

  • All tenants can be evicted for a breach of tenant obligations such as arrears or property damage.
  • If any rent or other money is owed to the Landlord, all tenants listed under the lease can be considered responsible for paying the full amount. In the case that you and your roommate(s) agreed to split the cost, you can still be held responsible if you paid your share and your roommate(s) did not.

2. Tenants in Common

What they are

  • Two or more tenants live in the same unit together, however they have separate leasing agreements. 
  • Each roommate pays their individual rent to the landlord separately.

What to consider

  • Unlike with a joint tenancy, if one of the tenants does not pay their part of the rent, the landlord can only hold that individual tenant liable.
  • Landlords may have a difficult time working with these types of lease agreements, and typically prefer a joint tenancy agreement.

3. Tenant/Occupant

What they are

  • Occupants are people who consider the unit their primary residence, but, unlike a tenant, are not on the lease. As they are not on the lease, they are not formally responsible for paying rent to the landlord – only those listed as tenants in the lease are. They may have an arrangement to pay the tenant part of the rent.
  • Common examples of occupants include: some spouses (married or common law) and/or children. Anyone can be an occupant based on the leasing agreement and whether they have permission from the landlord. Many “Roommates” are occupants, although some may be joint tenants or tenants in common.
  • Anyone under 18 who is a dependent of the tenant is an occupant by default.

What to consider

  • In some cases, since the occupant may not be covered by the lease, the occupant has little to no rights or control over their living in the residence.
  • Occupants are unable to bring issues they have with a tenant or landlord to the Landlord and Tenant Board.
  • If a tenant is evicted, the occupant will need to leave as well.
  • Tenants are solely responsible for paying rent to the landlord but can choose to divide rent with an occupant in the amount they see fit, or as agreed to in a separate contract. .
  • In a scenario where the occupant is someone renting from the tenant, it is generally recommended that a contract be made. If a contract has been formed, the occupant can take the tenant to court if the terms of their agreement are not being met. Keep in mind that the judge will look at the case based on contract law, not based on the RTA.

Sometimes, a tenant can be incorrectly labelled as an occupant. It’s important to know how you are protected under the law, if you are unsure whether you are a tenant or occupant, seek legal advice.

RTA-exempt Arrangements

What they are

  • In an agreement exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act, relations between the owner and those occupying the property are decided solely by the contract that has been made.
  • Examples of RTA-exempt arrangements include living directly with the landlord or a family member of the landlord, living in a student residence, living in hotels, motels, and/or vacation homes.
  • Unsure if your living arrangement is RTA-exempt? You can find a full list of RTA exemptions here. If still unsure, it is best to get legal advice.

What to consider

  • RTA-exempt agreements do not need to follow rent control guidelines.
  • The RTA provides timelines for eviction that won’t protect renters who are exempt from the RTA.
  • If you are in a RTA-exempt agreement, you cannot pursue legal action against your landlord at the Landlord and Tenant Board, but you can take them to court if there is a breach of contract. The court will look at your case based on contact law, rather than the RTA.
  • Landlords will sometimes falsely claim that a tenant is exempt from the RTA to undermine their rights. If you think your landlord might be doing this, seek legal advice.
  • Being under an RTA-exempt agreement does not automatically mean you have no protections under the RTA. Seek legal advice to find out the ways in which the RTA applies to you.

It’s not always clear what roommate agreement applies to you. It’s important to know where you stand legally to best protect yourself. We recommend that you pursue legal advice to get more information and guidance on your specific situation.

Do you want to learn more about your rights as a renter? ACTO has developed tip sheets and guides, which can be accessed here.

The real reason Ontario’s rental market is broken? Lack of effective rent control.

 

The real reason Ontario’s rental market is broken? Lack of effective rent control.

Ontario’s rental market is broken. Vacancy rates have reached historic lows in 2022 for many Ontario cities, according to CMHC’s recently published annual Rental Market Report. A majority of cities saw vacancy rates drop dramatically to 1.9% or lower; the lowest rates have been since 2001. Average rents in major Ontario cities have risen anywhere from 5 to 12% compared to last year. That figure soars higher for condiminiums. To put it simply: we don’t have anywhere near enough rental housing supply and what is available is eye-wateringly expensive.

