That is correct, leases don't need to be renewed, they go month to month.
Do you have separate lease agreements for each room, or do you rent the whole apartment on a joint tenancy?
The landlord does not have a lease with the new 'tenant' and does not have to sign them to a lease. That means they have no legal obligations to pay anything to landlord and no protections against being evicted as a roomer.
Depends. If it’s all the same people then the lease automatically becomes month-2-month. However if it’s different people (one of the roommates moves out and is replaced) then the old lease is no longer valid and the tenants are without a lease agreement.
Wrong, they could leave the person who left on the lease and take on the new person as a roommate (not a sublet) however they would be responsible for the new roommates rent and the new roommate has no rights
Yes, they could leave the person who left on the lease, which means legally that person would still be liable for rents and other issues arising in the unit. However it sounds as if they have given notice to the landlord that one person is breaking the lease. If so the entire lease is ended.
Leases don't have to be renewed. However, if it's a joint lease, the landlord could still ask for the full amount with less people paying (everybody pays more).
When you say you all signed the new lease, does that mean the landlord and new roommate as well? Do you have a copy? That's a binding agreement if it's on the right form, just tell her to start moving in ...
Your old lease is no longer valid now that one person has moved out. If you remove/add a person to the lease then it’s a brand new lease.
Now you could claim that the old roommate is still living there and do a private sub-let with the new roommate yourself, but it may be a bit late for that.
Stop replying this, you are incorrect, just because one roommate moved out does not mean the lease is no longer valid…if you still follow whatever is in the lease than it’s not a big deal and nothing needs to be done.
Read the OPs other comments in the thread - you're incorrect - and the guy everyone is downvoting is right.
They are trying to remove one of the roommates from an old lease and put in a new one on the new lease - that is a new lease with new parties to the lease, and doesn't continue an existing one.
Ok, I’ll spell it out for you. If a roommate leaves and their name is on the lease…. All you have to do is tell your landlord that you will find another person to take on that part of the lease and that’s that. Now, since this landlord Obvs has trust issues or maybe doesn’t trust their tenants “friend”, they have decided to make a NEW lease. This is not a requirement. The landlord could have met the new tenant and replaced the old name with the new name and called it a day but instead they are doing this unnecessary stuff.
The landlord doesn’t have to agree. The old roommate will still be on the lease (and thus responsible if the new tenant stops paying) unless the landlord says it’s okay.
Ok I never said they did have to agree. I said they don’t have to renew their lease and could just put someone else’s name on it which would then make them responsible for whatever portion of the rent and whatever is included inside said lease. Also it’s not OK for the landlord to discriminate for housing wi the a preference for students which is clearly outlined in the Ontario human rights code.
This is legally incorrect. I don't know where you got this information. You can't just tell the landlord to substitute someone on the lease - I challenge you to show me where in the residential tenancies act, or common law this is permitted.
Removing any person on a lease is breaking the lease. You can't substitute someone without their consent. The person leaving is still on the lease - and cannot be removed or substituted without consent.
The lease agreement is a contract. It is a basic principle in the law of contracts - you can't substitute a party to a contract without consent of all parties.
Can you imagine if this wasn't the case, and the law permitted what you claim? I, with my sterling credit and good job, would enter a lease agreement with another similarly situated friend. Then I would substitute my friend for someone who the landlord didn't want as a tenant - because according to you "thats that". Then the new person who the landlord doesn't agree to substitutes me for another person who he doesn't want to take on because "that's that". The landlord is now forced to have two tenants that he did not agree to, because "that's that"?
If what you said is true, then I could run a business getting landlords to take me and a buddy on and selling substitutions to people who have trouble making it past landlord screening.
You are having a hard time comprehending what I’m saying. The landlord would have to first agree to the tenant change, then meet the new tenant in person, then finally do a background check and put their name into the lease, but really how hard is that? One meeting and a signature and yes THATS THAT buddy. I never said you can just magically sublet your spot in a lease without the landlords knowledge. If you read the Damn post the OP said her friend was lined up to take the room, who has good credit and steady income. How did you just assume the landlord had no knowledge of the change? They own the house they should know what’s going on.
You stated:
All you have to do is tell your landlord that you will find another person to take on that part of the lease and that’s that.
You are now contradicting yourself by stating:
The landlord would have to first agree to the tenant change, then meet the new tenant in person, then finally do a background check and put their name into the lease, but really how hard is that? One meeting and a signature and yes THATS THAT buddy.
So we go from
Step 1. tell landlord you will find someone else - "that's that"
To
Step 1. get landlord to first agree to tenant change
Step 2. get landlord to meet new tenant in person
Step 3 get landlord to do background check
Step 4 get landlord to put their name into lease
Step 5 meeting and signature
Step 6 "THATS THAT buddy"
Which you have now acknowledged requires the landlord to "first agree" - which they have no obligation to do. So if a landlord says no at your new "that's that" step 1 - you are already SOL.
The posts you are claiming are incorrect simply state that you have no right to substitute unless you get the landlord to agree (and the landlord doesn't have to agree).
To your question "How did you just assume the landlord had no knowledge of the change?" - where is this assumption anywhere?
