FAQ - Landlord Tenant Board

 

 

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

Background

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.

What steps has the LTB taken to address these challenges?

What policy proposals can stakeholders offer to improve LTB operations?

 

 

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.

 

 

Tell the province it's time to restore real rent control

 

Tell the province it's time to restore real rent control

Say Yes to Fair Rents! was a campaign run by ACTO in summer of 2023.

Picture this. You live in Ontario. You get paid and realize this month’s rent is almost due. And it’s no big deal! You are confident you can pay your rent on time and in full. Once the rent is paid, you’ll easily be able to cover your other necessities – like food, transportation, daycare, and cell phone bill – with some left over to save and some to do something fun.

Sounds nice, right?

This shouldn’t seem like wishful thinking. Ontario should be a prosperous place for everyone, where all residents have access to an affordable, safe, and secure home in a community of their choosing – regardless of their income.

And yet, in 2023, a life like that is out of reach for many Ontarians – especially for those who rent their homes.

Background

Using Toronto as an example, a renter must now earn $98,000 / year to comfortably afford the average asking price for a 1-bedroom rental in the city. But according to the 2021 Census, the median total income of renter households in Toronto was $65,500.

The math does not add up.

The Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation has long maintained that housing is only affordable when it does not exceed 30% of your gross annual income. Anything beyond that is considered unaffordable. Of the top 20 most unaffordable metropolitan areas in Canada, 12 are in Ontario, with the top five being Peterborough, Oshawa, Barrie, Toronto and Kingston.

This didn’t just happen. It’s the result of a 30 year experiment in housing policy that has failed. The province has the power to do something to fix it, and it’s time for them to step up.

Why restore fair rent control?

Most existing units in Ontario are protected by a type of rent control; meaning the landlord can only increase a tenant’s 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 1990s, the policy of “vacancy decontrol” was introduced. Rental prices have soared ever since. A 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 units with sitting 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 – landlords are raising prices by sometimes hundreds of dollars a month, well beyond what their tenants can afford.

Why is Ontario in this mess? Well, the idea was that getting rid of effective rent controls would encourage the development of rental housing because it would be more profitable for developers to build it. And if the market was flooded with all these rentals, it would keep rent prices low.

Did it work? Absolutely not. Check out this graph of “housing starts.”

Vacancy decontrol was introduced in 1991, and we can observe that the construction of rentals takes a dramatic nosedive in the years afterward. Instead of having more rentals than we know what to do with, we have nowhere near enough, and what is being constructed isn’t affordable to most renters. In this kind of housing environment, landlords win and renters lose. These policies treat housing as an investment for profit, rather than a right for every single person. Ontario’s weak rent regulations are part of what makes it so alluring for big financial investors, who are snapping up available affordable rental housing to unceremoniously kick long-standing tenants out and jack up the prices. Rinse and repeat.

Want to learn more? Check out our new report: Housing Hardship: How Ontario’s Renters Struggle to Keep a Roof Overhead.

 

 

Tell the province it's time to restore real rent control

Say Yes to Fair Rents! was a campaign run by ACTO in summer of 2023.

Picture this. You live in Ontario. You get paid and realize this month’s rent is almost due. And it’s no big deal! You are confident you can pay your rent on time and in full. Once the rent is paid, you’ll easily be able to cover your other necessities – like food, transportation, daycare, and cell phone bill – with some left over to save and some to do something fun.

Sounds nice, right?

This shouldn’t seem like wishful thinking. Ontario should be a prosperous place for everyone, where all residents have access to an affordable, safe, and secure home in a community of their choosing – regardless of their income.

And yet, in 2023, a life like that is out of reach for many Ontarians – especially for those who rent their homes.

Background

Using Toronto as an example, a renter must now earn $98,000 / year to comfortably afford the average asking price for a 1-bedroom rental in the city. But according to the 2021 Census, the median total income of renter households in Toronto was $65,500.

The math does not add up.

The Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation has long maintained that housing is only affordable when it does not exceed 30% of your gross annual income. Anything beyond that is considered unaffordable. Of the top 20 most unaffordable metropolitan areas in Canada, 12 are in Ontario, with the top five being Peterborough, Oshawa, Barrie, Toronto and Kingston.

This didn’t just happen. It’s the result of a 30 year experiment in housing policy that has failed. The province has the power to do something to fix it, and it’s time for them to step up.

Why restore fair rent control?