For the first time ever, the CMHC report shows the impact vacancy decontrol has on the rental market. Vacancy decontrol is a policy that allows landlords to charge any rent they want for a unit that is unoccupied, regardless of what the previous tenant paid. The report noted that the average rent across Canada for a two bedroom unit that turned over saw an 18.2% increase. When compared to units with existing tenants, however, the increase was only 2.8%.

How does rent control currently operate in Ontario?

Existing tenants in Ontario are protected by rent control; meaning the landlord can only increase their rent each year up to the limit set out by the province. It used to be that rent control applied to all units, even ones that were turning over. However, in the mid-1990s, the policy of vacancy decontrol was introduced. Rental prices have soared ever since. The CMHC report found that in 2022, vacancy decontrol sharply increased rents for two bedroom apartments that had turned over by 26% in Hamilton, 17% in Ottawa, and 29% in Toronto – compared to 1.2% for existing tenants.

Rent control also doesn’t apply to rental units that were first occupied on or after November 15th, 2018. For those unfortunate tenants, they have no protections at all. Their landlords can raise the rent by however much they want. And raise it they do – we’ve had tenants coming to us in crisis because their landlords have demanded increases of 20% or higher and they can’t afford to pay it.

Policy-makers justified vacancy decontrol and the 2018 loophole because they claimed it would increase supply. These changes also came at a time when governments largely stopped investing in co-ops and other forms of affordable housing. Thirty or so years later, we still don’t have enough supply. Ontario needs to build at least 10,000 new rental units each year to meet the demand of a growing population. However, we’ve seen an average of only 5,500 rental completions annually over the period from 1990 to 2020. That’s approximately half of what we need. After decades of these policies, there is no evidence to suggest vacancy decontrol increases supply at all.

The real cost of vacancy decontrol

What is clear, however, is that vacancy decontrol and the 2018 loophole are a total disaster for housing affordability. It has become so dire that even a major Canadian bank is calling for Canada to double its supply of subsidized housing, sharing that Canada has one of the lowest rates of subsidized affordable housing of all the OECD countries – a paltry 3.5% of housing stock.

What does this tell us, in practical terms? Instead of creating more supply, these policies have incentivized landlords to evict tenants from their homes so they can make more money off a new tenant. It also means even if we do build more supply, anything new entering the rental market is going to be unaffordable, because it’s exempt from having any rent control at all. Renters will be forced to cut back on other basic necessities (like food) just to stay housed. Evictions (both formal and informal) will continue unchecked. It means more renters will be at risk of homelessness.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The right policies can correct the mistakes of the past. Eliminate vacancy decontrol and close the 2018 exemption to new units. It’s time to bring back true affordability for Ontarians. It’s time for real rent control.

Here’s what to do if you’re short on rent this month.

 

Here’s what to do if you’re short on rent this month.

*This blog contains general information. It is not a substitute for getting legal advice about your particular situation. Contact your community legal clinic for legal advice.

Are you worried that you’ll be short on your next rent payment? There are many reasons why tenants are struggling financially. With the cost of necessities like food and gas continuing to jump, climbing Ontario-wide rent increases, and a never-ending wait for wages to keep pace with inflation, people across Ontario are struggling. Here are some resources that may help you.

Rent Banks

What they are

Rent Banks provide financial support to tenants that need help paying a rent deposit or are behind on their monthly rent payment. Some Rent Banks may provide financial support for other payments outside of rent and deposits. Rent Banks are available across Ontario as part of an eviction prevention strategy.

Am I eligible?

Along with demonstrating financial need, you need to live in the area the Rent Bank serves. For example, you must live in or be moving to Toronto to access the Toronto Rent Bank. They require information on your specific living situation, where you live, how long you have lived there or when you plan to live there, and how much your rent is.

What types of assistance are there?

