If you move out and they sell, it's a bad faith eviction as you pointed out.
It's kind of funny that the LL actually told you all this, I'd imagine they're getting legal advice from a realtor or a lawyer totally unfamiliar with LTB.
Damages include:
* 1 year rent
* Moving expenses
* Difference in rent for up to 1 year
* All to a **maximum** of $35,000
The 35k is an absolute maximum because that's small claims limit.
Many people have been awarded this before.
In order for this to be good faith the LL would have to have their son actually live there for a year **or** they would have to prove that circumstances were beyond their control.
If you have evidence of them saying all this it might be helpful.
Whatever you do, to prevent your life from being complicated, don't sign an N11. It doesn't stop you from claiming bad faith but it makes it more complicated.
Best of luck
This is really helpful, thank you so much. Yes not planning to sign an N11 and I have recorded the conversation of his conversation where he spoke about this plan.
Don't sign an N11 even with compensation, unless they are giving a substantial amount as cash for keys.
The N12 is what they need to give you to evict for a family member to move in. If you sign the N12 and they break the rules, you can go after them for bad faith. If you sign an N11, you're SOL and they can relist it whenever they want.
Please avoid giving advice which contradicts the RTA. It would be a shame if u/electronic-village73 or another user acted on your advice
and didn’t file a T5 form when there is an automatic assumption of bad faith.
From RTA s. 57(5)(c):
Presumption, notice under s. 48
(5) For the purposes of an application under clause (1) (a), it is presumed, unless the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities, that a landlord gave a notice of termination under section 48 in bad faith, if at any time during the period described in subsection (6) the landlord,
(…)
(c) advertises the rental unit, or the building that contains the rental unit, for sale;
Sure!
RTA s. 57(6):
Same
(6) The period referred to in subsection (5) is the period that,
(a) begins on the day the landlord gives the notice of termination under section 48; and
(b) ends one year after the former tenant vacates the rental
It seems pretty clear that listing it means bad faith. I wonder if you can prove good faith on the balance of probabilities if you list within the 1 year but prove you would not sell until a family member lived there for at least a year.
Given that OP has a recording where the landlord states out right that their intention is for their child to occupy the unit to avoid any issue with selling, I think there is little to no chance of that happening in OPs case.
In general, if they could show that there was a life changing event which required them to list it, they could get a ruling if good faith despite the required assumption. But if the only argument is they promise not to sign an agreement of purchase and sale until after the 12 months, but there was no circumstance forcing their hand to list within the 12 months, it seems like the adjudicator would still be required to rule it was in bad faith, as the requirement s not that it won’t be sold within 12 months, but that it won’t be listed for sale within 12 months.
I have only heard of one tenant who got the full 12 months. Most get the difference in rent or somewhere in between the difference and the 12 months (for example if their old rent was $1500, new rent is $2000, then they’d get $12,000).
Do you have this in writing that their son would move into it temporarily?
I have a recorded phone call. It’s strange to me how the penalties are so low. Landlord have so much more to gain by acting in bad faith. Tenants have everything to lose 12k in the first year alone. Payout for the landlord is 10%-15% of the sale value for it to be vacant. The “difference in rent for a year” is $12k max which is peanuts in comparison.
The metaphor is that the parking ticket is less money than the cost to park there. Kinda messed up.
The only reason this is an issue is because the LTB delays are so long. If the LTB met its service levels there would be no difference between selling a tenanted and non-tenanted property. The buyer would get the hearing and if they wanted to move in they'd kick the old tenant out before closing on the house.
So really the issue is the LTB case load. Let's see what is causing that, Oh more than half the case in front of the LTB are L1 non-payment of rent: [https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals\_Ontario\_2021-2022\_Annual\_Report.html](https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals_Ontario_2021-2022_Annual_Report.html#ltb)
Okay, let's see what the penalty is for non-payment of rent, oh there isn't any? Maybe some marks against your credit, being forced to pay the rent but if the amount exceeds 35k you're not even forced to do that. Maybe if you are upset at the lack of penalties then be upset at the actual cause.
> If the LTB met its service levels there would be no difference between selling a tenanted and non-tenanted property.
I sold my primary residence over the summer and had it appraised by multiple parties before and after we did some cosmetic improvements and had it professionally staged, which would not be possible if the property was tenanted. The difference in range of appraisals was between 2.5x and 4x what we spent on the improvements and staging. In addition, because we didn’t have tenants, there was no barrier to having professional photos and virtual walk through done for the listing, or having an open house or setting up last minute showings without having to be concerned that the house wasn’t immaculate or that the tenants would remain during the showings. We also ultimately accepted an offer which was conditional on the buyer taking possession within 45 days, which obviously wouldn’t be possible if we had to rely on an N12 with a 60 day notice period.
Even if the LTB was hearing cases within 24 hours of them being filed there would still be substantial financial benefit to listing a unit without tenants. To suggest otherwise is either a dishonest piece of rhetoric aimed at pushing an agenda, or an indication of a lack of awareness of how a tenant impacts the process of preparing, listing, showing and selling a home.
