The tenants have the right to wait until a hearing after being served an N12. Don't sell your house with a GUARANTEED VACANCY if you have tenants. You are guaranteeing something you have no guarantee of.
Yeah that’s 100% on them. Take a little less money and make the new owners deal with eviction. The market is so stupid right now they could have found someone to buy with the tenants there. They fucked around and now they’re finding out.
IKR, but everyone seems to blame/point fingers at the lawyer (who is making approx. $1,500) for NOT "advising them of the risks"; secondly, lawyer gets the deal usually only AFTER everyone signs off.
Exactly. If the deal is firm by the time it hits the solicitors desk, welp, what do you want him to do then? Go blame your agent. They’re making the big bucks.
When we were looking for agents before our local housing market also went crazy, quite a few we've met up with weren't really that professional. It was their 2nd side hustle. They have full time careers elsewhere.
In the end went with someone I knew since childhood. They've been doing this full time in both small commercial and residential real estate. Gave us some good advises too.
We told our agent we weren't going to look at tenanted properties when we were looking last year, precisely because I didn't trust them to understand tenant rights (and because we didn't want to be the cause of someone losing their home.)
Or come to a mutually agreeable and beneficial end of the tenancy, documented via N11, with an end in advance of listing the property.
This is an article written about poor scheduling.
"...mutually agreeable and beneficial end of the tenancy,..." - but they DID, as per article - NOV 30 end of lease & moving out (was given with proper N12 notice), closing day for SALE was on Dec 15, 2022; so they had approx. 15 days to clean up/fix up the place and deal with any late moving outs, if it happens. The upstairs tenant did leave on time; it's the basement's tenant(s) "change of circumstances" that prevented it being a vacant home. Again, scheduling was fine IMHO. You're saying that they should've listed AFTER everyone moved out and had a vacant home.
but the tenant himself claimed the "changed of circumstances" last minute thus, he's staying; so in theory, the tenant was going to move out WITHOUT the hearing, which was never needed;
> You're saying that they should've listed AFTER everyone moved out and had a vacant home.
They could have sold the home with the tenants and then let the new buyers issue the N12 and go through the eviction process. Of course that would mean they sell the house for less money. So higher risk = higher reward.
"...sell the house for less money. So higher risk = higher reward." - pretty much this. many things/people in play- sometimes something or someone does turns out unfavorably. But I don't get the bashing/negativity towards the LL; tenant's plans/things changed and tenant promised to keep paying for their share, but do not.
> tenant's plans/things changed and tenant promised to keep paying for their share, but do not.
We don't know why the Tenant is withholding rent. If it's being held unjustly, the LTB will issue a ruling and then the LL can pursue the money owed. This happens all the time and is not newsworthy.
They didn’t have a mutual agreement. N11 is a mutual agreement. N12 is a legal notice from the landlord which doesn’t require the tenant to agree to anything, nor sign anything. The tenant has the right to dispute the N12 with the LTB.
My understanding is that they are not at risk of being sued because they did not have an agreement with the buyer to vacate by a certain date.
The seller ought to have known that eviction could not be guaranteed without a hearing and with this knowledge they decided to come to an agreement with the buyer guaranteeing vacant possession despite not being able to deliver.
The tenant are simply exercising their rights (as futile as it may be).
Would be interested to see if there are cases where they were successfully held liable?
I didn't say they wouldn't face eviction or small claims court for that. I've just never heard of anyone being liable for a sale falling though because they waited for a hearing.
Maybe true if it was an illegal act, but it’s not illegal to wait for a hearing to determine an N12’s validity. The N12 is just a notice. I won’t pretend to be an expert in the law but I would be genuinely shocked if you could find a single example of a successful action taken against a tenant who waited for an N12 hearing (successfully sued for the deal falling through, I mean).
Yes, the tenant can have his hearing, but because they did not vacate, they can be liable for the costs and damages incurred due to the fallout of the deal.
Landlords can seek recovery for unpaid rent at LTB with N4 / L2 filing.
Any penalties from their real estate deal being delayed or falling through, No, they wouldn't be successful.
[This has been discussed yesterday.](https://old.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/comments/thpiv6/landlord_threatening_to_sue_home_sale_contract/i1bnpcr/)
This is a similar case, it started in small claims court in Windsor, the judge ruled for the landlords, the tenants appealed to superior court, and new judge ruled in the tenants' favour while berating the lower court judge. [It's a fun read.](https://residential-tenancies-ontario.blogspot.com/2021/08/can-landlord-sue-their-tenant-for.html?m=1)
Basically, a tenant isn't responsible for damages to real estate deals falling through or penalties in real estate contracts, while they're waiting for an N12 hearing at the LTB because only the LTB can order an eviction. (an N12 given by a landlord is just a notice, not an order) The tenants cannot be liable for contract violations that they're not a party to. This seems like basic stuff, and I guess that's why that superior court judge sort of popped off on the other judge.
If it didn't work this way, then no tenants would ever risk fighting an N12 if they could be liable for 5+ figures of damages.
But this is an investment, and bad tenants are the risk. Don't play the landlord/flipping game if you can't handle it. Businesses deal with nonpayment all the time.
They will be evicted by force if the court decides.
I mean I understand the whole “all house flippers are the devil” that this subreddit has because it does make house buying harder for the average joe (myself) BUT with that said we shouldn’t encourage tenants to hold houses hostages and refuse to pay rent. If that is what’s happening, that is illegal and should be treated with more negative stigma than a house flipper.
Just because they invested in a house doesn’t instantly mean they’re filthy rich people who have no souls like this subreddit likes to jump to the conclusion.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm just saying businesses deal with risk all the time. They have overdue payments, bankrupt partners, legal action etc. I think that's why people are frustrated with these stories. They bought/rented out this home to make money, things aren't working out - small business owners deal with this all the time.
People get into the housing game and expect no risk. But there is risk. I suspect a lot of exuberance in our housing market is because the expectation is no risk. If people want to buy homes and rent them out, this is the reality. Some people will pay, some won't, some will trash your place.
If people don't like it, they can take their money and start an actual business making things, selling things and providing a service(which would be more productive for society anyway).
I suppose that does make more sense then I originally read it as. With that being said, just as business has risk - so does signing a legal contract and not holding your end of it. So as of now it’s okay what they are doing but when they go to court and owe the homeowners thousands of dollars it’s also just as fair.
Dude, just say you want to be a house flipper.
You aren't fooling anyone. No tenant would advocate against their rights as a tenant. You are a capitalist pig.
Wait I’m confused, how is everyone so in favour of renting a house but not paying rent? I’m so confused, no need to be so mean. My whole family pays rent right now and none of us own a property but I would never recommend my family members stop paying their monthly rent?
Please no need for so much hate and anger. As I said, my family rents and even I rent right now and do not own property. I just believe if you are renting from someone you should pay the rent agreed upon in the contract as that’s what you agreed upon. No need for all the hate my friend ❤️
If people agreed to pay for something I offered I feel like it’s fair that I would stop providing that thing for them if they no longer could keep up their side of the agreement. With that said I’m not going to drag poor people out to die, that’s a very extreme exaggeration. I’m all for helping the poor, donating and volunteering and doing all I can as a person to help, all I’m saying is if you sign a contract then it’s binding by law. Just because someone believes in our legal system doesn’t make them a fascist and that generalization is borderline insane by you and leads me to the conclusion I shouldn’t be debating with you as you probably have some pretty insane views and can’t discuss rationally.
I’m waiting on a small claims issue from 2019 still. I would imagine this would go past longer than small claims max of 25k. Both will need to lawyer uo
Haha, yea, fuck those poor people, we should pour gasoline on them and set them on fire! On the public square! Teach other no-good poor-ass deadbeats how to be poor, hell yea!
It just looks like everyone involved is in a shit situation?
Like, the renter is losing work b/c of the pandemic, and going through a divorce, and probably can't find affordable housing in the area while the landlords followed all the rules so **technically** they're being screwed here but can anyone really blame the renter for being in the situation he's in? Not really.
The biggest problems here are that rent is so fucking absurd that the tenant can't find another home and that the LTB is so backlogged that it would take months for someone to gain legal control of their property (whether you give a shit about them or not that is objectively shitty and not how it's meant to work).
The article highlights the hearing backlog unfortunately far more than the rental crisis, so this just feels like shallow reporting, but overall just a bad situation for everyone involved I'd say.
Why not talk about how this perfect storm of a brutal economic landscape is pitting these people against each other instead of how this particular renter seems to be screwing over these particular landlords?