This depends on your local Rent Bank. If you are eligible, you will receive a grant and/or a loan. A loan can be low-interest or interest free, and the payment you receive may be a one-time payment or monthly. Your local Rent Bank will limit the number of months you are eligible for support, and the amount you receive will be specific to you and your situation. For some Rent Banks, the amount will vary by the type of unit you live in.

Requirements by Municipality

*Please note that requirements are subject to change at any time, refer directly to the municipality website for the most up-to-date information.

Only a few of Ontario’s highly populated municipalities are listed here. If you don’t see your municipality, there may still be a Rent Bank you can access. Contact your local government or community legal clinic to learn more.

What to do if you receive an N4

Your landlord can give you a Form N4 or a “Notice to End a Tenancy Early for Non-payment of Rent” any time after the day your rent was due but not paid. The Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) gives you at least 14 days after you receive the notice to pay all overdue rent—check the payment deadline on the N4. If you manage to pay all overdue rent within this time, the notice will be “voided”, and you cannot be evicted. If you do not pay by the deadline, the landlord can apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB). The LTB will then schedule a hearing to determine whether you should be evicted. You should attend the hearing to present your side of the story and try to avoid eviction. You do not need to move out until after an eviction order has been made by the LTB.

You can access our Tip Sheet called “What to do if you get an N4 notice” to learn more about what you can do if you receive this type of notice.

There may be cases where you are given an ex parte order, which means your landlord can evict you without an N4 notice. You can learn more about how to reverse an ex parte order here.

For more information on your rights as a tenant, ACTO has developed a number of tip sheets and guides, which can be accessed here.

Sunday, June 16, 2024

Addressing Extreme Heat - Bill 198

 

 

Blog: A Protected Future – Bill 198 Creates Strategic Action Plan that Addresses Extreme Heat

By Maya Hribar

With the ongoing climate crisis, extreme heat is getting worse. It is a danger for people with disabilities, seniors, children, socially isolated individuals and lower-income people, as they disproportionately suffer and experience its many health implications.

Tackling global warming and addressing extreme heat is essential. In Ontario, a private member’s bill, Bill 198, An Act providing a climate change adaptation program for Ontario, recently had its first reading on May 16, 2024. If passed, the bill would enact the Ontario Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Act, 2024, setting out the procedures for creating, implementing, and financially supporting a Strategic Action Plan.

The Strategic Action Plan would aim “to ensure that Ontario citizens, communities, infrastructure and natural environment are protected from the risks and impacts of climate change”, which we know continue to grow and “threaten our health and security, our homes, our forests and wildlife, our electricity network, our roads and our water supply”.

Briefly, Section 3 of the Bill lays out how the Strategic Action Plan is to be developed; Section 4 lays out the establishment of an Ontario Climate Adaptation Fund and its functions; Section 5 lays out the establishment of an Ontario Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Resource Centre and its functions; Section 6 lays out the establishment of an Ontario Whole-of-Government Climate Adaptation Co-ordination Secretariat and its functions; Section 7 lays out the review of a Strategic Action Plan every two years; and Section 8 lists the contents of a Strategic Action Plan, referring to Sections 9 to 15 which detail specific adaptation activities based on a given topic.

On extreme heat, Section 8 states that a Strategic Action Plan shall, among other things, include:

4. Improvement of extreme heat preparedness and resilience, including through the measures set out in section 10.

The measures set out in Section 10, Extreme heat preparedness and resilience, include:

  1. Conducting extreme heat risk mapping to identify vulnerable areas and populations at elevated risk from extreme heat events.
  2. Developing and implementing a system for identifying and publishing timely data on heat-related deaths and illnesses in the province.
  3. Requiring that official plans incorporate strategies to assess and reduce urban heat islands.
  4. Providing funding for municipalities to plan and implement urban cooling strategies including cool and green roofs, cool pavements and parking lots, green corridors, expansion of tree canopies, green spaces and parks in nature-deprived areas and the provision of shade structures.
  5. Assessing the need for cooling in schools, childcare centres, hospitals and nursing homes and developing a strategy with targets and dates to reduce heat loads and provide cooling during extreme heat events.
  6. Amending the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 to set a maximum temperature requirement for rental units.
  7. Providing to the owners of rental properties that currently lack cooling systems grants and incentives for retrofits, including heat pumps for individual units, that reduce heat loads or provide cooling and allow compliance with the maximum temperature requirement referred to in paragraph 6.
  8. Conducting an annual province-wide awareness campaign about the risks of extreme heat and how to stay safe, using messaging modes most likely to reach people at elevated risk.
  9. Passing and enforcing regulations related to heat stress under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to protect workers whose work exposes them to hot conditions, such as roofing, road paving and agriculture.