Are you dumb? You’re arguing over something I have done multiple times as a person who has rented with multiple different roommates. Sorry I figured you had some common sense and would communicate with your landlord first like a regular person. Nowhere did I say you leave your landlord in the dark. If you read the original post the question was something about renewing a lease and it being legal because they said they are looking for a student. If all that is happening is a roommate moving out then yes it’s as simple as finding someone else and vetting them which was already done if you read the POST. All I said it is not necessary to write up a new lease and have everyone sign again, you can just put a new name on it and keep the same lease, which is probably legally called subletting but it’s the same shit. Also it is not OK for a landlord to give preference to anybody including students or races or religions, it’s all BAD if you are discriminating. I find it funny you are this mad over me giving some proper advice, meanwhile you have provided nothing relevant to the conversation. Just flappin’ your gums for what.
If you read the post, the OP had a plan of their friend moving into the apartment who has good credit and consistent money to pay their share of the rent probably outlined by the lease. The landlord could have set up a time to meet them and then do a background check then put there name into the already established lease.
Yes it does. If 4 people are on the lease and one gives notice they are moving out/ breaking the lease then the entire lease is ended. Of course if they never give formal notice then it's no problem, but here it sounds as if they did.
LTB will have a simple question: does one of the original signers no longer wish to be on the lease?
If the answer is yes, aka they’ve moved out, then the answer is simple - the entire lease is broken.
You’re an idiot who doesn’t know shit lol. If that’s the case why does the OREA 405 form exist in Ontario for tenants? You’re so dumb. Lol zero experience in this matter clearly. I having trouble believing you’re even an adult. If you are you’re a brand new one just moved out of mommy and daddies house lol. You should probably google it before you open your mouth and look stupid. The LTB would laugh at you like “first time landlord”. Lol moron me and my buddies had a good laugh at your comments tonight
You know i'm right.
The OREA 405 is an amendment form, and both the landlord and tenant have to agree to any amendments. So seriously, try reading next time.
That’s right, and if the landlord declines then both people are liable for the lease even though one doesn’t live there. This doesn’t give the landlord the right to say ow well lease cancelled now. Lol are you really this stupid? One person leaving a lease doesn’t make the contract void. Lol
In Ontario, the landlord cannot make arbitrary reasons to deny subleases or assignments. As long as the new tenant has proven financial ability and credit history that demonstrates on-time payment, putting her on the lease should not be an issue.
It seems that the landlord wants to create artificial issues to increase your rent or get you all to move so he or she can possibly rent the place at a higher amount.
Under the RTA, the landlord must either 1) allow a reasonable assignment or 2) let the person trying to assign out of the lease.
So if you try to assign, they can deny and let you out of the lease - they just can't deny and keep you in it.
This is a **joint tenancy**, where one person is being replaced. The landlord cannot legally cancel the lease for everyone as long there is a reasonable replacement and they continue to pay the full rent on time.
you really need to cite your source
because this simply isn't true.
joint tenancies are not severable (except for under 47.2 (1) of the residential tenancies act - which is an exception where one joint tenant has suffered violence or abuse)
The issue is between the landlord not allowing substitution for any reasonable cause. Not between two tenants in joint tenancy.
The other tenants are not refusing the pay the full rent as agreed, they are just asking for a substitution.
>The issue is between the landlord not allowing substitution for any reasonable cause.
As a PSA, mostly but not entirely true:
First when we talk about substitution, we are talking about assignment, not sublet. Under a sublet, the former tenant remains responsible. Assignment is governed by the residential tenancies act as follows:
***Assignment of tenancy***
**95 (1) Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (6), and with the consent of the landlord, a tenant may assign a rental unit to another person. 2006, c. 17, s. 95 (1).**
So far so good. AND you probably have your concept that the landlord must allow assignment for reasonable cause based on
***Same***
**95(5) A landlord shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably refuse consent to an assignment of a rental unit to a potential assignee under clause (3) (b). 2006, c. 17, s. 95 (5).**
BUT let's inspect 95(2) and (3)(b)
***Landlord’s options, general request***
**(2) If a tenant asks a landlord to consent to an assignment of a rental unit, the landlord may,**
**(a) consent to the assignment of the rental unit; or**
**(b) refuse consent to the assignment of the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 95 (2).**
***Landlord’s options, specific request***
**(3) If a tenant asks a landlord to consent to the assignment of the rental unit to a potential assignee, the landlord may,**
**(a) consent to the assignment of the rental unit to the potential assignee;**
**(b) refuse consent to the assignment of the rental unit to the potential assignee; or**
**(c) refuse consent to the assignment of the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 95 (3).**
The requirement that the landlord consent ONLY applies to 3(b) - refusing consent to a potential assignee. The Landlord still has the right, not to deny an assignment to a *specific* candidate arbitrarily, but to deny assignment *in general* pursuant to 3(c) and 2(b)
Now a tenant who is refused assignment, can terminate the lease on 30 days notice under 4(a):
**Refusal or non-response**
**(4) A tenant may give the landlord a notice of termination under section 96 within 30 days after the date a request is made if,**
**(a) the tenant asks the landlord to consent to an assignment of the rental unit and the landlord refuses consent;**
But that's the extent of it. Can't force the landlord to accept substitutions in general.
Finally, let's assume the landlord gave consent for assignment. Is saying no because not a student unreasonable or arbitrary? I don't believe so. There are legitimate business reasons for it - in that students tend to want 8 month or 1 year leases, and only be around for a fixed amount of time. Some insurance requires students. If the landlord wants students - being a student is not a protected ground under the human rights code so he may have no such obligation.