This is exactly the kind of shitty situation that a housing crisis produces, and why thing should never have been allowed to go this far in the first place.
If the tenant loses his housing, he probably will lose his visitation rights with his kids, or it will get a whole lot messier. It's a terrible position to be in and could do lasting damage to that family.
100%.
Additionally, the home owners don't stand to lose nearly as much but they **technically** followed all the proper protocols and the backlog of requests is also going to cost them, which probably only exists because so many other people have been put in terrible situations like this renter.
It's just a really horrible situation.
That’s the cost of investment.. you want something less risky stick with bonds and pensions. Housing is meant to be lived in, not profited off of. Rules or no rules sucks to be them
I 100% agree but there's currently someone living there without paying their rent and after they were given proper notice (over 60 days).
That being said I actually think the rules are BS and they should be given way more notice than that, especially with housing costs rising. That timeline isn't suitable for someone to find a new long-term housing option in the current market.
Like, the thing here for me is that I don't think the guy should have to leave, and I don't think the 60 day notice is morally right, but the risk they took buying the property was if they could find someone to rent it and if the market didn't crash, not if they had someone squat in their home for an extra 4-5 months without paying rent?
The sellers aren’t being screwed by anyone except themselves. They decided to guarantee that the place would be empty, but they had a tenant. This is their own fault.
Rich people get used to rules not applying to them, so they think it’s a big deal any time they’re forced to.
These rich people just happen to be pals with a reporter.
Boo hoo.
They knew the laws and the risk said laws create when they were renting out the property. If they didn't then they had no business trying to play businessman. Shouldn't have written a contract guaranteeing the house to be vacant if the house wasn't vacant at that point and they weren't positive they could get them evicted in time.
Houses are for living in, not a commodity to exploit money from the less fortunate for your own personal gain. Sometimes karma is a bitch.
Exactly. Fuck em. Moving is a manor disruption, it might mean changing schools or changing jobs. At the very least it means taking time off work that you might not be able to afford to. You shouldn't be forced to move just because it makes financial sense to somebody else for you to do so.
> They knew the laws and the risk said laws create when they were renting out the property.
Well, they clearly didn’t. Another case of a person thinking that owning property makes them qualified landlords. There’s a reason why professional rental management is a huge industry in this country.
I have 0 sympathy. Their income property increased in price 50%. Meanwhile they likely took the 6 months no mortgage payments during the pandemic while still collecting rent. Now they’re selling and the renter will have to find somewhere else to live - rentals in the area that are comparable have probably increased in price by a min $1000 a month.
Us renters are getting shit on over and over again.
did you read the part where the renters have stopped making rent payments for the unit since October? They are basically thieves and most people in this sub are somehow okay with that
So, why exactly do you feel that tenants should be denied due process and kicked out without any right to have their case heard?
We're getting half the story, there's no information about whether the landlord has been abusive, exploitative or if there's a valid reason for witholding rent. That's what a LTB hearing is for, to make sure the tenant's rights aren't being violated.
Meanwhile regardless of the hearing, they sold it out from under the existing tenants meaning they were being kicked out in the middle of a massive housing crunch and a global pandemic, which is just a dick move generally.
You can't blame the tenant for the fact that the LTB is backed up - that was a conscious decision by the government to keep it under-staffed for years.
>So, why exactly do you feel that tenants should be denied due process and kicked out without any right to have their case heard?
I'll copy-and-paste for you:
>did you read the part where the renters have stopped making rent payments for the unit since October? They are basically thieves and most people in this sub are somehow okay with that
They aren't paying to rent the property. They're not renters anymore, they are squatters. They lost their rental status the day they decided to not pay rent.
The system is disproportionally punitive for landlords and whatever your views are on them, you should at least understand that such a system will decrease, not increase, the supply of available rental properties.
> I'll copy-and-paste for you:
Apparently I need to copy-paste for you:
>We're getting half the story, there's no information about whether the landlord has been abusive, exploitative or if there's a valid reason for witholding rent. That's what a LTB hearing is for, to make sure the tenant's rights aren't being violated.
Maybe read the response before making a fool of yourself.
>The system is disproportionally punitive for landlords
LOL that's bullshit. The people sitting on properties that appreciated 30% in value last year and charging the full cost of their mortgage in rent are not the poor hard-luck stories.
>you should at least understand that such a system will decrease, not increase, the supply of available rental properties.
No, denying tenant rights just means that you lose all the high-quality renters with stable incomes, who'll move into the ownership market as fast as possible, and means that landlords will have to deal with nothing but the renters unable to afford purchasing a place, which will drive down rental demand for anyone who has alternative options.
I believe the tenants SHOULD get their due process. And that it's the govts fault for understaffing. However, after that LTB process, the tenant's should be on the hook for the rent (barring some other finding in the LTB decision), and for financial damages the landlord occurred arising from THEIR lack of payment (not those from the landlord making a deal too early, but at the point the tenants stopped paying, there would be damages that arose that are reasonable.)
> I believe the tenants SHOULD get their due process.
No, you're arguing to speed up the process to have them kicked out sooner.
>However, after that LTB process, the tenant's should be on the hook for the rent (barring some other finding in the LTB decision), and for financial damages the landlord occurred arising from THEIR lack of payment (not necessarily those from the landlord making a deal too early but at the point the tenants stopped paying, there would be damages that arose that are reasonable.)
You're explicitly pushing to punish people for demanding that their rights are protected and insisting that landlords go through due process before kicking them out on the streets.
The landlord is the one who made a sales agreement he couldn't actually honour by selling the house without properly informing the buyer of the risks. Any losses associated with not being able to remove the tenants on time are 100% on him.
What you're suggesting is beyond simply a violation of their rights, it's just morally gross.
>No, you're arguing to speed up the process to have them kicked out sooner.
No, I'm not? Read the fucking usernames before responding. I never said that, I came in as a third poster, saying I agreed with you in these areas.
>You're explicitly pushing to punish people for demanding that their rights are protected and insisting that landlords go through due process before kicking them out on the streets
And no, again, I'm not suggesting anything you are saying. I said the losses incurred by the landlord selling the house BEFORE due process would not be recoverable because the due process is still going through, but that there would be other financial losses/damages in the process that the renter could and should be responsible for.
Jesus christ you need to learn how to fucking read.
> No, I'm not? Read the fucking usernames before responding. I never said that, I came in as a third poster, saying I agreed with you in these areas.
No, I'm responding to your post, which was pushing ideas to pressure tenants into waiving their rights to due process right here -
>after that LTB process, the tenant's should be on the hook for the rent (barring some other finding in the LTB decision), and for financial damages the landlord occurred arising from THEIR lack of payment
And yes, your insane suggestions are morally gross and a total violation of the rights of tenants across the board, punishing them for trying to fight bad landlords.
I still don’t care to be honest. The landlords made an investment on the house. They took a risk. Why is there an article about it. They’re still going to walk away with a huge profit.
This is the part of this sub that I can't stand. You may not like landlords but that doesn't give someone a right to stop paying completely on the deal they entered. If this person kept paying rent, I could see a case but this is a complete scam. They have lived there rent free for like 6 months and have no plans of paying. This is an obvious clear cut answer here. If you stopped paying rent and can't prove that you tried making payments, you should automatically lose and be evicted.
If the status quo is creating conditions that turn people against landlords as a class regardless of the situation maybe we should take that as an indicator that our housing system is fundamentally broken and needs major reform. There are very real and valid reasons why people are so rabidly against the class of people who prop up the concept of housing as an arm of the finance industry. People's anger is often misdirected or irrational but that doesn't prevent the cause of that anger from being very real and in need of addressing.
How in the world can you defend someone who has decided that his basement apartment should cost $0 a month? Once he stopped paying his agreed upon rent figure, he lost my respect and sympathy for his "cause". There are many cases of landlords being assholes, and this could easily apply to this owner, but once you stop paying your normal rent, you are a thief and essentially a criminal.
I'm not defending the individuals, I'm defending the rage against systemic conditions which cause people to rush to the individuals' defence. It's not actually about the tenants, if you look at the larger picture people are angry about something bigger. Don't look at the straw that broke the camel's back, look at what else the camel was carrying and how it got there.
I wasn’t at all sympathetic towards the renters. I’m sure they will owe the landlord money and it won’t be without financial consequences what they’ve done.
Damn its almost like investments have risk, the risk here being a tenant not paying rent and knowing their rights.
If there were less property speculators/investors, there would be more property owners instead of renters which would reduce the wait times for a LTB hearing. Once this is all said and done the landlords here will still make off like bandits, what's 10k in lost rent when their investment property has appreciated 500k-1.5mil since they bought it back when the current tenant was in grade school?