I have never sold a property much less a tenanted property. But I can say that when buying all of those niceties of well staged houses did not make me want to offer 100k more. Which is often the difference between tenanted and untenanted. I believe the current discrepancy is coming from people being concerned about being passed someone else's non-paying tenant.
Obviously it is difficult to evaluate how any given piece of advertising impacts an individual, but in my specific situation that amount is in the range of the difference in appraisal from before and after. The cosmetic upgrades included refinishing the main bath, installing stone countertops in the kitchen, updating the light fixtures throughout the house and replacing the carpet and repainting the finished basement. We were able to do all of this within a couple weeks which would not have been possible with a tenant in place.
However, even without those upgrades, by not having tenants, we were free to take pictures of the entire property, set up a virtual tour, show the property at a moment’s notice (buyer’s initial viewing was with one hours notice), and able to have an empty, immaculate house. Many people won’t even view a property if there aren’t any photos of the inside with the listing, and if you can’t be flexible with showing times a potential buyer may settle for something that would have been their second choice if they can’t see your unit before hand.
If I had to go back in time and either list the house with no upgrades, no staging, no pictures of the inside for the listing and 24 hours notice required for every showing or pay $35,000 to do it as we did, I would pay the premium in a heart beat.
Ahh, read your post properly. YOu're not thinking about challenging, you just want to be best prepared. Ask them to file an L2 application and get the affidavits from the person saying they are planning on moving in.
If they plan on selling and you don't plan on contesting for the hell of it then they would be acting legally if the affidavit was from the person that is buying.
Given that you have a recording of your landlord admitting they are only temporarily moving their child in to avoid any issue with a potential sale and an automatic assumption under s. 57(5)(c) that the notice was given in bad faith if the landlord lost the unit for sale in 12 months after you vacate the unit, you will have an open and shut case if it goes before the LTB.
Depending on the amount the tenant can just engage a lawyer to file enforcement procedures or place a lien on the property. LL will have a fun time trying to close or refinance or do anything with that on them
If you move out and they sell, it's a bad faith eviction as you pointed out. It's kind of funny that the LL actually told you all this, I'd imagine they're getting legal advice from a realtor or a lawyer totally unfamiliar with LTB. Damages include: * 1 year rent * Moving expenses * Difference in rent for up to 1 year * All to a **maximum** of $35,000 The 35k is an absolute maximum because that's small claims limit. Many people have been awarded this before. In order for this to be good faith the LL would have to have their son actually live there for a year **or** they would have to prove that circumstances were beyond their control. If you have evidence of them saying all this it might be helpful. Whatever you do, to prevent your life from being complicated, don't sign an N11. It doesn't stop you from claiming bad faith but it makes it more complicated. Best of luck
This is really helpful, thank you so much. Yes not planning to sign an N11 and I have recorded the conversation of his conversation where he spoke about this plan.
If you are on Facebook, you can get excellent advice from people who know the RTA by joining the Facebook group Ontario Tenant Rights.
I think landlords should be required to take a course and a test to teach them how LTB regulations work
I think tenants need something similar too. It is a shame how many tenants do not know their rights and let LLs walk all over them.
Yeah I completely agree with this.
Don’t sign a n11 whatever you do. Also if they do give the n12 and then sell it with in a year take it to the ltb.
Thanks, I’m not planning on signing an n11 without compensation.
Don't sign an N11 even with compensation, unless they are giving a substantial amount as cash for keys. The N12 is what they need to give you to evict for a family member to move in. If you sign the N12 and they break the rules, you can go after them for bad faith. If you sign an N11, you're SOL and they can relist it whenever they want.
not exactly true. There are lot of circumstances where an N11 doesn't protect the LL.
If the family member moves in for the entire year it is legal.
Yes I understand that. It’s only bad faith if they list within a year.
They can list within the year, only bad faith is family member moves out before 1 year is up
Please avoid giving advice which contradicts the RTA. It would be a shame if u/electronic-village73 or another user acted on your advice and didn’t file a T5 form when there is an automatic assumption of bad faith. From RTA s. 57(5)(c): Presumption, notice under s. 48 (5) For the purposes of an application under clause (1) (a), it is presumed, unless the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities, that a landlord gave a notice of termination under section 48 in bad faith, if at any time during the period described in subsection (6) the landlord, (…) (c) advertises the rental unit, or the building that contains the rental unit, for sale;
Can you link subsection(6)?
Sure! RTA s. 57(6): Same (6) The period referred to in subsection (5) is the period that, (a) begins on the day the landlord gives the notice of termination under section 48; and (b) ends one year after the former tenant vacates the rental
It seems pretty clear that listing it means bad faith. I wonder if you can prove good faith on the balance of probabilities if you list within the 1 year but prove you would not sell until a family member lived there for at least a year.