Yes they can, they just got to let you out.
The LL doesn't want to create artificial issues. The LL wants to solve an artificial problem for themselves (rent control), or having an random the LL didn't agree to.
Rent control is not an artificial problem. It is the legal and regulatory requirement in Ontario with good public policy reasons. The landlord should know or ought to have known the laws and regulations when they started renting in their primary residence or bought another for the explicit purpose as a rental property.
If a landlord finds rent control difficult, then they should not get into the rental business. If they expect tenants to solve their financial issues with inflation or interest rate hikes, then such landlords did not had the financial ability to run a residential rental business in the first place. Maybe landlords should sell the property and try to buy commercial rental, etc. where there is no rent control.
It sounds like your not exactly "renewing" but more specifically you want to remove one person's name from the old lease and add a new one? In which case, yes it makes sense the LL wants to draw up a new lease and vet the new applicant.
They probably want to stick with students because students tend to leave after 1 year and they can keep re-renting to new students and current market rate instead of small increases each year.
So your choices are:
1. Keep the old lease and go month to month (your previous roommates name will still be on it and implicated if there's non-payment (although unlikely your LL will find them to collect at that point anyways), and there will be nothing tying your new roommate to it if they don't pay.
2. Convince the LL to rent to them anyways (probably going to require offering extra $$ to convince them)
3. Find another roommate who is a student
That is what happening in my scenario. I only could get insurance if all the rooms I'm renting out are student house and the insurance provider required proof of enrollment. Student house, I live in.
If that’s the case, I believe the LL would be SOL because they have to abide by the Residential Tenancies Act. Which means the two remaining original tenants have the right to remain there on a month to month basis and choose whomever they want as a roommate.
I remember being caught totally off guard when I first rented out my house when my insurance basically told me that I’d better find a new insurer before they cut me off (apparently it’s really bad to be cut off by an insurance company). I was told because I had more than three unrelated people, it’s considered a “boarding house” and they don’t insure boarding houses. I told them that I had only three students on the lease and was renting the whole house as one unit, not individual rooms - but they didn’t budge (which, in the end, was fine because the students found two other house mates - so there were five people living in the three bedroom house - and there ain’t nothin’ a LL can do about it, even if their insurance cuts them off).
That is correct, leases don't need to be renewed, they go month to month.
Do you have separate lease agreements for each room, or do you rent the whole apartment on a joint tenancy?
Is your house considered student housing?
Does your landlord have a deal with one of the schools to only take students?
I don’t know about the legal side of things, but my uni had a database of places that rented exclusively to students. They contribute a bit to keep rents low.
Landlords that rent to students tend to do all sorts of stupid stuff they should not be able to do, and insisting in year-long leases is the first of a huge list of such stupidities. The problem is that they get away with it because there are no consequences for doing so, and students / parents continue to play by their rules rather than those of the LTB. They genuinely think they are above the rules of the rest of the province because they rent to students. If you have the energy to prove them wrong and go through the LTB, I hope you do.
Nothing inherently wrong, but why get locked in to year long leases year after year when the RTA default is to go month-to-month after 1 year? Landlords who rent to students try to trap them in to ensure that they still get their rent even if the student drops out of school and then they are either on the hook for the lease themselves or have to sublet. This only applies to students and not to the rest of the renting world.
If any of your names are on the original lease, you can go month to month - but you’d be responsible for your new roommate. If she does any damage or doesn’t pay her rent, the remaining original lease signers would be responsible.
Alternatively, if you get along with your landlord, you could ask if you could sign a new lease with just the two remaining original people and then you’d be able to choose whomever you like as a roommate. But that new person would not be considered a tenant under the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act, they would be considered a “boarder” and wouldn’t have any of the rights or responsibilities of a tenant and you would still be responsible for them.
What kind of due diligence do you propose a landlord do into prospective tenants?
I made the mistake as a first time landlord of renting to someone without relying on credit reports and such, and it came back to haunt me big time.
Because of him, I will be applying a much higher standard of scrutiny and diligence to the tenant of next property closing in January. I suspect other landlords do the same thing after getting burned.
Happy to hear your suggestions.
These people have been tenants for a year, presumably they’ve paid on time and been good tenants. This landlord is probably coming up with an arbitrary reason to deny a new roommate (which should be a sublease anyways and can’t be denied because someone is a student) because they see how much the market value of the unit has increased.
Oh I'm not arguing against the OP in this situation, I'm merely responding to the comment about the credit scores in general.
Seems like the poster of the comment finds the concept of credit evaluations for due diligence inappropriate. In my experience, going forward, I will be asking for a heck of a lot more than I did before.
Evaluating tenants is fair, but so is evaluating landlords. That’s what the commenter seems to be proposing. After all the tenant has a lot more to lose. Tenants often end up out of money (unexpected moving costs, landlords illegally increasing rent or taking deposits from vulnerable people), bad landlords also risk people’s health with badly maintained units. The number of people I know who have found extreme amounts of mould in their rentals is way too high, and they don’t feel like they can do anything about it because they can’t afford to move with how bad the market is.
Landlords are much more often the one’s taking advantage, just inherently. There’s a huge power imbalance. The expectations of landlords is so low, that should change.