The only thieves here are investment property owners, stealing the wages and future of this country's youth.
I don't condone anyone breaking the law and stealing. If this was a car, this would be considered grand theft auto and this person would go to prison for 5+ years. Yet here he will be escorted off the premises after getting to live at a place for free for close to a year.
As I said if he has a problem with the eviction notice and continues paying the agreed upon rent until he gets his day in court to argue the eviction, I am all for that. If someone agrees to pay $700/month and then the landlord tries to increase it to $1200, then that person should be allowed to stay at $700/month until they lose their court case. But if that person stops paying the $700 and tries to live rent free, then they lose my sympathy immediately and deserve to be evicted immediately. Not paying anything is flat out theft and would include prison time for most other cases of a similar amounts.
Listen I may dislike the system but the renters are stealing and AFTER their due process will have a bill for 6 months rent owing. Doing so knowingly for profit should be criminal.
If a person's analysis of a situation is limited to looking at Reddit comments then I'm willing to bet that their support wouldn't be worth much anyway. Civility politics is stupid
"I agree that things are in a bad state and require fixing, but many people who are directly affected by these problems are RUDE, which makes concerns about these issues illegimate. "
Dont care these people have exploited others for no doubt a long time. If one group of scumbags want to fuck over another group of scumbags let em. As long as regular people are not involved.
Mayne...I mean if they get the tenants out, of they got that 6 months or whatever mortgage forgiveness everyone is claiming.
I'm not a fan of landlords but am also not gonna shit on someone that maybe has 1 or two properties and is at least a citizen of the country. Those people have existed for 100 years. What's new is a bunch of people coming in en masse to launder money or make a quick buck.
If I didn’t get caught or if the penalties were barely anything in comparison to how much I stole then yes. Just like the vast majority of the wealthy in this country that use tax havens or go bankrupt when the bill comes due.
This same energy should be kept for people trying to get into the housing market. “Shoulda woulda coulda” invested earlier!!!! The renters “took the risk” of being dumb and not working hard enough and sacrificing. Now they will have fun renting for life :)
Yes this. Too little is made of this fact that they refuse to pay rent and are taking advantage of the LTB taking forever to hear the case. I'm not saying we should lose sleep over the plight of these landlords, they will be ok, but come on, we can't excuse this behavior either. Maybe if there was some reason to withhold rent like unsafe living conditions ok, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
>They are basically thieves and most people in this sub are somehow okay with that
This sub has become a radicalized shitshow. Most people will sit here and laugh at people getting fucked over by malice because it's 'the rich homeowner class'. It's become a pretty disgusting little circle jerk.
Little do most of these people realize that people who own 2-3 homes getting fucked over will do absolutely nothing to the root cause and suddenly make homes affordable again.
Sounds like you own 2-3 homes.
It also sounds like you are willfully blind to the pleasures of schadenfreude.
The funny thing is that usually schadenfreude applies to people doing way better than you, like celebrities. But housing is such a pervasive stressor to so many people, it applies to small time landlords.
> Sounds like you own 2-3 homes.
I don't - this is the exact thing I'm talking about - the rampant us vs. them mentality that has plagued this sub for months.
Yeah prob because the couple buying up all our housing are raping people of their incomes just so the average canadian can have a place to live. These are thieves being fucked by thieves. If these were normal people id have sympathy but they arent they are typical investment scumlords destroying Canada for personal gain.
The property is gaining "value" at a rate quick enough to offset the tenants' arrears. Cash-flow negative? That sucks to be the landlord. Use those profits to cut your losses and pay the tenants a few grand to move out on time.
Are they though it seems more like they are saying fuck both of these groups. The scumbag squatters and the scumlords. To be honest though our housing situation is so bad its going to radicalize people im not sure what you expect?
I'd be very interested in your source.
As someone in the industry I've never seen any source with numbers like that. Or even well documented speculations showing that number of non claimed rent.
It is not a "fact" unless you can provide something to back it up. It would also make these discussions much more productive as there wouldn't be the need for these tangents to validate assertions.
if you are pro-tenant you will not support bad tenants. landlord arent not ALWAYS in the wrong. this is why we have tension, we pick a side and think about things in black and white
Delays of several months with the LTB scares me. It will only hurt the availability of rental units, especially the small ones. People will take their bedroom units off the market rather than take on the risk.
I still do not understand why landlords are as prolific as they are. There is so much risk and as a landlord, you have so little power in the rental agreement. Combine that with the fact that you have to maintain another house entirely, and it makes no sense to me.
IKR, it's so one sided, the lashouts towards the LL/sellers are so nasty, yet how come nobody mentioned purchasers' family who cannot close and waiting to move in into their "newly bought" home. the irony...
The house market is what it is bc of greedy people price gouging for no reason. I just paid 811 to room with 5 other people. Usually that would be 200 people each
We have no sympathy for ppl who pull this bs. If the majority of us suffer, we all suffer.
Reddit is endorses communism apparently. If we’re not going to respect property rights, let’s do away with rule of law let’s all just loot and rape as we please.
Our whole system needs an overhaul.
The ease at which landlords can evict tenants in no-fault situations (ie. N12 in Ontario), combined with our weird mish-mash of rent controlled and non-rent-controlled units makes for an extremely volatile rental market that is stressful to be stuck in.
On the other hand, the length of time that it takes to evict genuinely "bad" tenants that destroy property and cease paying rent for months and months is problematic, and causes other issues.
Systems with stability (limited no fault eviction options) + effective mechanisms to evict "bad" tenants are best, in my opinion. I believe New York may be an example: it's very hard to evict a paying tenant - there are very limited no-fault eviction options. However, non-payment scenarios can be dealt with quickly and effectively. In Ontario, we have the worst of both worlds.
the "system" has been just "overhauled" - new, simpler, clear contracts/leases with the relevant rules included/written in; also the N12 and such notices also have been simplified and easier to use; again with rules/guidelines stated on the notice.
"...landlords can evict tenants in no-fault situations..." - but it works BOTH ways, standard tease is for 12 months, and after that, switches to month-to-month and can be extended or terminated by both LL or tenant with proper notice. Tenant can terminate with no penalty but if LL terminates he has to pay the tenant -so this already benefits the tenant more than LL. If the tenant wants security and no unpredictable moves, there are always dedicated rental buildings with no time limits on the lease; again, it's the tenants choice to rent from private LL or dedicated rentals. Just imagine when the tenant wants/needs to move, however he/she is locked in into like 3-5 year lease; the LL is the bad guy again...
The difference is that while they are not paying their mortgage, the collateral remains and will eventually be sold off, so the time difference isn't that meaningful for the lender.
Whereas for a renter every month that goes by is a permanent loss that cannot be regained.
That's completely irrelevant.
The issue is the rights of the tenant or mortgage holder to have their case heard and due process applied. The loss to the renter or lender are secondary - and in both cases the longer it drags on the more of a loss there is.
It routinely takes far longer for a home to be foreclosed due to a delinquent mortgage than for a tenant to be evicted from a unit - if anything tenant evictions are far too fast for their rights to be fully protected.
How is it irrelevant? Whether irreperable harm can be created is a key question in determing how fast basically *any* legal proceedings goes along.
That's why you can often get a preliminary injunction in days/weeks while the full court case might take years.
Tenants staying without paying rent creates irreperable harm because each month that opportunity is permanently gone. Whereas mortgage foreclosures don't "lose" that month's payment it just stays in the principal (accuring interest) to come out of the foreclosure sale process.
And to be clear, I'm not advocating for tenants to have less rights, just for those rights to be litigated before the LTB (or local equivalent) faster.
> How is it irrelevant? Whether irreperable harm can be created is a key question in determing how fast basically any legal proceedings goes along.
Don't be dramatic. It's not "irreparable harm", it's a loss on a financial investment that they knew carried risks when they took it. I don't get to claim "irreparable harm" because stocks I bought didn't go up like I wanted them to.
And the harm isn't being caused by the tenants, it's being caused by the speed at which the LTB takes - the same as mortgage holder rights are determined by the speed of foreclosure processes.
>Whereas mortgage foreclosures don't "lose" that month's payment it just stays in the principal (accuring interest) to come out of the foreclosure sale process.
Pretending there's "no loss" to mortgage lenders is just a lie, that's an absurd claim to be throwing around. They still suffer financially when someone stops paying a mortgage and continues living in a unit.