Bill 198 seeks to address some of the worst impacts of extreme heat, in particular for low-income tenants with rental units that are much too hot to be safe and outdoor workers. We urge all parties to support the bill and take action to protect our communities from extreme heat.

Source
Bill 198, An Act providing a climate change adaptation program for Ontario, 1st Sess, 43rd Leg, Ontario, 2024 (first reading 16 May 2024).

Image courtesy of @BeritK via Canva.com

 

Friday, June 14, 2024

Extreme Heat and Renal Housing

 

 

Recommendations for Municipalities Focus: Extreme Heat and Rental Housing

September 21, 2022

This report recommends and provides draft language for a maximum heat municipal bylaw, which would require landlords to maintain a maximum temperature of 26°C in rental units. The recommendation accounts for the worsening climate crisis and the disproportionate impact of extreme heat on vulnerable populations including the elderly, those with chronic illnesses and mobility challenges, and those that are socially and materially disadvantaged.

Prepared by Meaghan Kenley for Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, Canadian Environmental Law Association, Low-Income Energy Network.
CELA Publication No. 1488
ISBN: 978-1-77842-008-5

FAQ - Landlord Tenant Board

 

 

Access to Justice and Delays at the Landlord and Tenant Board – FAQ

What are the current challenges at the LTB?

Access to Justice

The foremost issue with a digital-only service model is that tenants experience many new barriers in trying to participate in their LTB hearings. Tenants are mostly low-income earners. The 2021 Statistics Canada report found that renter households on average earned $58,400. It is widely acknowledged that tenants who live in poverty have difficulty obtaining the necessary equipment, data speeds, and reliability necessary to fully participate in these hearings. Digital hearings also pose serious challenges for people living in rural and remote communities, those whose first language is neither French nor English, those living with a disability, or those with literacy and numeracy issues[4]. This illustration below demonstrates the digital divide facing tenants based on a 2021 study that found that 55.6% of tenants participate in their hearings by phone, whereas 74% of landlords participate by video in their hearings.[5]

Furthermore, a recent study by Deloitte Canada on the digital divide found that “58 per cent of households surveyed report broadband speeds above the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission minimum. By comparison, only 39 per cent of households earning less than $40,000 per year met this threshold.”[6] 

The ability of tenants to reasonably participate in their hearings, including attending the hearings and presenting evidence, has been significantly restricted through the LTB’s digital hearings. Some Courts and Tribunals have recognized the digital divide facing Ontarians and are moving back to in-person hearings – such as the Ontario Labour Relations Board[7] and the Federal Court of Appeal[8]. Others offer parties an equal choice of remote and in-person hearing options in the case of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (“WSIAT”)[9] and Social Security Tribunal.[10]

The LTB’s decision to move to primarily a remote hearing model has had a significant impact in reducing the number of in-person hearings requested (people are not aware and others do not believe that their request for an in-person hearing would be granted) and the number of in-person hearings granted. The WSIAT, by comparison, has issued or heard far more in-person hearings than the LTB – even though it receives fewer requests for hearings.[11]

Delays

Over the last few years, renters, landlords, and their representatives have been justifiably upset with the lengthy delays. Complaints about the LTB’s delays in January 2020 led to the Ombudsman’s office launching an investigation of the Board’s processes. At that time, landlord applications took 7 weeks to be heard and tenant applications were heard in 9 weeks.[12] In the years that followed, the backlog worsened – even as the total number of applications received each year fell far below its traditional numbers.

LTB delays and frustrations have also been noted by the Superior Court in matters of evicting tenants who live in condominium units. Matters are now being brought to the Court notwithstanding that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear them.