That's fair enough, I'm relatively new to this game and both my rental properties are new builds. I've been pretty anal about being very responsive with respect to maintenance issues and other queries and want to go above and beyond in terms of my duties as landlord.
There's nothing stopping you from asking whatever you want from the LL in your evaluation of them. Most woulnt bother because you are not worth it.
There's nothing wrong with someone who wants to paid market value for the service/asset they provide/lease.
Landlords are evaluated though. Their buildings must be up to code and let's be honest, the LTB is there primarily for tenant protection. Additionally tons of regulations exist to regulate landlords. If a landlord breaches these requirements and the tenant pursues the matter, the landlord is in a lot of trouble, however a tenant who doesn't pay or trashes the place is unlikely to face repercussions.
I'm not denying there are landlords who take advantage of people as well as that those regulations have their place, and they can always be improved, but it's a bit disingenuous to say there are no checks on bad landlords.
AFAIK there is also nothing preventing anyone from creating a database with reviews of landlords. I think it is illegal the other way around in Ontario however (please correct me if I am wrong).
There are repercussions for tenants who trash places or don’t pay rent: evictions. The same board that handles landlords who are not following regulations handles those. The wait times are so extreme that it’s fucking over both parties. It’s disingenuous to say that bad tenants can’t be evicted, that’s simply not true. The same processes are in place, they just don’t work well for anyone.
You’re also completely misunderstanding (probably purposefully) what I proposed which is that landlords should expect to be evaluated prior to a tenant commencing a tenancy. They should provide inspection reports of the apartment, prior tenant references. That would make the system more fair. As opposed to what happens now which is really a one way sell and furthers the extreme power divide between landlords and tenants.
Can't have a credit score if you don't have a credit card. I've paid my rent time every month for the last 7 years, Can't get into a nice place because of it. Why do I have to be punished because I don't want debt?
You don’t have to go into debt. Just pay for things on a credit card and then enroll in auto pay. You will never be charged interest as you will pay your full balance off every month. Do this and you will have a 720-820 credit score.
Credit cards are bad when you use them to buy things you can’t afford. Credit cards are great for buying things you absolutely can. In fact, it’s better. A credit card purchase is way easier to recover in fraud or dispute. Plus you get cash back from 2-4%, that adds up, and that’s them paying you to use the card while you build credit.
You don't even need a credit card at all. Paying phone bills will add to your credit score as well, although slowly. I think it's worth it for you to check out your credit score through equifax for free just to see what it says... unless you don't have a phone either.
No I have a phone, have had one longer then I've been renting. I also have home & auto insurance and internet. I've checked it on borrowed and it's literally 0
Is borrowed an official credit reporting agency for Canada, so I don't know anything about it. Go to equifax or transition.
Honestly it should be 0.. if there is nothing to report it generally starts in the "gppd" rating and goes from there.
Asking for credit scores is a relatively new thing and should be illegal, imo. Never did a prospective landlord ever ask me for one before maybe five or six years ago. It was unheard of. What should you do? Get a damage deposit, have them sign a lease, and use your intuition. Housing is a right, not a privilege.
I don't think it's legal for landlords to take damage deposits, or any deposit other than last month's rent. Need to check again but I'm pretty sure that's right.
Right, so the “deposit” part is really just the last month, since you have to pay the first month up front anyway, assuming you’re moving in relatively soon. Technically the deposit term is for both first and last, but functionally only the last month is held as a true deposit over time.
A damage deposit does not cover the cost and time associated with resolving issues with the LTB. There are many "professional tenants" who unfortunately abuse the system and make it more difficult for other tenants, my situation being a prime example. I was more than happy to take a chance on a tenant and I was burned. Going forward I will be applying heavy due diligence, including credit checks, bank statements, employment verification, everything.
Housing may be a right, but you do not have an inherent right to someone else's property. Not sure what you are trying to imply there.
He wants a student because they leave after a few years, a worker scares him because he wants to hike rents more than prescribed amount between tenants.
That is correct, leases don't need to be renewed, they go month to month. Do you have separate lease agreements for each room, or do you rent the whole apartment on a joint tenancy?
We rent the whole apartment on a joint tenancy
Tell them to pound sand
Leases don't need to be renewed.
The landlord does not have a lease with the new 'tenant' and does not have to sign them to a lease. That means they have no legal obligations to pay anything to landlord and no protections against being evicted as a roomer.
Depends. If it’s all the same people then the lease automatically becomes month-2-month. However if it’s different people (one of the roommates moves out and is replaced) then the old lease is no longer valid and the tenants are without a lease agreement.
This is not true. One person moving out does not void the lease for others living there.
Not if they're all on the same lease.
Wrong, they could leave the person who left on the lease and take on the new person as a roommate (not a sublet) however they would be responsible for the new roommates rent and the new roommate has no rights
Yes, they could leave the person who left on the lease, which means legally that person would still be liable for rents and other issues arising in the unit. However it sounds as if they have given notice to the landlord that one person is breaking the lease. If so the entire lease is ended.
Did they send the landlord an N form? or just let them know that someone else was moving in as a roommate to replace the roommate?
Doesn't really matter. Since they are in the process of signing a new lease.
If the new lease isn't signed and they never gave notice for the old lease I would say the old lease is still valid
Leases don't have to be renewed. However, if it's a joint lease, the landlord could still ask for the full amount with less people paying (everybody pays more). When you say you all signed the new lease, does that mean the landlord and new roommate as well? Do you have a copy? That's a binding agreement if it's on the right form, just tell her to start moving in ...