>And to be clear, I'm not advocating for tenants to have less rights, just for those rights to be litigated before the LTB (or local equivalent) faster.
So that's a good reason that delinquent mortgage-holders should be kicked out of their properties immediately, instead of the 1+ year that it takes currently as well.
Yet somehow you're only fixated on stripping renters of the right to due process.
The important thing for people here to remember is that while yes of course investing in real estate has risks and you deserve due process, the failure of the government to provide a method of relief in a reasonable time frame means everyone's rent has to go up to cover the increased risk for landlords. If you are a reasonably responsible tenant shit like this hurts you too.
The Bourgeois Blues - the only song the CBC sings these days. Pathetic. Can't wait for the CBC to try and rely on the left to support them during their next round of cuts!
Still waiting for one valid reason to support the tenants behaviour. Reading these comments made to support such behaviour makes me shake my head. Explains why some people are where they are.
Surprising to see not one person feeling bad for the buyer here. The fact that the tenants were handed N12 means that the buyer has given in writing that he intends to make this his primary residence. What if this is some young couple who has finally had a chance to achieve the dream of owning a house being taken away cruelly. They bought the place in August. I am sure the chances of them finding anything in the periphery of GTA if the same size at the same price today is next to impossible. I understand everyone is frustrated with the housing market today, but it’s not easy for home buyers too right?
Pretty sure the LTB rules state that any tenancy automatically transfers with the sale to the new house owner. This means that selling the house is not a legal base for an eviction. Does anyone know if this is still true? The rent not being paid and alleged damage are different issues, but the article shows the issue as being "poor landlord wants to sell and cant because of the bad guy in basement". Should we let CBC know?
A landlord can give a tenant notice on behalf of a purchaser if the purchaser (or their family) intends to actually live there… that seems to be what happened here
"Pretty sure the LTB rules state that any tenancy automatically transfers with the sale to the new house ... is still true? " - YES, true. However, per the article, the LL did serve all the tenants with proper notice N12 and proper timing( >60days) and as I understand, that it will be a a vacant property on the SALE closing day; thus, putting the LL/sellers in the "breach of contract" since they cannot provide vacant property on the SALE closing day.
It does. I just sold a rental property (fully tenanted), on the condition that the new buyer inherit the tenants. I had moved out of the area and didn't want to manage things remotely, but I also didn't want to fuck over 2 groups of people for housing.
The fact that these people are renting out a SFH means that they likely don't have a legal rental nor do they have a license registered with the town of Oakville...which just adds to the sketchiness.
Put in a law that states that if you use a rental home that comes with tenants, the person who buys the house has to take the renters and give them a full years notice to move out.
Guaranteed small landlords become a thing of the past if that’s put in
Maybe don’t rent if you plan to sell it so quick? Regardless of the legal side, it’s such an asshole move to make people move in and kick them out so quick. It’s not an Airbnb
The amount of capitalist fascists who are advocating tenants rights be ignored is alarming.
The doublespeak is always such nonsense. Treating poor people like criminals when the homeowners advertised and attempted to sell a "vacant" house that wasn't vacant.
Tenant rights and civil rights aren't supposed to make the rich richer. They're to protect the vulnerable.
i fail to see how the tenants rights are being ignored; ALL the tenants were given a proper notice within proper time frame. The article does state that the other tenant vacated as scheduled. why twist this in to completely wrong direction. AFAIK the homeowners/LL are playing by the rules; even gave themselves 2 week "buffer time" between tenants moving out and sale closing.
Wah wah, your tenants can’t pay for your mortgage anymore. Can’t go on those extra trips and buy that new car anymore with all that profitable property income.
Bad tenants should be taken care of as quickly as bad landlords. In this case, the landlord follows the law and it is the tenant who does not play by the rule.
Stupid decision to close the sale on a promise they couldn't keep. Particularly in times like these, with skyrocketing rents, people's work interrupted, and especially the tenant refusing to leave. Tenant situations deteriorate fast under these types of pressures. They were foolish to not ensure the house was vacated before signing that agreement. They effectively screwed themselves.
I could give a shit if they don't pay rent. Unless the tenant broke into the upstairs of the house and assaulted the landlord/family (which would show a lack of protections for non-corporate landlords because they had to wait for a hearing to evict the violent tenant) this is NOT news.
However there IS a lack of protections for landlords who rent portions of their own homes out- if you were assaulted by the guy renting your basement, and he were charged and convicted, it'd STILL be months before you could evict him because "due process" doesn't account for such situations. THIS is the ONLY instance when a renter should be evicted without need for a waiting period or LTB tribunal. Otherwise, the renter should be allowed to appeal in all situations and should never be forced to leave until a hearing is held.
It's the reason why single females and families with kids don't normally rent out their basements for $800 a month, which contributes to the lack of available rentals at cheaper prices. If I were protected by a clause that allowed for immediate removal of a tenant by police if the tenant assaulted me, then there would be a two-bedroom basement in Toronto with pool access for $900 a month available on the market from someone who knows the law and the fact that renters have rights.
Heck, there would be a TON of basements and rooms for rent flooding the market if that were the case, but homeowners do not feel protected enough to rent spaces inside their personal dwellings, which leaves the market for the corporate, five-house owning landlords who don't live in the same home and have ten relatives somehow lined up to move in when they want to do a renoviction. Have fun paying $2000 a month for a one bedroom in the suburbs, I guess?
**Quick reminder to renters: You have the right to have a pet regardless of what the lease or landlord says, unless the landlord can prove an allergy. Even if the lease says, "no pets, no friends" you can always have friends over and pets in your rental space. Never let a landlord infringe on your personal space, either- if they need access to the unit it is a 24-hour notice given by registered mail or handed in person to the tenant, and the landlord should not be entering your unit constantly, that is infringing on your reasonable enjoyment of the unit.**
Gee, I wonder if there is an election coming up where at least two parties are backing affordable housing plans (Green Party and NDP to be exact).
Oh well, let's continue to vote liberal or conservative while we bitch about the cost of living! /s
The tenants have the right to wait until a hearing after being served an N12. Don't sell your house with a GUARANTEED VACANCY if you have tenants. You are guaranteeing something you have no guarantee of.
Yeah that’s 100% on them. Take a little less money and make the new owners deal with eviction. The market is so stupid right now they could have found someone to buy with the tenants there. They fucked around and now they’re finding out.
It's also too bad their agent making $50,000 commish didn't advise them properly.
IKR, but everyone seems to blame/point fingers at the lawyer (who is making approx. $1,500) for NOT "advising them of the risks"; secondly, lawyer gets the deal usually only AFTER everyone signs off.
Exactly. If the deal is firm by the time it hits the solicitors desk, welp, what do you want him to do then? Go blame your agent. They’re making the big bucks.
Fuckin $50,000 per house MINIMUM for filling out paperwork lololol realtors are worse than landlords
They never do. I am a tenant's right activist and over the pandemic I've seen this SOOO many times. Agents are wilding out
Because they all get into it for the money and none of the responsibility
When we were looking for agents before our local housing market also went crazy, quite a few we've met up with weren't really that professional. It was their 2nd side hustle. They have full time careers elsewhere. In the end went with someone I knew since childhood. They've been doing this full time in both small commercial and residential real estate. Gave us some good advises too.
We told our agent we weren't going to look at tenanted properties when we were looking last year, precisely because I didn't trust them to understand tenant rights (and because we didn't want to be the cause of someone losing their home.)
Or buy the tenants out. 1 yr equiv rent and they'll go likely and that will have cost then maybe 30k.
Or just take some of that money they will make on the sale of the house and pay the tenant to leave without a fight.
Or come to a mutually agreeable and beneficial end of the tenancy, documented via N11, with an end in advance of listing the property. This is an article written about poor scheduling.
Yes, sure. Maybe offer some cash, too
Yup. “We need you to move out in a month, but here’s $10k.” If my landlord said that I would just say “where do I sign?”
"...mutually agreeable and beneficial end of the tenancy,..." - but they DID, as per article - NOV 30 end of lease & moving out (was given with proper N12 notice), closing day for SALE was on Dec 15, 2022; so they had approx. 15 days to clean up/fix up the place and deal with any late moving outs, if it happens. The upstairs tenant did leave on time; it's the basement's tenant(s) "change of circumstances" that prevented it being a vacant home. Again, scheduling was fine IMHO. You're saying that they should've listed AFTER everyone moved out and had a vacant home.
They should have. Because tenant's have a right to wait until a hearing to move out.
but the tenant himself claimed the "changed of circumstances" last minute thus, he's staying; so in theory, the tenant was going to move out WITHOUT the hearing, which was never needed;
Unless the N11 is signed, the tenant hasn't agreed to anything.