Delays are not primarily due to the pandemic

The Province ordered a moratorium on LTB hearings from March 19, 2020 to August 1, 2020. This has contributed to the backlog – however, it is not the primary reason for the current delays. Hearings did continue during that period for urgent matters.[13] As well, in 2020/2021, the LTB received only 48,422 applications and 61,586 applications in the following year, which is significantly fewer than the 80,000 applications the LTB received annually prior to the pandemic. The inability to offer hearings in 2020/2021 due to the pandemic coincided with a significant decrease in applications for hearings. The conclusion to draw from this is that the current backlog and delays in processing applications cannot be primarily attributed to the pandemic eviction moratorium. Instead, the delays can be attributed to three factors:

A) Digital hearings have led to delays

Digital hearings are poorly suited to what is, by its nature, an adversarial format. Participants in a typical virtual meeting are there for the same goal (to learn something or to achieve a task) and agree to specific guidelines to govern conduct, such as not talking over other speakers. For Ontario’s busiest tribunal, dozens of parties engage in a complex litigation process with tenants’ intent on preserving their home and landlords trying to protect their investment. It is far more difficult to facilitate a hearing digitally at the LTB, as participants are often confused, speak over one another, and / or experience lag – all of which slows down the hearings.

Further, at the outset of each hearing there are delays for moderators to take attendance, set out the rules of the hearing for parties, determine if the parties wished to mediate their issue or proceed to a merits hearing, and create breakout rooms for tenants wishing to speak with TDC. Moderators and DROs have been almost exclusively assigned to L1 hearing blocks (eviction applications based on rent arrears) leaving adjudicators on their own in other blocks to conduct these same tasks, all while performing their adjudicative responsibilities.

When hearings were in-person, there were visual markers that sped up the hearings, such as clear signs on doors and the adjudicator sitting on an elevated desk. These visual markers helped participants navigate the LTB’s processes.

This assisted many participants on the day of their hearings without having to speak with tribunal staff. Now, there are many more participants who require more support (and are not receiving it) to present their case in the digital format. The move to a remote system has many landlords, tenants, and their representatives agreeing that it has led to delays at the LTB.[14]

B) Scheduling hearings provincially

Scheduling matters provincially, rather than regionally, has also created delays. Provincial scheduling tends to favour the larger municipalities with more tenants. In the past, parties could rely on set local hearing dates and matters would be scheduled on those set dates. Now, parties cannot predict when a matter will be heard.

When matters were scheduled regionally, it promoted more just resolutions and prevented evictions. It enabled agencies to plan around those set dates in their region and send staff to provide supports for tenants living with low-incomes (i.e. rent bank money, referrals to social service agencies, etc.). Some municipal housing and homelessness programs would even send staff for the day because the block was dedicated to supporting residents from their municipality. Some municipalities would rent offices next to the LTB location to facilitate this service. For example, the City of Windsor would rent office space next to the LTB hearing room. This is no longer the case – municipalities and social service providers are not able to be as present with the current provincial scheduling.

TDC staff were also able to provide better service to tenants in their catchments because they were rooted in their communities. That strong relationship enabled enriched services and direct connections with local service providers, local landlords, and knowledge of housing stock. That expertise would enable parties to arrive at more resolutions and mediated settlements, which alleviated some of the workload for adjudicators, allowing them to focus on disputed matters. Now that hearing blocks provincially scheduled, TDC cannot offer the same level of service as they do not have the same deep relationships and knowledge in other parts of the province.

Another benefit to regional scheduling was that it allowed adjudicators to become more familiar with the local housing context, thereby improving their decisions when they exercise s. 83[15] relief. For example, an adjudicator from Southern Ontario would not know the challenges that geography and the cold climate may have on the ability of a tenant to find housing (eg. Moosonee has not had any new housing created in the last 20 years) or maintaining their home. Furthermore, adjudicators used to be more familiar in a regional model with vexatious or abusive litigants within a region, which would improve overall outcomes and discourage parties from filing needless and time consuming applications.