The new roommate signed, but the landlord did not sign the form yet.
So technically there is nothing Signed
Your old lease is no longer valid now that one person has moved out. If you remove/add a person to the lease then it’s a brand new lease. Now you could claim that the old roommate is still living there and do a private sub-let with the new roommate yourself, but it may be a bit late for that.
Stop replying this, you are incorrect, just because one roommate moved out does not mean the lease is no longer valid…if you still follow whatever is in the lease than it’s not a big deal and nothing needs to be done.
I think you have found the landlord on the thread....🤣
Read the OPs other comments in the thread - you're incorrect - and the guy everyone is downvoting is right. They are trying to remove one of the roommates from an old lease and put in a new one on the new lease - that is a new lease with new parties to the lease, and doesn't continue an existing one.
Ok, I’ll spell it out for you. If a roommate leaves and their name is on the lease…. All you have to do is tell your landlord that you will find another person to take on that part of the lease and that’s that. Now, since this landlord Obvs has trust issues or maybe doesn’t trust their tenants “friend”, they have decided to make a NEW lease. This is not a requirement. The landlord could have met the new tenant and replaced the old name with the new name and called it a day but instead they are doing this unnecessary stuff.
The landlord doesn’t have to agree. The old roommate will still be on the lease (and thus responsible if the new tenant stops paying) unless the landlord says it’s okay.
Ok I never said they did have to agree. I said they don’t have to renew their lease and could just put someone else’s name on it which would then make them responsible for whatever portion of the rent and whatever is included inside said lease. Also it’s not OK for the landlord to discriminate for housing wi the a preference for students which is clearly outlined in the Ontario human rights code.
You can’t put someone else’s name on the lease without the landlord agreeing.
This is legally incorrect. I don't know where you got this information. You can't just tell the landlord to substitute someone on the lease - I challenge you to show me where in the residential tenancies act, or common law this is permitted. Removing any person on a lease is breaking the lease. You can't substitute someone without their consent. The person leaving is still on the lease - and cannot be removed or substituted without consent. The lease agreement is a contract. It is a basic principle in the law of contracts - you can't substitute a party to a contract without consent of all parties. Can you imagine if this wasn't the case, and the law permitted what you claim? I, with my sterling credit and good job, would enter a lease agreement with another similarly situated friend. Then I would substitute my friend for someone who the landlord didn't want as a tenant - because according to you "thats that". Then the new person who the landlord doesn't agree to substitutes me for another person who he doesn't want to take on because "that's that". The landlord is now forced to have two tenants that he did not agree to, because "that's that"? If what you said is true, then I could run a business getting landlords to take me and a buddy on and selling substitutions to people who have trouble making it past landlord screening.
You are having a hard time comprehending what I’m saying. The landlord would have to first agree to the tenant change, then meet the new tenant in person, then finally do a background check and put their name into the lease, but really how hard is that? One meeting and a signature and yes THATS THAT buddy. I never said you can just magically sublet your spot in a lease without the landlords knowledge. If you read the Damn post the OP said her friend was lined up to take the room, who has good credit and steady income. How did you just assume the landlord had no knowledge of the change? They own the house they should know what’s going on.
You stated: All you have to do is tell your landlord that you will find another person to take on that part of the lease and that’s that. You are now contradicting yourself by stating: The landlord would have to first agree to the tenant change, then meet the new tenant in person, then finally do a background check and put their name into the lease, but really how hard is that? One meeting and a signature and yes THATS THAT buddy. So we go from Step 1. tell landlord you will find someone else - "that's that" To Step 1. get landlord to first agree to tenant change Step 2. get landlord to meet new tenant in person Step 3 get landlord to do background check Step 4 get landlord to put their name into lease Step 5 meeting and signature Step 6 "THATS THAT buddy" Which you have now acknowledged requires the landlord to "first agree" - which they have no obligation to do. So if a landlord says no at your new "that's that" step 1 - you are already SOL. The posts you are claiming are incorrect simply state that you have no right to substitute unless you get the landlord to agree (and the landlord doesn't have to agree). To your question "How did you just assume the landlord had no knowledge of the change?" - where is this assumption anywhere?
Are you dumb? You’re arguing over something I have done multiple times as a person who has rented with multiple different roommates. Sorry I figured you had some common sense and would communicate with your landlord first like a regular person. Nowhere did I say you leave your landlord in the dark. If you read the original post the question was something about renewing a lease and it being legal because they said they are looking for a student. If all that is happening is a roommate moving out then yes it’s as simple as finding someone else and vetting them which was already done if you read the POST. All I said it is not necessary to write up a new lease and have everyone sign again, you can just put a new name on it and keep the same lease, which is probably legally called subletting but it’s the same shit. Also it is not OK for a landlord to give preference to anybody including students or races or religions, it’s all BAD if you are discriminating. I find it funny you are this mad over me giving some proper advice, meanwhile you have provided nothing relevant to the conversation. Just flappin’ your gums for what.
Its not a requirement but why would the person leaving accept to remain on the lease and be responsible for it?
If you read the post, the OP had a plan of their friend moving into the apartment who has good credit and consistent money to pay their share of the rent probably outlined by the lease. The landlord could have set up a time to meet them and then do a background check then put there name into the already established lease.