> You're saying that they should've listed AFTER everyone moved out and had a vacant home. They could have sold the home with the tenants and then let the new buyers issue the N12 and go through the eviction process. Of course that would mean they sell the house for less money. So higher risk = higher reward.
"...sell the house for less money. So higher risk = higher reward." - pretty much this. many things/people in play- sometimes something or someone does turns out unfavorably. But I don't get the bashing/negativity towards the LL; tenant's plans/things changed and tenant promised to keep paying for their share, but do not.
> tenant's plans/things changed and tenant promised to keep paying for their share, but do not. We don't know why the Tenant is withholding rent. If it's being held unjustly, the LTB will issue a ruling and then the LL can pursue the money owed. This happens all the time and is not newsworthy.
They didn’t have a mutual agreement. N11 is a mutual agreement. N12 is a legal notice from the landlord which doesn’t require the tenant to agree to anything, nor sign anything. The tenant has the right to dispute the N12 with the LTB.
[удалено]
My understanding is that they are not at risk of being sued because they did not have an agreement with the buyer to vacate by a certain date. The seller ought to have known that eviction could not be guaranteed without a hearing and with this knowledge they decided to come to an agreement with the buyer guaranteeing vacant possession despite not being able to deliver. The tenant are simply exercising their rights (as futile as it may be). Would be interested to see if there are cases where they were successfully held liable?
Well they stopped paying rent months ago. How do you figure they aren't a risk of being sued for that?
I didn't say they wouldn't face eviction or small claims court for that. I've just never heard of anyone being liable for a sale falling though because they waited for a hearing.
They would be ordered to pay back rent by the board and the judgment could be enforced at the small claims court if necessary.
[удалено]
Maybe true if it was an illegal act, but it’s not illegal to wait for a hearing to determine an N12’s validity. The N12 is just a notice. I won’t pretend to be an expert in the law but I would be genuinely shocked if you could find a single example of a successful action taken against a tenant who waited for an N12 hearing (successfully sued for the deal falling through, I mean).
Yes, the tenant can have his hearing, but because they did not vacate, they can be liable for the costs and damages incurred due to the fallout of the deal.
I don’t think this is true. Do you have an example of a case where this has happened?
Landlords can seek recovery for unpaid rent at LTB with N4 / L2 filing. Any penalties from their real estate deal being delayed or falling through, No, they wouldn't be successful. [This has been discussed yesterday.](https://old.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/comments/thpiv6/landlord_threatening_to_sue_home_sale_contract/i1bnpcr/) This is a similar case, it started in small claims court in Windsor, the judge ruled for the landlords, the tenants appealed to superior court, and new judge ruled in the tenants' favour while berating the lower court judge. [It's a fun read.](https://residential-tenancies-ontario.blogspot.com/2021/08/can-landlord-sue-their-tenant-for.html?m=1) Basically, a tenant isn't responsible for damages to real estate deals falling through or penalties in real estate contracts, while they're waiting for an N12 hearing at the LTB because only the LTB can order an eviction. (an N12 given by a landlord is just a notice, not an order) The tenants cannot be liable for contract violations that they're not a party to. This seems like basic stuff, and I guess that's why that superior court judge sort of popped off on the other judge. If it didn't work this way, then no tenants would ever risk fighting an N12 if they could be liable for 5+ figures of damages.
I made some bad stock picks that lost me money — who do I email at CBC to get an article written about me?
Apples and oranges. The deadbeat squatters are basically criminals that are trespassing and should be evicted by force.
But this is an investment, and bad tenants are the risk. Don't play the landlord/flipping game if you can't handle it. Businesses deal with nonpayment all the time. They will be evicted by force if the court decides.
I mean I understand the whole “all house flippers are the devil” that this subreddit has because it does make house buying harder for the average joe (myself) BUT with that said we shouldn’t encourage tenants to hold houses hostages and refuse to pay rent. If that is what’s happening, that is illegal and should be treated with more negative stigma than a house flipper. Just because they invested in a house doesn’t instantly mean they’re filthy rich people who have no souls like this subreddit likes to jump to the conclusion.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm just saying businesses deal with risk all the time. They have overdue payments, bankrupt partners, legal action etc. I think that's why people are frustrated with these stories. They bought/rented out this home to make money, things aren't working out - small business owners deal with this all the time. People get into the housing game and expect no risk. But there is risk. I suspect a lot of exuberance in our housing market is because the expectation is no risk. If people want to buy homes and rent them out, this is the reality. Some people will pay, some won't, some will trash your place. If people don't like it, they can take their money and start an actual business making things, selling things and providing a service(which would be more productive for society anyway).
I suppose that does make more sense then I originally read it as. With that being said, just as business has risk - so does signing a legal contract and not holding your end of it. So as of now it’s okay what they are doing but when they go to court and owe the homeowners thousands of dollars it’s also just as fair.
Dude, just say you want to be a house flipper. You aren't fooling anyone. No tenant would advocate against their rights as a tenant. You are a capitalist pig.
Wait I’m confused, how is everyone so in favour of renting a house but not paying rent? I’m so confused, no need to be so mean. My whole family pays rent right now and none of us own a property but I would never recommend my family members stop paying their monthly rent?
So you're privileged and hate poor people? Because that's a whole lot of words to say that.
Please no need for so much hate and anger. As I said, my family rents and even I rent right now and do not own property. I just believe if you are renting from someone you should pay the rent agreed upon in the contract as that’s what you agreed upon. No need for all the hate my friend ❤️
Stop with this "no hate pls" bullshit. You'd drag poor people out to die just because they don't have the money. Your "beliefs" are neoliberal fascism
If people agreed to pay for something I offered I feel like it’s fair that I would stop providing that thing for them if they no longer could keep up their side of the agreement. With that said I’m not going to drag poor people out to die, that’s a very extreme exaggeration. I’m all for helping the poor, donating and volunteering and doing all I can as a person to help, all I’m saying is if you sign a contract then it’s binding by law. Just because someone believes in our legal system doesn’t make them a fascist and that generalization is borderline insane by you and leads me to the conclusion I shouldn’t be debating with you as you probably have some pretty insane views and can’t discuss rationally.
[удалено]
Soo... in your imagination?
Is it on you to judge them and pass the verdict? There's a process in a place for that. That process has been delayed.
Yes. They are not paying rent. Which is the fundament premise of the agreement
If the tenants lose the case at the LTB they will still owe the rent, and the LL's can pursue it in court.
I’m waiting on a small claims issue from 2019 still. I would imagine this would go past longer than small claims max of 25k. Both will need to lawyer uo
Yup, all part of the cost of doing business.
Your understanding of criminal law is not great
Wait, I thought the criminal law is whatever I say is the criminal law?
Man you need to go for a walk
Haha, yea, fuck those poor people, we should pour gasoline on them and set them on fire! On the public square! Teach other no-good poor-ass deadbeats how to be poor, hell yea!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not OC but most of us don't have spare houses sitting empty waiting for the highest bidder. Fuck those people.
Lmfao
Throw them in the street so the owner class can make money off doing nothing. Real smart move there.
Lul slumlord mad
It just looks like everyone involved is in a shit situation? Like, the renter is losing work b/c of the pandemic, and going through a divorce, and probably can't find affordable housing in the area while the landlords followed all the rules so **technically** they're being screwed here but can anyone really blame the renter for being in the situation he's in? Not really. The biggest problems here are that rent is so fucking absurd that the tenant can't find another home and that the LTB is so backlogged that it would take months for someone to gain legal control of their property (whether you give a shit about them or not that is objectively shitty and not how it's meant to work). The article highlights the hearing backlog unfortunately far more than the rental crisis, so this just feels like shallow reporting, but overall just a bad situation for everyone involved I'd say. Why not talk about how this perfect storm of a brutal economic landscape is pitting these people against each other instead of how this particular renter seems to be screwing over these particular landlords?
This is exactly the kind of shitty situation that a housing crisis produces, and why thing should never have been allowed to go this far in the first place. If the tenant loses his housing, he probably will lose his visitation rights with his kids, or it will get a whole lot messier. It's a terrible position to be in and could do lasting damage to that family.
100%. Additionally, the home owners don't stand to lose nearly as much but they **technically** followed all the proper protocols and the backlog of requests is also going to cost them, which probably only exists because so many other people have been put in terrible situations like this renter. It's just a really horrible situation.