In addition, the provincial scheduling has required TDC to juggle multiple (and sometimes concurrent) blocks where the schedule sprinkles addresses in the same region across several hearing blocks. This has further eroded the level of service that TDC can provide and leads to longer hearings when self-represented tenants do not have access to legal advice. These same challenges also concern landlords and representatives who have multiple applications at the LTB. The Thunder Bay DSSAB, for example, had its application dismissed because they failed to appear at a hearing when the LTB scheduled their two matters on two separate and concurrent hearing blocks.[16]

C) Scheduling by hearing type

The third reason for the delays is that the LTB started scheduling hearing blocks based on application type. In the past, with regional scheduling, all types of applications were heard by the same adjudicator. The switch to scheduling by type has resulted in greater inefficiency and unnecessary hearings. A hypothetical example to illustrate would be a tenant who is upset that they have a rodent problem in their home that has gone unaddressed. The tenant files an application to demand that their landlord fix it. The months long delay of waiting for a hearing, while living with the problem, results in a frustrated tenant deciding to withhold their rent. The landlord then files an application to evict because they did not receive the rent that month. As the wait continues, the landlord files another application to evict because the tenant has now decided to miss several rent payments, forcing the landlord to file a second application for eviction; this time for persistent late payments. In this scenario, there would be three separate hearings scheduled for the parties for the three applications which originally arose out of the one issue; rodents and landlord negligence. In our experience, the LTB is resistant to joining applications which would make the process more efficient, but they were more amenable to doing so when hearings were held in-person.

A regional schedule can accept multiple applications involving the same building to be heard in the same block, thereby avoiding parties having to file separate applications on the same facts, having to appear at the LTB multiple times, and potentially obtaining separate outcomes for each of the applications. Recently, the Divisional Court found a landlord abusing the current scheduling process by trying to obtain two separate orders on what was essentially the same issue. Another benefit would see urgent matters scheduled sooner because they would be scheduled for he next regional sitting, instead of an undetermined time.

D) Operational services

In addition to the access to justice issues and lengthy delays, there have been operational issues ongoing at the LTB for several years. Here are some examples:

  • In September 2022, all parties were waiting past 1030am for the host to admit them for a 9am hearing. When they tried calling the 1-800 number and the local number an automatic message stated that it was unavailable. An email was sent and an automatic reply was generated. This matter involved a vulnerable client who was waiting with their social worker.
  • February 2022, a fee waiver was sent to the LTB. In June, an email from the LTB was sent to the applicant stating that they did not receive payment for the application and that the application would be closed. Despite sending multiple emails that included the fee waiver, the applicant received an email in August stating that the file was closed because the fee had not been paid.
  • A hearing was held for an eviction application in July 2021 and the parties reported that, as of March 2022, they still had not received a decision.
  • A landlord filed an application within the 30 day time limit. She was told that the Board lost the application. She refiled, but the LTB told her that they could not accept it because it was filed past the 30 day limitation period and was out of time. She then was forced to file a request to review that decision.
  • Creating an account through the new online portal continues to be a challenge, with confirmation emails in January 2023 sent more than an hour later.
  • A housing provider had its hearing in June 2021 and informed the tenants at the start of the hearing that its application would be cancelled and that they did not need to attend. They informed the adjudicator that day. They did not receive the order until November 2022, an order which stated that neither party appeared at the hearing that day.
  • Housing provider and tenant agreed to terms on a matter and presented it to the adjudicator. The order that was subsequently issued contained numerous errors and it was received after the tenant already vacated, which made enforcement on the other terms more difficult.
  • In September 2022, an adjudicator granted an adjournment on the consent of both parties to hear all applications (8 in total) together. She also seized herself of these matters. In November 2022, a new hearing notice was sent to the parties proposing to hear only a few of the applications. The notice also had a date that was different form the hearing date in the body of the email that contained the notice. A follow up call to the Board indicated that the files were assigned to another adjudicator and not to the seized adjudicator.
  • The LTB’s capacity to address urgent matters has been significantly hampered due to the closure of their physical locations because immediate access to relevant documents are almost impossible within Digital First.
  • A tenant was locked out of their apartment by the Sheriff on Thursday, December 8th. The tenant was aware that they owed rent but was unaware a hearing had taken place and had no documents. They reached out their local clinic for help. An email and fax to multiple parties (including LTB leadership) was sent that same day asking immediately for a copy of the documents. The documents were required to challenge the decision because it contained the file number and rent arrears information that is not available in any of the enforcement documents. There was no response from the LTB until the documents were emailed the clinic on the Sunday, which was the last day that the tenant could obtain their belongings before the Sheriff arrived to change the lock. Between Thursday and Sunday, the tenant experienced significant uncertainty as to whether they could challenge the decision or move all of their belongings out and give up on their home. In contrast, when counter staff were providing in-person service, tenant representatives would be able to immediately obtain the necessary documents and inform the tenant of their rights and take steps to challenge the decision – all on the same day.