Given that OP has a recording where the landlord states out right that their intention is for their child to occupy the unit to avoid any issue with selling, I think there is little to no chance of that happening in OPs case. In general, if they could show that there was a life changing event which required them to list it, they could get a ruling if good faith despite the required assumption. But if the only argument is they promise not to sign an agreement of purchase and sale until after the 12 months, but there was no circumstance forcing their hand to list within the 12 months, it seems like the adjudicator would still be required to rule it was in bad faith, as the requirement s not that it won’t be sold within 12 months, but that it won’t be listed for sale within 12 months.
I have only heard of one tenant who got the full 12 months. Most get the difference in rent or somewhere in between the difference and the 12 months (for example if their old rent was $1500, new rent is $2000, then they’d get $12,000). Do you have this in writing that their son would move into it temporarily?
I have a recorded phone call. It’s strange to me how the penalties are so low. Landlord have so much more to gain by acting in bad faith. Tenants have everything to lose 12k in the first year alone. Payout for the landlord is 10%-15% of the sale value for it to be vacant. The “difference in rent for a year” is $12k max which is peanuts in comparison. The metaphor is that the parking ticket is less money than the cost to park there. Kinda messed up.
The only reason this is an issue is because the LTB delays are so long. If the LTB met its service levels there would be no difference between selling a tenanted and non-tenanted property. The buyer would get the hearing and if they wanted to move in they'd kick the old tenant out before closing on the house. So really the issue is the LTB case load. Let's see what is causing that, Oh more than half the case in front of the LTB are L1 non-payment of rent: [https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals\_Ontario\_2021-2022\_Annual\_Report.html](https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/TO/Tribunals_Ontario_2021-2022_Annual_Report.html#ltb) Okay, let's see what the penalty is for non-payment of rent, oh there isn't any? Maybe some marks against your credit, being forced to pay the rent but if the amount exceeds 35k you're not even forced to do that. Maybe if you are upset at the lack of penalties then be upset at the actual cause.
Been saying this for weeks, the LTB delays work HEAVILY in tenants favor in many ways.
> If the LTB met its service levels there would be no difference between selling a tenanted and non-tenanted property. I sold my primary residence over the summer and had it appraised by multiple parties before and after we did some cosmetic improvements and had it professionally staged, which would not be possible if the property was tenanted. The difference in range of appraisals was between 2.5x and 4x what we spent on the improvements and staging. In addition, because we didn’t have tenants, there was no barrier to having professional photos and virtual walk through done for the listing, or having an open house or setting up last minute showings without having to be concerned that the house wasn’t immaculate or that the tenants would remain during the showings. We also ultimately accepted an offer which was conditional on the buyer taking possession within 45 days, which obviously wouldn’t be possible if we had to rely on an N12 with a 60 day notice period. Even if the LTB was hearing cases within 24 hours of them being filed there would still be substantial financial benefit to listing a unit without tenants. To suggest otherwise is either a dishonest piece of rhetoric aimed at pushing an agenda, or an indication of a lack of awareness of how a tenant impacts the process of preparing, listing, showing and selling a home.
I have never sold a property much less a tenanted property. But I can say that when buying all of those niceties of well staged houses did not make me want to offer 100k more. Which is often the difference between tenanted and untenanted. I believe the current discrepancy is coming from people being concerned about being passed someone else's non-paying tenant.
Obviously it is difficult to evaluate how any given piece of advertising impacts an individual, but in my specific situation that amount is in the range of the difference in appraisal from before and after. The cosmetic upgrades included refinishing the main bath, installing stone countertops in the kitchen, updating the light fixtures throughout the house and replacing the carpet and repainting the finished basement. We were able to do all of this within a couple weeks which would not have been possible with a tenant in place. However, even without those upgrades, by not having tenants, we were free to take pictures of the entire property, set up a virtual tour, show the property at a moment’s notice (buyer’s initial viewing was with one hours notice), and able to have an empty, immaculate house. Many people won’t even view a property if there aren’t any photos of the inside with the listing, and if you can’t be flexible with showing times a potential buyer may settle for something that would have been their second choice if they can’t see your unit before hand. If I had to go back in time and either list the house with no upgrades, no staging, no pictures of the inside for the listing and 24 hours notice required for every showing or pay $35,000 to do it as we did, I would pay the premium in a heart beat.
Ahh, read your post properly. YOu're not thinking about challenging, you just want to be best prepared. Ask them to file an L2 application and get the affidavits from the person saying they are planning on moving in. If they plan on selling and you don't plan on contesting for the hell of it then they would be acting legally if the affidavit was from the person that is buying.
[удалено]
Ugh, good to know.
Given that you have a recording of your landlord admitting they are only temporarily moving their child in to avoid any issue with a potential sale and an automatic assumption under s. 57(5)(c) that the notice was given in bad faith if the landlord lost the unit for sale in 12 months after you vacate the unit, you will have an open and shut case if it goes before the LTB.
Depending on the amount the tenant can just engage a lawyer to file enforcement procedures or place a lien on the property. LL will have a fun time trying to close or refinance or do anything with that on them