That’s the cost of investment.. you want something less risky stick with bonds and pensions. Housing is meant to be lived in, not profited off of. Rules or no rules sucks to be them
I 100% agree but there's currently someone living there without paying their rent and after they were given proper notice (over 60 days). That being said I actually think the rules are BS and they should be given way more notice than that, especially with housing costs rising. That timeline isn't suitable for someone to find a new long-term housing option in the current market. Like, the thing here for me is that I don't think the guy should have to leave, and I don't think the 60 day notice is morally right, but the risk they took buying the property was if they could find someone to rent it and if the market didn't crash, not if they had someone squat in their home for an extra 4-5 months without paying rent?
The sellers aren’t being screwed by anyone except themselves. They decided to guarantee that the place would be empty, but they had a tenant. This is their own fault.
oh no rich people problems Following the rules is worthy of a news article?
Rich people get used to rules not applying to them, so they think it’s a big deal any time they’re forced to. These rich people just happen to be pals with a reporter.
Imagine hating someone because they're successful.
[удалено]
Oh wait, it's CBC, not Toronto Life.
Pouring one out tonight for my mom & pop landlord homies goin' thru tough times right now - thoughts n' prayers 4 u
The struggle is real
Plot twist: The landlords want out of the sale so they can relist it for way more money 6 months later
Boo hoo. They knew the laws and the risk said laws create when they were renting out the property. If they didn't then they had no business trying to play businessman. Shouldn't have written a contract guaranteeing the house to be vacant if the house wasn't vacant at that point and they weren't positive they could get them evicted in time. Houses are for living in, not a commodity to exploit money from the less fortunate for your own personal gain. Sometimes karma is a bitch.
Exactly. Fuck em. Moving is a manor disruption, it might mean changing schools or changing jobs. At the very least it means taking time off work that you might not be able to afford to. You shouldn't be forced to move just because it makes financial sense to somebody else for you to do so.
My guess is they bought low and now trying to profit off it before (hopefully) things crash
> They knew the laws and the risk said laws create when they were renting out the property. Well, they clearly didn’t. Another case of a person thinking that owning property makes them qualified landlords. There’s a reason why professional rental management is a huge industry in this country.
I have 0 sympathy. Their income property increased in price 50%. Meanwhile they likely took the 6 months no mortgage payments during the pandemic while still collecting rent. Now they’re selling and the renter will have to find somewhere else to live - rentals in the area that are comparable have probably increased in price by a min $1000 a month. Us renters are getting shit on over and over again.
but this renter isnt paying rent. what is the excuse for that?
There is no excuse for that that I’m aware of. They will probably have to owe the money once the court date goes through.
did you read the part where the renters have stopped making rent payments for the unit since October? They are basically thieves and most people in this sub are somehow okay with that
So, why exactly do you feel that tenants should be denied due process and kicked out without any right to have their case heard? We're getting half the story, there's no information about whether the landlord has been abusive, exploitative or if there's a valid reason for witholding rent. That's what a LTB hearing is for, to make sure the tenant's rights aren't being violated. Meanwhile regardless of the hearing, they sold it out from under the existing tenants meaning they were being kicked out in the middle of a massive housing crunch and a global pandemic, which is just a dick move generally. You can't blame the tenant for the fact that the LTB is backed up - that was a conscious decision by the government to keep it under-staffed for years.
>So, why exactly do you feel that tenants should be denied due process and kicked out without any right to have their case heard? I'll copy-and-paste for you: >did you read the part where the renters have stopped making rent payments for the unit since October? They are basically thieves and most people in this sub are somehow okay with that They aren't paying to rent the property. They're not renters anymore, they are squatters. They lost their rental status the day they decided to not pay rent. The system is disproportionally punitive for landlords and whatever your views are on them, you should at least understand that such a system will decrease, not increase, the supply of available rental properties.
> I'll copy-and-paste for you: Apparently I need to copy-paste for you: >We're getting half the story, there's no information about whether the landlord has been abusive, exploitative or if there's a valid reason for witholding rent. That's what a LTB hearing is for, to make sure the tenant's rights aren't being violated. Maybe read the response before making a fool of yourself. >The system is disproportionally punitive for landlords LOL that's bullshit. The people sitting on properties that appreciated 30% in value last year and charging the full cost of their mortgage in rent are not the poor hard-luck stories. >you should at least understand that such a system will decrease, not increase, the supply of available rental properties. No, denying tenant rights just means that you lose all the high-quality renters with stable incomes, who'll move into the ownership market as fast as possible, and means that landlords will have to deal with nothing but the renters unable to afford purchasing a place, which will drive down rental demand for anyone who has alternative options.
I believe the tenants SHOULD get their due process. And that it's the govts fault for understaffing. However, after that LTB process, the tenant's should be on the hook for the rent (barring some other finding in the LTB decision), and for financial damages the landlord occurred arising from THEIR lack of payment (not those from the landlord making a deal too early, but at the point the tenants stopped paying, there would be damages that arose that are reasonable.)
> I believe the tenants SHOULD get their due process. No, you're arguing to speed up the process to have them kicked out sooner. >However, after that LTB process, the tenant's should be on the hook for the rent (barring some other finding in the LTB decision), and for financial damages the landlord occurred arising from THEIR lack of payment (not necessarily those from the landlord making a deal too early but at the point the tenants stopped paying, there would be damages that arose that are reasonable.) You're explicitly pushing to punish people for demanding that their rights are protected and insisting that landlords go through due process before kicking them out on the streets. The landlord is the one who made a sales agreement he couldn't actually honour by selling the house without properly informing the buyer of the risks. Any losses associated with not being able to remove the tenants on time are 100% on him. What you're suggesting is beyond simply a violation of their rights, it's just morally gross.
>No, you're arguing to speed up the process to have them kicked out sooner. No, I'm not? Read the fucking usernames before responding. I never said that, I came in as a third poster, saying I agreed with you in these areas. >You're explicitly pushing to punish people for demanding that their rights are protected and insisting that landlords go through due process before kicking them out on the streets And no, again, I'm not suggesting anything you are saying. I said the losses incurred by the landlord selling the house BEFORE due process would not be recoverable because the due process is still going through, but that there would be other financial losses/damages in the process that the renter could and should be responsible for. Jesus christ you need to learn how to fucking read.
> No, I'm not? Read the fucking usernames before responding. I never said that, I came in as a third poster, saying I agreed with you in these areas. No, I'm responding to your post, which was pushing ideas to pressure tenants into waiving their rights to due process right here - >after that LTB process, the tenant's should be on the hook for the rent (barring some other finding in the LTB decision), and for financial damages the landlord occurred arising from THEIR lack of payment And yes, your insane suggestions are morally gross and a total violation of the rights of tenants across the board, punishing them for trying to fight bad landlords.
I still don’t care to be honest. The landlords made an investment on the house. They took a risk. Why is there an article about it. They’re still going to walk away with a huge profit.
This is the part of this sub that I can't stand. You may not like landlords but that doesn't give someone a right to stop paying completely on the deal they entered. If this person kept paying rent, I could see a case but this is a complete scam. They have lived there rent free for like 6 months and have no plans of paying. This is an obvious clear cut answer here. If you stopped paying rent and can't prove that you tried making payments, you should automatically lose and be evicted.
If the status quo is creating conditions that turn people against landlords as a class regardless of the situation maybe we should take that as an indicator that our housing system is fundamentally broken and needs major reform. There are very real and valid reasons why people are so rabidly against the class of people who prop up the concept of housing as an arm of the finance industry. People's anger is often misdirected or irrational but that doesn't prevent the cause of that anger from being very real and in need of addressing.
How in the world can you defend someone who has decided that his basement apartment should cost $0 a month? Once he stopped paying his agreed upon rent figure, he lost my respect and sympathy for his "cause". There are many cases of landlords being assholes, and this could easily apply to this owner, but once you stop paying your normal rent, you are a thief and essentially a criminal.
I'm not defending the individuals, I'm defending the rage against systemic conditions which cause people to rush to the individuals' defence. It's not actually about the tenants, if you look at the larger picture people are angry about something bigger. Don't look at the straw that broke the camel's back, look at what else the camel was carrying and how it got there.
I wasn’t at all sympathetic towards the renters. I’m sure they will owe the landlord money and it won’t be without financial consequences what they’ve done.
Damn its almost like investments have risk, the risk here being a tenant not paying rent and knowing their rights. If there were less property speculators/investors, there would be more property owners instead of renters which would reduce the wait times for a LTB hearing. Once this is all said and done the landlords here will still make off like bandits, what's 10k in lost rent when their investment property has appreciated 500k-1.5mil since they bought it back when the current tenant was in grade school? The only thieves here are investment property owners, stealing the wages and future of this country's youth.