Most existing units in Ontario are protected by a type of rent control; meaning the landlord can only increase a tenant’s 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 1990s, the policy of “vacancy decontrol” was introduced. Rental prices have soared ever since. A 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 units with sitting 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 – landlords are raising prices by sometimes hundreds of dollars a month, well beyond what their tenants can afford.

Why is Ontario in this mess? Well, the idea was that getting rid of effective rent controls would encourage the development of rental housing because it would be more profitable for developers to build it. And if the market was flooded with all these rentals, it would keep rent prices low.

Did it work? Absolutely not. Check out this graph of “housing starts.”

Vacancy decontrol was introduced in 1991, and we can observe that the construction of rentals takes a dramatic nosedive in the years afterward. Instead of having more rentals than we know what to do with, we have nowhere near enough, and what is being constructed isn’t affordable to most renters. In this kind of housing environment, landlords win and renters lose. These policies treat housing as an investment for profit, rather than a right for every single person. Ontario’s weak rent regulations are part of what makes it so alluring for big financial investors, who are snapping up available affordable rental housing to unceremoniously kick long-standing tenants out and jack up the prices. Rinse and repeat.

Want to learn more? Check out our new report: Housing Hardship: How Ontario’s Renters Struggle to Keep a Roof Overhead.

 

Unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision a justice win for renters

Toronto, ON – March 18^th, 2024 – The Supreme Court of Canada (“Court”) released their decision on Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monex. The Court unanimously ruled that the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) erred in restricting access to judicial review to “rare cases” where there is a limited right of appeal on a decision. This decision means that renters will continue to be able to bring a judicial review that examines questions of mixed fact and law, irrespective of whether they have pursued an internal appeal through the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”). This is a victory for renters and improves meaningful access to justice in our legal system.

The difference between internal reconsideration and judicial review

For cases that pass through the LTB, there is an internal mechanism to request reviews on decisions made by the Board’s adjudicators. The Residential Tenancies Act also provides for a right of appeal to Divisional Court, but only on a question of law. Many decisions made by the LTB do not raise purely legal questions, however, and are better characterized as questions of mixed fact and law. In addition, the majority of renters that appear at the LTB are self-represented and have difficulties describing a legal error to the Court even when one exists. That is why many people affected by LTB decisions need access to judicial review.

When Yatar first passed through the Divisional Court, the court ruled that individuals should not be allowed to request judicial review except in “exceptional circumstances.” On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that judicial review could only be exercised in “rare cases” where applicants had an internal reconsideration option. This greatly restricted legal avenues for renters to pursue justice.

The Court has found that a right of appeal does not, on its own, preclude an individual from seeking judicial review. This decision means that judges, while they have the discretion to hear a judicial application on the merits and decline relief, do not have the option of declining to consider solely on the basis of the quality or quantity of an internal review mechanism of a tribunal. Renters are, therefore, free to bring a request for judicial review at any time where LTB decisions contain errors that are not appealable.

“This is a really promising decision,” says Rosalea Thompson, staff layer with the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (“ACTO”), one of the interveners on the case. “It supports the rights of renters living on low incomes to have meaningful, adequate options to challenge unreasonable decisions.”

“Given the severity of the housing crisis in Ontario and the erosion of renters access to justice, this is a really positive outcome,” says Douglas Kwan, Director of Advocacy and Legal Services at ACTO. “It reinforces the idea that tribunals are subordinate to the courts, who have the constitutional responsibility to preserve the rule of law so that renters’ rights are protected.” 

-30-

About Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario

The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) is a specialty community legal clinic with a province-wide mandate to advance and protect the interests of tenants living with lower incomes. ACTO specializes in housing issues related to tenants. ACTO also provides legal information and assistance to self-represented tenants appearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board through the Tenant Duty Counsel Program (TDCP).

N11 - What is it? Your rights...

 

Your landlord wants you to sign a Form N11 “Agreement to end a tenancy.” Should you?

May 22, 2024 Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario

What is a Form N11?

A Form N11 or “Agreement to end a tenancy” is a form that both a landlord and a tenant can sign to mutually agree to end an existing tenancy in Ontario.

The most important thing for a renter to know is they do not have to sign a Form N11 if they do not want to end their tenancy and leave their home, no matter what their landlord says. Signing an N11 is supposed to be a voluntary decision.