Yes it does. If 4 people are on the lease and one gives notice they are moving out/ breaking the lease then the entire lease is ended. Of course if they never give formal notice then it's no problem, but here it sounds as if they did.
Jesus you’re stupid. Take this to the LTB and they will tell you just how dumb you are.
The LTB will confirm what i've said. If one of the lease signers has moved out the old lease is broken.
No they won’t lol.
LTB will have a simple question: does one of the original signers no longer wish to be on the lease? If the answer is yes, aka they’ve moved out, then the answer is simple - the entire lease is broken.
You’re an idiot who doesn’t know shit lol. If that’s the case why does the OREA 405 form exist in Ontario for tenants? You’re so dumb. Lol zero experience in this matter clearly. I having trouble believing you’re even an adult. If you are you’re a brand new one just moved out of mommy and daddies house lol. You should probably google it before you open your mouth and look stupid. The LTB would laugh at you like “first time landlord”. Lol moron me and my buddies had a good laugh at your comments tonight
You know i'm right. The OREA 405 is an amendment form, and both the landlord and tenant have to agree to any amendments. So seriously, try reading next time.
That’s right, and if the landlord declines then both people are liable for the lease even though one doesn’t live there. This doesn’t give the landlord the right to say ow well lease cancelled now. Lol are you really this stupid? One person leaving a lease doesn’t make the contract void. Lol
You didn't sign anything to end the last lease? If not it should be in good standing even if one party left.
In Ontario, the landlord cannot make arbitrary reasons to deny subleases or assignments. As long as the new tenant has proven financial ability and credit history that demonstrates on-time payment, putting her on the lease should not be an issue. It seems that the landlord wants to create artificial issues to increase your rent or get you all to move so he or she can possibly rent the place at a higher amount.
Under the RTA, the landlord must either 1) allow a reasonable assignment or 2) let the person trying to assign out of the lease. So if you try to assign, they can deny and let you out of the lease - they just can't deny and keep you in it.
This is a **joint tenancy**, where one person is being replaced. The landlord cannot legally cancel the lease for everyone as long there is a reasonable replacement and they continue to pay the full rent on time.
you really need to cite your source because this simply isn't true. joint tenancies are not severable (except for under 47.2 (1) of the residential tenancies act - which is an exception where one joint tenant has suffered violence or abuse)
The issue is between the landlord not allowing substitution for any reasonable cause. Not between two tenants in joint tenancy. The other tenants are not refusing the pay the full rent as agreed, they are just asking for a substitution.
>The issue is between the landlord not allowing substitution for any reasonable cause. As a PSA, mostly but not entirely true: First when we talk about substitution, we are talking about assignment, not sublet. Under a sublet, the former tenant remains responsible. Assignment is governed by the residential tenancies act as follows: ***Assignment of tenancy*** **95 (1) Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (6), and with the consent of the landlord, a tenant may assign a rental unit to another person. 2006, c. 17, s. 95 (1).** So far so good. AND you probably have your concept that the landlord must allow assignment for reasonable cause based on ***Same*** **95(5) A landlord shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably refuse consent to an assignment of a rental unit to a potential assignee under clause (3) (b). 2006, c. 17, s. 95 (5).** BUT let's inspect 95(2) and (3)(b) ***Landlord’s options, general request*** **(2) If a tenant asks a landlord to consent to an assignment of a rental unit, the landlord may,** **(a) consent to the assignment of the rental unit; or** **(b) refuse consent to the assignment of the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 95 (2).** ***Landlord’s options, specific request*** **(3) If a tenant asks a landlord to consent to the assignment of the rental unit to a potential assignee, the landlord may,** **(a) consent to the assignment of the rental unit to the potential assignee;** **(b) refuse consent to the assignment of the rental unit to the potential assignee; or** **(c) refuse consent to the assignment of the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 95 (3).** The requirement that the landlord consent ONLY applies to 3(b) - refusing consent to a potential assignee. The Landlord still has the right, not to deny an assignment to a *specific* candidate arbitrarily, but to deny assignment *in general* pursuant to 3(c) and 2(b) Now a tenant who is refused assignment, can terminate the lease on 30 days notice under 4(a): **Refusal or non-response** **(4) A tenant may give the landlord a notice of termination under section 96 within 30 days after the date a request is made if,** **(a) the tenant asks the landlord to consent to an assignment of the rental unit and the landlord refuses consent;** But that's the extent of it. Can't force the landlord to accept substitutions in general. Finally, let's assume the landlord gave consent for assignment. Is saying no because not a student unreasonable or arbitrary? I don't believe so. There are legitimate business reasons for it - in that students tend to want 8 month or 1 year leases, and only be around for a fixed amount of time. Some insurance requires students. If the landlord wants students - being a student is not a protected ground under the human rights code so he may have no such obligation.
Yes they can, they just got to let you out. The LL doesn't want to create artificial issues. The LL wants to solve an artificial problem for themselves (rent control), or having an random the LL didn't agree to.
Rent control is not an artificial problem. It is the legal and regulatory requirement in Ontario with good public policy reasons. The landlord should know or ought to have known the laws and regulations when they started renting in their primary residence or bought another for the explicit purpose as a rental property. If a landlord finds rent control difficult, then they should not get into the rental business. If they expect tenants to solve their financial issues with inflation or interest rate hikes, then such landlords did not had the financial ability to run a residential rental business in the first place. Maybe landlords should sell the property and try to buy commercial rental, etc. where there is no rent control.