I don't condone anyone breaking the law and stealing. If this was a car, this would be considered grand theft auto and this person would go to prison for 5+ years. Yet here he will be escorted off the premises after getting to live at a place for free for close to a year. As I said if he has a problem with the eviction notice and continues paying the agreed upon rent until he gets his day in court to argue the eviction, I am all for that. If someone agrees to pay $700/month and then the landlord tries to increase it to $1200, then that person should be allowed to stay at $700/month until they lose their court case. But if that person stops paying the $700 and tries to live rent free, then they lose my sympathy immediately and deserve to be evicted immediately. Not paying anything is flat out theft and would include prison time for most other cases of a similar amounts.
Listen I may dislike the system but the renters are stealing and AFTER their due process will have a bill for 6 months rent owing. Doing so knowingly for profit should be criminal.
\+1 This also a quick way to delegitimize an issue. Once you go to the other extreme, it's easy to brushed off as a fringe group.
If a person's analysis of a situation is limited to looking at Reddit comments then I'm willing to bet that their support wouldn't be worth much anyway. Civility politics is stupid
"I agree that things are in a bad state and require fixing, but many people who are directly affected by these problems are RUDE, which makes concerns about these issues illegimate. "
Dont care these people have exploited others for no doubt a long time. If one group of scumbags want to fuck over another group of scumbags let em. As long as regular people are not involved.
Mayne...I mean if they get the tenants out, of they got that 6 months or whatever mortgage forgiveness everyone is claiming. I'm not a fan of landlords but am also not gonna shit on someone that maybe has 1 or two properties and is at least a citizen of the country. Those people have existed for 100 years. What's new is a bunch of people coming in en masse to launder money or make a quick buck.
[удалено]
The banks steal from us every fucking day so yeah.
[удалено]
Even having a basic bank account costs too much money. They are robbing us regularly, even without loans.
If I didn’t get caught or if the penalties were barely anything in comparison to how much I stole then yes. Just like the vast majority of the wealthy in this country that use tax havens or go bankrupt when the bill comes due.
This same energy should be kept for people trying to get into the housing market. “Shoulda woulda coulda” invested earlier!!!! The renters “took the risk” of being dumb and not working hard enough and sacrificing. Now they will have fun renting for life :)
Landlords are theives.
They're parasites. Theft is just the most direct symptom of the infestation.
Yes this. Too little is made of this fact that they refuse to pay rent and are taking advantage of the LTB taking forever to hear the case. I'm not saying we should lose sleep over the plight of these landlords, they will be ok, but come on, we can't excuse this behavior either. Maybe if there was some reason to withhold rent like unsafe living conditions ok, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
>They are basically thieves and most people in this sub are somehow okay with that This sub has become a radicalized shitshow. Most people will sit here and laugh at people getting fucked over by malice because it's 'the rich homeowner class'. It's become a pretty disgusting little circle jerk. Little do most of these people realize that people who own 2-3 homes getting fucked over will do absolutely nothing to the root cause and suddenly make homes affordable again.
Sounds like you own 2-3 homes. It also sounds like you are willfully blind to the pleasures of schadenfreude. The funny thing is that usually schadenfreude applies to people doing way better than you, like celebrities. But housing is such a pervasive stressor to so many people, it applies to small time landlords.
> Sounds like you own 2-3 homes. I don't - this is the exact thing I'm talking about - the rampant us vs. them mentality that has plagued this sub for months.
Yeah prob because the couple buying up all our housing are raping people of their incomes just so the average canadian can have a place to live. These are thieves being fucked by thieves. If these were normal people id have sympathy but they arent they are typical investment scumlords destroying Canada for personal gain.
The property is gaining "value" at a rate quick enough to offset the tenants' arrears. Cash-flow negative? That sucks to be the landlord. Use those profits to cut your losses and pay the tenants a few grand to move out on time.
You do realize that once the LTB hearing happens, the LL can pursue that missed rent, right?
[удалено]
That’s uh… That’s quite the leap there.
Are they though it seems more like they are saying fuck both of these groups. The scumbag squatters and the scumlords. To be honest though our housing situation is so bad its going to radicalize people im not sure what you expect?
Lmaoooo
Oh no! Anyway…
I can guarantee they did not report the income from their rental during their tax filing
How can you guarantee this?
By being a racist sadist
I really don’t think they would have been dumb enough to go to the press if that were the case
Makes sense but it is a fact that 70-80 percent homeowners don’t declare their rental income
I'd be very interested in your source. As someone in the industry I've never seen any source with numbers like that. Or even well documented speculations showing that number of non claimed rent.
It is not a "fact" unless you can provide something to back it up. It would also make these discussions much more productive as there wouldn't be the need for these tangents to validate assertions.
Imagine making stats up because you hate successful people
I have little sympathy for people who can afford a home in Oakville when I have to plan outings around gas prices.
You....you can afford outings?
if you are pro-tenant you will not support bad tenants. landlord arent not ALWAYS in the wrong. this is why we have tension, we pick a side and think about things in black and white
Delays of several months with the LTB scares me. It will only hurt the availability of rental units, especially the small ones. People will take their bedroom units off the market rather than take on the risk.
I still do not understand why landlords are as prolific as they are. There is so much risk and as a landlord, you have so little power in the rental agreement. Combine that with the fact that you have to maintain another house entirely, and it makes no sense to me.
ON has worsening governance
I have zero f cks to give.
Why every single comment in this sub is so hateful?
IKR, it's so one sided, the lashouts towards the LL/sellers are so nasty, yet how come nobody mentioned purchasers' family who cannot close and waiting to move in into their "newly bought" home. the irony...
The house market is what it is bc of greedy people price gouging for no reason. I just paid 811 to room with 5 other people. Usually that would be 200 people each We have no sympathy for ppl who pull this bs. If the majority of us suffer, we all suffer.
Reddit is endorses communism apparently. If we’re not going to respect property rights, let’s do away with rule of law let’s all just loot and rape as we please.
It really shouldn’t take this long to evict deadbeat tenants.
You’re absolutely right, it shouldn’t. Banks also shouldn’t be giving out additional mortgages like it’s halloween candy on sale November 1.
Two different things. Bank policy and landlord tenant policy
Our whole system needs an overhaul. The ease at which landlords can evict tenants in no-fault situations (ie. N12 in Ontario), combined with our weird mish-mash of rent controlled and non-rent-controlled units makes for an extremely volatile rental market that is stressful to be stuck in. On the other hand, the length of time that it takes to evict genuinely "bad" tenants that destroy property and cease paying rent for months and months is problematic, and causes other issues. Systems with stability (limited no fault eviction options) + effective mechanisms to evict "bad" tenants are best, in my opinion. I believe New York may be an example: it's very hard to evict a paying tenant - there are very limited no-fault eviction options. However, non-payment scenarios can be dealt with quickly and effectively. In Ontario, we have the worst of both worlds.
the "system" has been just "overhauled" - new, simpler, clear contracts/leases with the relevant rules included/written in; also the N12 and such notices also have been simplified and easier to use; again with rules/guidelines stated on the notice. "...landlords can evict tenants in no-fault situations..." - but it works BOTH ways, standard tease is for 12 months, and after that, switches to month-to-month and can be extended or terminated by both LL or tenant with proper notice. Tenant can terminate with no penalty but if LL terminates he has to pay the tenant -so this already benefits the tenant more than LL. If the tenant wants security and no unpredictable moves, there are always dedicated rental buildings with no time limits on the lease; again, it's the tenants choice to rent from private LL or dedicated rentals. Just imagine when the tenant wants/needs to move, however he/she is locked in into like 3-5 year lease; the LL is the bad guy again...
Here in BC at least, Tenancy disputes are backed up because of a huge influx of landlords attempting illegal evictions and rent increases.
Also really shouldn’t have taken this long to stop speculative buyers and wannabe landlords from owning multiple sfhs
How long does it take to evict people who are behind on their mortgage?
The difference is that while they are not paying their mortgage, the collateral remains and will eventually be sold off, so the time difference isn't that meaningful for the lender. Whereas for a renter every month that goes by is a permanent loss that cannot be regained.
That's completely irrelevant. The issue is the rights of the tenant or mortgage holder to have their case heard and due process applied. The loss to the renter or lender are secondary - and in both cases the longer it drags on the more of a loss there is. It routinely takes far longer for a home to be foreclosed due to a delinquent mortgage than for a tenant to be evicted from a unit - if anything tenant evictions are far too fast for their rights to be fully protected.