Renters should also be aware that signing an N11 limits your rights with filing a Form T5 “Landlord gave a Notice of Termination in Bad Faith” against your landlord after the fact. It can also void your right to compensation if a landlord says their family or a purchaser wants to move in. In that situation, your landlord should provide you with an N12 form – not an N11. Therefore, you should only sign an N11 if you want to move out and end your lease early.

Landlords should use the proper notice eviction form

Different types of evictions require different notice forms. If your landlord says they are moving into your home, or a purchaser is moving into your home, they should be sending you a Form N12 “Notice to End your Tenancy Because the Landlord, a Purchaser or a Family Member Requires the Rental Unit,” instead of an N11. Form N12s do not require you to sign anything. However, with this form, tenants are entitled to compensation in the amount of one month of rent.

Similarly, in cases of extensive renovations, repairs, or conversion, the landlord must provide the tenant with a Form N13 “Notice to End your Tenancy Because the Landlord Wants to Demolish the Rental Unit, Repair it or Convert it to Another Use.” The landlord must also provide compensation (and proof of a building permit) if they need the tenant to vacate the unit for extensive renovations. By law, tenants also have the right to return, by which they can inform the landlord in writing of their intention to move back into the unit (at the same rent) when the renovations are completed.

If you have fallen behind in your rent payments and your landlord wants to evict you, your landlord should be serving you with a Form N4 “Notice to End your Tenancy for Non-payment of Rent.” Again, a Form N4 does not require you to sign anything; and it allows you to void the notice and stay in the unit if you pay all the rent owed.

Remember, your landlord cannot legally evict you themselves, even if they give you a notice of eviction form. The landlord must first be issued an eviction order by the Landlord and Tenant Board. Afterwards, a landlord may then take to the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) to enforce the eviction. If you receive any type of eviction notice from your landlord, it’s really important to read the documents carefully and get legal advice right away.

Why some landlords might be pressuring their tenants to sign N11s

Sky-high rents and a lack of affordable housing units means that the rental housing market in Ontario is exceptionally challenging for most tenants; and financially lucrative for most landlords. This context is critical to understand because some landlords are attempting to pressure or manipulate their tenants into signing Form N11s.

Landlords do this because they know they could make more money on their unit if they can get their old tenants out, thanks to a rent control loophole called vacancy decontrol. Vacancy decontrol allows landlords to charge whatever amount of rent they want to a new tenant.

This lack of vacancy control in Ontario means rents have gone up anywhere from 10-30% each year. Asking rents for a 1-bedroom unit across Ontario now average $2,191 per month. However, the median income for renters across Ontario hovered at just $3,433 per month (as of the 2022 census). To afford the average asking rent, Ontario renters would have to pay over 60% of their income towards housing costs – markedly increasing their risk of homelessness. In order to afford the average 1-bedroom in Ontario, renters would need to be earning ~88,000 per year. Most homeowners don’t even have incomes that high, let alone the average renter.

That’s why renters need to think very carefully about whether or not they should sign a Form N11, especially if they’re been living in the unit for a long time. It will be difficult – and in some cases, impossible – to find a similar sized unit in the same community at an affordable rent. Under the law, renters have the right to stay in their homes until their tenancy is terminated by the Board. A landlord’s quest to make more money shouldn’t force them to give up their rights as a renter.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Housing

Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario

The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) is a specialty community legal clinic, funded by Legal Aid Ontario, with a province-wide mandate to serve low-income tenants across the province. The clinic also coordinates the Tenant Duty Counsel Program (TDCP) across Ontario, which provides legal information and assistance to self-represented tenants appearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

 

Stop Throwing Out Your Used Tea Bags

They’re surprising useful. Here are 12 things they can do post-brew.

Photo by Image credit: Stephanie Russo

It feels so good to be able to do something with the things we’d normally discard. Coffee grounds as rose fertilizer and clementine peels saved for DIY candles come to mind, not to mention composting in general.