 

Monday, May 27, 2024

Bill 184: Wrong Bill, Wrong Time

 Homeless tent in an alley

Bill 184: Wrong Bill, Wrong Time

Update

While not surprised, the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) is disappointed with the passing of Bill 184, Protecting Tenants and Strengthening Community Housing Act, 2020. It received Royal Assent yesterday and its amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) are now in effect. The Bill was pushed through the legislative process, without meaningful consultation or consideration of the concerns raised by tenants, at a time when the health and livelihoods of tenants have been hit hard by the pandemic crisis.

Contrary to its title, Bill 184’s amendments to the RTA will not protect tenants from bad faith evictions and will make it easier for landlords to evict tenants without a hearing. It will also limit tenant’s ability to raise defences at arrear hearings and subject former tenants to hearings at the Board without proper service of legal documents. These changes will exacerbate the ongoing affordable housing crisis and make tenants more vulnerable to evictions and homelessness.

The pandemic crisis has revealed the extent of the affordable housing crisis in cities across the province. The affordable housing shortage is a public health crisis we can no longer ignore. We know that difficult times lie ahead for the majority of tenants living on lower incomes in this province. We will continue to push for the protections that tenants need to access safe, secure and affordable homes.

Original Campaign – Tell Ontario to Scrap Bill 184

Low to moderate income tenants in Ontario face daily struggles to pay the rent and life’s other expenses. This is because rents in this province have been on a constant rise. Many tenants will point out the state of disrepair in their homes while paying exorbitant monthly rents.  Rising rents are the result of laws that put landlords’ interests first, including the right of landlords to rent gouge on tenant turnover.

The COVID-19 pandemic crisis has laid bare the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, made worse by these policies. Yet, in the middle of the crisis, the Ontario government has decided to push through Bill 184, Protecting Tenants and Strengthening Communities Housing Act – a collection of pro-landlord amendments that will impoverish and displace tenants.

The only tenant protection in Bill 184 is in the title. This Bill is out of touch with the challenges faced by tenants, especially as the pandemic crisis has deepened their vulnerabilities.

Many organizations have signed an open letter, Bill 184: Wrong Bill, Wrong Time, voicing their deep concerns with Bill 184.

We urged the government to scrap the Bill and instead take the following actions:

1.  Update the purpose of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) to include improving public health in Ontario and recognizing the progressive realization of the human right to housing as enshrined in the federal legislation.

2. Extend the current eviction moratorium until the pandemic and the post-pandemic recovery period are over to ensure enough time for employment rates and other economic indicators to return to pre-COVID-19 levels. While urgent matters with serious health and safety implications continue to be heard, Ontario must commit to keeping people housed.

3. Amend the RTA to provide direction to the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) for mediated repayment agreements that are feasible and will not push tenants into homelessness or continued poverty.

4. Provide the LTB with direction on providing relief from eviction due to circumstances caused by the pandemic crisis. Good tenants that lost their employment, faced illness or had to take care of their children out of school should not be punished because they faced financial hardship during this pandemic.

5. Re-institute effective rent control and alleviate the greatest source of anxiety for tenants even before this pandemic crisis – the unaffordable rents that skyrocket every year, displacing people from their homes and communities.

If you agree with these recommendations, send an email to Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to show your support.