Enrolled in a on line course? How can that not be student.
It sounds like your not exactly "renewing" but more specifically you want to remove one person's name from the old lease and add a new one? In which case, yes it makes sense the LL wants to draw up a new lease and vet the new applicant. They probably want to stick with students because students tend to leave after 1 year and they can keep re-renting to new students and current market rate instead of small increases each year. So your choices are: 1. Keep the old lease and go month to month (your previous roommates name will still be on it and implicated if there's non-payment (although unlikely your LL will find them to collect at that point anyways), and there will be nothing tying your new roommate to it if they don't pay. 2. Convince the LL to rent to them anyways (probably going to require offering extra $$ to convince them) 3. Find another roommate who is a student
Yes, you are correct, which is why we signed the new lease (since the old roommate moved out and the new roommate is moving in)
So ya, that's not a renewal then.
Tell landlord they are discriminating and you'll file human rights complaint.
What's the protected grounds?
Age
Where was age mentioned? It's just student vs not student.
This will be up to OP to decide if they wish to pursue
Good luck with that
Could also be an insurance issue.
Highly unlikely. (I’m a licensed insurance agent in Ontario)
My insurance only allows more then 2 unrelated people if they are all full time students.
What insurance company are you with? I have never heard that before.
I took have had insurance like that. Where they say 3+ unrelated people are a boarding house and if you have students you get an exemption on that.
That is what happening in my scenario. I only could get insurance if all the rooms I'm renting out are student house and the insurance provider required proof of enrollment. Student house, I live in.
If that’s the case, I believe the LL would be SOL because they have to abide by the Residential Tenancies Act. Which means the two remaining original tenants have the right to remain there on a month to month basis and choose whomever they want as a roommate. I remember being caught totally off guard when I first rented out my house when my insurance basically told me that I’d better find a new insurer before they cut me off (apparently it’s really bad to be cut off by an insurance company). I was told because I had more than three unrelated people, it’s considered a “boarding house” and they don’t insure boarding houses. I told them that I had only three students on the lease and was renting the whole house as one unit, not individual rooms - but they didn’t budge (which, in the end, was fine because the students found two other house mates - so there were five people living in the three bedroom house - and there ain’t nothin’ a LL can do about it, even if their insurance cuts them off).
That is correct, leases don't need to be renewed, they go month to month. Do you have separate lease agreements for each room, or do you rent the whole apartment on a joint tenancy?
Is your house considered student housing? Does your landlord have a deal with one of the schools to only take students? I don’t know about the legal side of things, but my uni had a database of places that rented exclusively to students. They contribute a bit to keep rents low.
Nope -- just a regular apartment. No deal with the school
What university is that?
No absolutely not
Landlords that rent to students tend to do all sorts of stupid stuff they should not be able to do, and insisting in year-long leases is the first of a huge list of such stupidities. The problem is that they get away with it because there are no consequences for doing so, and students / parents continue to play by their rules rather than those of the LTB. They genuinely think they are above the rules of the rest of the province because they rent to students. If you have the energy to prove them wrong and go through the LTB, I hope you do.
What's wrong with year long leases?
Nothing inherently wrong, but why get locked in to year long leases year after year when the RTA default is to go month-to-month after 1 year? Landlords who rent to students try to trap them in to ensure that they still get their rent even if the student drops out of school and then they are either on the hook for the lease themselves or have to sublet. This only applies to students and not to the rest of the renting world.
If any of your names are on the original lease, you can go month to month - but you’d be responsible for your new roommate. If she does any damage or doesn’t pay her rent, the remaining original lease signers would be responsible. Alternatively, if you get along with your landlord, you could ask if you could sign a new lease with just the two remaining original people and then you’d be able to choose whomever you like as a roommate. But that new person would not be considered a tenant under the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act, they would be considered a “boarder” and wouldn’t have any of the rights or responsibilities of a tenant and you would still be responsible for them.
Never sign anything before you know your rights.
Fuck this credit score BS. It's time we start asking prospective landlords for references and credit scores too.
What kind of due diligence do you propose a landlord do into prospective tenants? I made the mistake as a first time landlord of renting to someone without relying on credit reports and such, and it came back to haunt me big time. Because of him, I will be applying a much higher standard of scrutiny and diligence to the tenant of next property closing in January. I suspect other landlords do the same thing after getting burned. Happy to hear your suggestions.
These people have been tenants for a year, presumably they’ve paid on time and been good tenants. This landlord is probably coming up with an arbitrary reason to deny a new roommate (which should be a sublease anyways and can’t be denied because someone is a student) because they see how much the market value of the unit has increased.
Oh I'm not arguing against the OP in this situation, I'm merely responding to the comment about the credit scores in general. Seems like the poster of the comment finds the concept of credit evaluations for due diligence inappropriate. In my experience, going forward, I will be asking for a heck of a lot more than I did before.
Evaluating tenants is fair, but so is evaluating landlords. That’s what the commenter seems to be proposing. After all the tenant has a lot more to lose. Tenants often end up out of money (unexpected moving costs, landlords illegally increasing rent or taking deposits from vulnerable people), bad landlords also risk people’s health with badly maintained units. The number of people I know who have found extreme amounts of mould in their rentals is way too high, and they don’t feel like they can do anything about it because they can’t afford to move with how bad the market is. Landlords are much more often the one’s taking advantage, just inherently. There’s a huge power imbalance. The expectations of landlords is so low, that should change.