If you’re a regular or occasional tea drinker, you can add your tea bags to the list of garbage you shouldn’t throw out just yet. Here are some ways to re-use them post brew:

• Add a hint of flavor to rice or grains. Hang your used tea bags in boiling water to infuse your food with a touch of flavor. Think jasmine tea with rice or chai tea with oatmeal.
• Protect house plants from fungal disease by re-brewing a used tea bag and using the weak tea (cooled) to water your plants.
• Neutralize odors naturally. Spread dried tea leaves in stinky spots like the cat litter box or in the bottom of your garbage bags.
• Make cleaning the fireplace safer and easier. Dump the damp contents of tea bags onto the ash to weigh it down before sweeping out the fireplace.
• De-grease pots and pans. Soak hard-to-clean dishes in water with a used tea bag tossed in. The tea will help loosen stuck-on food and break up grease.
• Add them to your bath. The antioxidants in tea are good for your skin and the gentle scent will add some aromatherapy to your soak.
• Take the sting out of insect bites and sunburns. Using a cool compress will reduce pain and inflammation of the affected areas.
• Make a hair rinse. Remove product buildup without using another product. Soak 3-4 used tea bags in warm water and pour it over your head after shampooing and conditioning as usual. Don’t rinse. Pro tip: Chamomile brightens blondes and black tea adds a coppery shimmer to brunettes, according to Housewife How-Tos.
• Deodorize carpets by scattering the dried contents of several teabags over your rugs before you vacuum.
• Depuff tired eyes. Place cool tea bags over your eyes, cucumber style. According to Chasing Green, the tannins in the tea leaves may reduce bags and dark circles.
• Clean leather shoes by buffing with a damp teabag.
• Wash stinky hands, using a tea bag as you would a bar of soap to help eradicate garlic, onion, or fish odors.

Shifrah Combiths has been writing professionally for twenty years. She loves lifestyle photography, memory keeping, gardening, reading, and going to the beach with her husband and children.

Ombudsman Report Calls LTB 'Unreasonable'...

 Newly released Ombudsman report calls Ontario’s Landlord and Tenant Board ‘moribund’ and found the Tribunal to be ‘unreasonable’ under provincial law. Yet, in some ways, the investigation still missed the mark on justice.

For years, tenants and their advocates have been asking the province to fix Ontario’s busiest yet most broken tribunal, the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”). The LTB’s pandemic era shift to a primarily remote service model – holding hearings over Zoom and filing forms and evidence through their digital portal – has been rife with problems from the outset. Tenants, especially those living on low incomes, have been particularly impacted. A digital/remote service model has created even more barriers for many tenants to participate in their hearings and successfully present their evidence, as many tenants living on low incomes have limited or no access to a computer and reliable wifi. It is hard for a tenant to stop their landlord from evicting them if they can’t actually show up to their hearing.

Despite these digital barriers and the degradation of access to justice they pose for tenants, what finally got the attention of the Ombudsman’s office was the unprecedented delays in hearings and rulings, delays that have seeded an enormous backlog of tens of thousands of cases – almost 40,000 at present.

The report outlines some of the many failures of the LTB; including the failure by the province after the 2018 election to reappoint seasoned adjudicators and promptly appointing new adjudicators to replace those whose terms had ended. This attempt to run the LTB with many adjudicators who were inexperienced and unfamiliar with residential tenancies law, and not providing them with the appropriate support, has been an unmitigated disaster for procedural fairness and for just outcomes. The report also acknowledges the shocking finding that some tenants are waiting up to two years to have their applications scheduled; by contrast most landlords only wait 6-9 months. The Ombudsman notes that “it is unconscionable to permit tenant applications to lie dormant for up to six years.” The explanation given was that they did not set aside enough time for those hearings. This might have been understandable for a new tribunal but it is unacceptable for the LTB, which has been operating since the late 1990s. This significant disparity signals to Ontarians that tenant rights are inferior to landlord rights and that tenants deserve less justice.

Further, the report found that the LTB only granted a tiny fraction of requests for in-person hearings, accommodating a measly 4.3% of total requests made. Their track record is similarly dismal on amount of requests for use of a public access terminal at just 31.1% requests granted. This speaks not to the demand for such services but to the barriers that Ontarians have to overcome trying to access their tribunal. 

The dysfunction goes deep, and it’s every day Ontarians who suffer the consequences – and none more so than tenants, who are being unjustly and unfairly evicted in droves. Yet, what troubles us deeply as tenant advocates and legal experts is not just what’s in the report, but rather, what was skirted past or omitted entirely from the investigation and resultant report.