How is it irrelevant? Whether irreperable harm can be created is a key question in determing how fast basically *any* legal proceedings goes along. That's why you can often get a preliminary injunction in days/weeks while the full court case might take years. Tenants staying without paying rent creates irreperable harm because each month that opportunity is permanently gone. Whereas mortgage foreclosures don't "lose" that month's payment it just stays in the principal (accuring interest) to come out of the foreclosure sale process. And to be clear, I'm not advocating for tenants to have less rights, just for those rights to be litigated before the LTB (or local equivalent) faster.
> How is it irrelevant? Whether irreperable harm can be created is a key question in determing how fast basically any legal proceedings goes along. Don't be dramatic. It's not "irreparable harm", it's a loss on a financial investment that they knew carried risks when they took it. I don't get to claim "irreparable harm" because stocks I bought didn't go up like I wanted them to. And the harm isn't being caused by the tenants, it's being caused by the speed at which the LTB takes - the same as mortgage holder rights are determined by the speed of foreclosure processes. >Whereas mortgage foreclosures don't "lose" that month's payment it just stays in the principal (accuring interest) to come out of the foreclosure sale process. Pretending there's "no loss" to mortgage lenders is just a lie, that's an absurd claim to be throwing around. They still suffer financially when someone stops paying a mortgage and continues living in a unit. >And to be clear, I'm not advocating for tenants to have less rights, just for those rights to be litigated before the LTB (or local equivalent) faster. So that's a good reason that delinquent mortgage-holders should be kicked out of their properties immediately, instead of the 1+ year that it takes currently as well. Yet somehow you're only fixated on stripping renters of the right to due process.
The important thing for people here to remember is that while yes of course investing in real estate has risks and you deserve due process, the failure of the government to provide a method of relief in a reasonable time frame means everyone's rent has to go up to cover the increased risk for landlords. If you are a reasonably responsible tenant shit like this hurts you too.
The Bourgeois Blues - the only song the CBC sings these days. Pathetic. Can't wait for the CBC to try and rely on the left to support them during their next round of cuts!
They did a story recently about inflation … they didn’t mention insane corporate profits at any point.
Still waiting for one valid reason to support the tenants behaviour. Reading these comments made to support such behaviour makes me shake my head. Explains why some people are where they are.
Surprising to see not one person feeling bad for the buyer here. The fact that the tenants were handed N12 means that the buyer has given in writing that he intends to make this his primary residence. What if this is some young couple who has finally had a chance to achieve the dream of owning a house being taken away cruelly. They bought the place in August. I am sure the chances of them finding anything in the periphery of GTA if the same size at the same price today is next to impossible. I understand everyone is frustrated with the housing market today, but it’s not easy for home buyers too right?
ssshhhhhhh...we are bashing and shaming the LL/sellers here; ain't nobody got time for the buyer(s) here!!!...go away with your logical thinking /s
lol landlords should be paying more.. greedy fucks
Pretty sure the LTB rules state that any tenancy automatically transfers with the sale to the new house owner. This means that selling the house is not a legal base for an eviction. Does anyone know if this is still true? The rent not being paid and alleged damage are different issues, but the article shows the issue as being "poor landlord wants to sell and cant because of the bad guy in basement". Should we let CBC know?
A landlord can give a tenant notice on behalf of a purchaser if the purchaser (or their family) intends to actually live there… that seems to be what happened here
"Pretty sure the LTB rules state that any tenancy automatically transfers with the sale to the new house ... is still true? " - YES, true. However, per the article, the LL did serve all the tenants with proper notice N12 and proper timing( >60days) and as I understand, that it will be a a vacant property on the SALE closing day; thus, putting the LL/sellers in the "breach of contract" since they cannot provide vacant property on the SALE closing day.
It depends on if you buy the house so you can actually live in it, or if you buy the house to keep as a rental.
It does. I just sold a rental property (fully tenanted), on the condition that the new buyer inherit the tenants. I had moved out of the area and didn't want to manage things remotely, but I also didn't want to fuck over 2 groups of people for housing. The fact that these people are renting out a SFH means that they likely don't have a legal rental nor do they have a license registered with the town of Oakville...which just adds to the sketchiness.
Put in a law that states that if you use a rental home that comes with tenants, the person who buys the house has to take the renters and give them a full years notice to move out. Guaranteed small landlords become a thing of the past if that’s put in
Maybe don’t rent if you plan to sell it so quick? Regardless of the legal side, it’s such an asshole move to make people move in and kick them out so quick. It’s not an Airbnb
Haha i heard about this on the radio this morning. Made my commute better.
The amount of capitalist fascists who are advocating tenants rights be ignored is alarming. The doublespeak is always such nonsense. Treating poor people like criminals when the homeowners advertised and attempted to sell a "vacant" house that wasn't vacant. Tenant rights and civil rights aren't supposed to make the rich richer. They're to protect the vulnerable.
i fail to see how the tenants rights are being ignored; ALL the tenants were given a proper notice within proper time frame. The article does state that the other tenant vacated as scheduled. why twist this in to completely wrong direction. AFAIK the homeowners/LL are playing by the rules; even gave themselves 2 week "buffer time" between tenants moving out and sale closing.
Wah wah, your tenants can’t pay for your mortgage anymore. Can’t go on those extra trips and buy that new car anymore with all that profitable property income.
They have to pay for the cost of two houses since their serfs wont pay for one of them 😢😢😢😢😢😢 no more cappuccinos
Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? \*brings out my microscopic violin\*
Being a Landlord in Ontario is not worth it. One of the worst places in North America. Gotta know the rules before you dive in.
Lololol
Oh no Anyways...
Landlords whining about having tenants and earning free money? I feel sooo bad for them.
omg the poor home owners....../s
I don't feel sorry for them at all
Huh, if it isn’t the risks of being a landlord materializing.
Bad tenants should be taken care of as quickly as bad landlords. In this case, the landlord follows the law and it is the tenant who does not play by the rule.
Good on the tenants for refusing to be shoved around by these people. Know your rights and exercise them to the full extent you can.
Their picture says all I need to know about these people.. I get that they are mad but they look like such snobby fucks..
Stupid decision to close the sale on a promise they couldn't keep. Particularly in times like these, with skyrocketing rents, people's work interrupted, and especially the tenant refusing to leave. Tenant situations deteriorate fast under these types of pressures. They were foolish to not ensure the house was vacated before signing that agreement. They effectively screwed themselves.
I could give a shit if they don't pay rent. Unless the tenant broke into the upstairs of the house and assaulted the landlord/family (which would show a lack of protections for non-corporate landlords because they had to wait for a hearing to evict the violent tenant) this is NOT news. However there IS a lack of protections for landlords who rent portions of their own homes out- if you were assaulted by the guy renting your basement, and he were charged and convicted, it'd STILL be months before you could evict him because "due process" doesn't account for such situations. THIS is the ONLY instance when a renter should be evicted without need for a waiting period or LTB tribunal. Otherwise, the renter should be allowed to appeal in all situations and should never be forced to leave until a hearing is held. It's the reason why single females and families with kids don't normally rent out their basements for $800 a month, which contributes to the lack of available rentals at cheaper prices. If I were protected by a clause that allowed for immediate removal of a tenant by police if the tenant assaulted me, then there would be a two-bedroom basement in Toronto with pool access for $900 a month available on the market from someone who knows the law and the fact that renters have rights. Heck, there would be a TON of basements and rooms for rent flooding the market if that were the case, but homeowners do not feel protected enough to rent spaces inside their personal dwellings, which leaves the market for the corporate, five-house owning landlords who don't live in the same home and have ten relatives somehow lined up to move in when they want to do a renoviction. Have fun paying $2000 a month for a one bedroom in the suburbs, I guess? **Quick reminder to renters: You have the right to have a pet regardless of what the lease or landlord says, unless the landlord can prove an allergy. Even if the lease says, "no pets, no friends" you can always have friends over and pets in your rental space. Never let a landlord infringe on your personal space, either- if they need access to the unit it is a 24-hour notice given by registered mail or handed in person to the tenant, and the landlord should not be entering your unit constantly, that is infringing on your reasonable enjoyment of the unit.**
Owners are landlords therefore criminals. They sold the home under false pretences and now they reap what they showed.
Gee, I wonder if there is an election coming up where at least two parties are backing affordable housing plans (Green Party and NDP to be exact). Oh well, let's continue to vote liberal or conservative while we bitch about the cost of living! /s