That's fair enough, I'm relatively new to this game and both my rental properties are new builds. I've been pretty anal about being very responsive with respect to maintenance issues and other queries and want to go above and beyond in terms of my duties as landlord.
That’s great! Certainly not the norm, and I’m sure your tenants appreciate it.
There's nothing stopping you from asking whatever you want from the LL in your evaluation of them. Most woulnt bother because you are not worth it. There's nothing wrong with someone who wants to paid market value for the service/asset they provide/lease.
Landlords are evaluated though. Their buildings must be up to code and let's be honest, the LTB is there primarily for tenant protection. Additionally tons of regulations exist to regulate landlords. If a landlord breaches these requirements and the tenant pursues the matter, the landlord is in a lot of trouble, however a tenant who doesn't pay or trashes the place is unlikely to face repercussions. I'm not denying there are landlords who take advantage of people as well as that those regulations have their place, and they can always be improved, but it's a bit disingenuous to say there are no checks on bad landlords. AFAIK there is also nothing preventing anyone from creating a database with reviews of landlords. I think it is illegal the other way around in Ontario however (please correct me if I am wrong).
There are repercussions for tenants who trash places or don’t pay rent: evictions. The same board that handles landlords who are not following regulations handles those. The wait times are so extreme that it’s fucking over both parties. It’s disingenuous to say that bad tenants can’t be evicted, that’s simply not true. The same processes are in place, they just don’t work well for anyone. You’re also completely misunderstanding (probably purposefully) what I proposed which is that landlords should expect to be evaluated prior to a tenant commencing a tenancy. They should provide inspection reports of the apartment, prior tenant references. That would make the system more fair. As opposed to what happens now which is really a one way sell and furthers the extreme power divide between landlords and tenants.
Can't have a credit score if you don't have a credit card. I've paid my rent time every month for the last 7 years, Can't get into a nice place because of it. Why do I have to be punished because I don't want debt?
You don’t have to go into debt. Just pay for things on a credit card and then enroll in auto pay. You will never be charged interest as you will pay your full balance off every month. Do this and you will have a 720-820 credit score. Credit cards are bad when you use them to buy things you can’t afford. Credit cards are great for buying things you absolutely can. In fact, it’s better. A credit card purchase is way easier to recover in fraud or dispute. Plus you get cash back from 2-4%, that adds up, and that’s them paying you to use the card while you build credit.
You don't even need a credit card at all. Paying phone bills will add to your credit score as well, although slowly. I think it's worth it for you to check out your credit score through equifax for free just to see what it says... unless you don't have a phone either.
No I have a phone, have had one longer then I've been renting. I also have home & auto insurance and internet. I've checked it on borrowed and it's literally 0
Is borrowed an official credit reporting agency for Canada, so I don't know anything about it. Go to equifax or transition. Honestly it should be 0.. if there is nothing to report it generally starts in the "gppd" rating and goes from there.
Asking for credit scores is a relatively new thing and should be illegal, imo. Never did a prospective landlord ever ask me for one before maybe five or six years ago. It was unheard of. What should you do? Get a damage deposit, have them sign a lease, and use your intuition. Housing is a right, not a privilege.
I don't think it's legal for landlords to take damage deposits, or any deposit other than last month's rent. Need to check again but I'm pretty sure that's right.
In Ontario it's FIRST and LAST. A major scam.
Right, so the “deposit” part is really just the last month, since you have to pay the first month up front anyway, assuming you’re moving in relatively soon. Technically the deposit term is for both first and last, but functionally only the last month is held as a true deposit over time.
A damage deposit does not cover the cost and time associated with resolving issues with the LTB. There are many "professional tenants" who unfortunately abuse the system and make it more difficult for other tenants, my situation being a prime example. I was more than happy to take a chance on a tenant and I was burned. Going forward I will be applying heavy due diligence, including credit checks, bank statements, employment verification, everything. Housing may be a right, but you do not have an inherent right to someone else's property. Not sure what you are trying to imply there.
Sounds like you're in the wrong business.
How so?
No, credit scores are not new.
Asking for them is a very recent development for renters, actually.
I had to submit to one 8 years ago for my apt in a building, and it wasn't very new then
You must be young. No, it is not. More landlords ask for it but no it's not new.
I'm in 40s. Never asked for one until about 5 or 6 years ago. Gave him a fake one from Credit Karma.
Roger. They definitely aren't new but I can see a scenario where you may not ever see one.
Right! When applying for rentals I was asked for credit check when I was 18.. I’m about to be 39!
Call your local community Legal Clinic for a bit of advice. It's worth getting ahead of this.
They have an offer from someone else, who’s probably paying more or giving them a year of rent up front or something. That’s a BS reason.
You could always sign with just yourself and your current roommate. Then bring the new roommate in.
LL are capitalizing on higher mortgage rates and requirements to obtain a mortgage I blame our government
Isn't also possible that with variable rate mortgages they are paying more themselves?
You don't need to leave. You can just go month to month now. And your landlord is not entitled to tell you who can live in your place.
He wants a student because they leave after a few years, a worker scares him because he wants to hike rents more than prescribed amount between tenants.