First, the report suggests that the delays are due to poor implementation of its new software program. Unfortunately, it neglects to acknowledge that, prior to the move to its current remote service model, the LTB was processing far more applications (80k/year) a decade ago. It was doing so with fewer adjudicators than it has now and scheduling hearings faster overall, with landlord applications being scheduled within 5 weeks and tenant applications scheduled within 6 weeks. Whether it was due to lack of user consultation  or another factor when designing the service, the LTB chose not to use existing best practices but instead introduced a brand new digital system that cannot perform basic functions (such as tracking mediated agreements or outstanding files). Thus, it goes beyond poor implementation. Software that cannot even perform basic tasks will continue to lead to delays.

Second, the report also outlines the digital divide that tenants face as a result of the LTB removing all of its in-person services and 44 hearing locations to its current remote service model. Its recommendation to provide an IT support hotline (introduced last month after 2.5 years of zoom hearings) as a sole solution does not recognize the depth and extent of the digital barriers created by the LTB. In-person services provided meaningful access for people with data and phone minute limitations, who did not have the appropriate computer equipment, with language barriers, numeracy and literacy issues, and disabilities. They were able to better participate in their hearings and assert their rights. It’s much harder to achieve this in the current digital format.

Third, the report mentions that, in the past, hundreds of people would file into the hearing rooms each day. This was true and actually a good thing. Parties were able to resolve more disputes before appearing before the adjudicator, because they were able to access homelessness prevention programs that were staffed nearby. Tenant duty counsel services and mediators were also available. More resolutions achieved proactively meant fewer matters moved to a hearing and the backlog did not pile up. Currently, there are far fewer mediators attending hearing blocks than there were in the past. The same is true for duty counsel and social service providers. Now, since those interventions are less readily available in this new remote hearing format more matters proceed before the adjudicator.  When sustainable tenancies are not maintained through either through interventions or being able to assert one’s rights at the LTB, it worsens the province’s existing homelessness and housing crisis. We must do everything we can to prevent evictions by providing upstream supports and that includes restoring these supports and options for tenants.

It is also clear that the Ombudsman heard most from landlords and their representatives, and the 61 recommendations outlined reflect that. Of the thousands of complaints submitted to their office, 84% were from landlords. The loudest and squeakiest wheels do, it would appear, get the grease.

Where does that leave tenants?

So where does that leave tenants? We know from our research that tenants struggle to participate in digital hearings much more than landlords do. The LTB has consistently refused to make in-person hearings readily available for Ontarians who need them and the report cited that in-person hearings represented just 0.07% of all hearings held during the summer of 2021. That does not mean in-person hearings are not necessary. It means that the LTB has abjectly failed to offer them as a viable option and made it absurdly difficult for tenants to make that kind of request. 

Beyond recommending an IT support telephone line, there are hardly any meaningful recommendations in the report that would resolve the digital barriers that tenants experience. This is disappointing and a missed opportunity to address the deeper challenges at the LTB.

Even if a tenant does make it to their hearing, the report also notes that many adjudicators must hear 60 – 80 matters a day. The ends up being around five minutes for each matter. Even worse, things are so dysfunctional that evidence submitted sometimes is so far down the pipe it is not included in the case file in time. Therefore, an adjudicator may not be able to consider all of the relevant evidence. In an eviction case, that means a tenant can be rendered homeless in just five minutes, sometimes without all of the evidence being considered. Imagine, if you will, a homeowner being told their bank will take just five minutes to decide whether or not to re-possess their home and the decision would be based on an incomplete file. Can you picture the outrage? Yet, that’s exactly what happens to thousands of tenants each year at the LTB.

What we recommend

There are a number of actions that the LTB can do to improve the dysfunction and restore access to justice for tenants. Our recommendations would also have the benefit of addressing the backlog and shortening wait times.

They are:

• Return to regionally based in-person services across the 44 former locations
• Provide in-person hearings and accommodations for those who need them, and clear avenues to request these options. All parties should participate in a hearing using the same format.
• Return to scheduling matters by region, rather than application type. Applications related to the same address should be heard together.
• Treat tenant applications with the same gravity and urgency as landlord applications
• Significantly improve mediator and adjudicator training on landlord and tenant law
• Create a process for legal representatives to view LTB case files even if not retained
• All LTB forms and notices should be written in plain language and in compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (“AODA”).
• Hire former, seasoned adjudicators to address the backlog
• Use the technology at hand to track data related notices, filings and outcomes to better monitor eviction notices and outcomes

We urge the LTB and Tribunals Ontario to implement our recommendations. Anything less will result in a continued failure to address the needs and concerns of Ontarians.

 

© 2023 Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario - ACTO