This post is based on recent personal experience as a #landlord in #Ontario.  It is devoid of my usual number of images, videos and media, but it explains the hardships that small landlords (those with 1-3 rental units) face when dealing with tenants AND (especially) with the broken system governed by the #Residential Tenancies Act (enacted by the #McGuinty #Liberals).

The landlord tenant tribunal is dumb as f*ck

I will preface this by saying that this is not a rant and as with all my articles and posts, I will back it all up with facts, research and proof.  This is a bar that I set for myself so as not to attack any topic without giving it its chance, something that the idiot members at the Social Justice Tribunals, specifically those at the Landlord #Tenant Tribunals, do not do themselves.

I will cite some examples and decisions from the small landlord’s perspective and hopefully help to empower some of the landlords I know who are getting royally screwed by tenants and the tribunal itself, something that needs to stop and something that the next election should look to solve.  Set a higher bar for the egregious bullshit that tenants are allowed to pull and the absolute waste of time that this tribunal really is.

I would also like to add that there are some landlords out there that really are absolute slumlords and horrible people, however we are also not living in the 1920s era New York City.  Further, the city itself has a huge issue with rental units not being readily available, nor will developers themselves build these and yet they treat the small investor (the landlords) like complete and utter shit in this process.

Light history of how this tribunal came to be

Historically, landlord and tenant relations in Ontario were governed by the Landlord and Tenant Act. Disputes between landlords and tenants could only be formally addressed through the court system.

In 1998, the Conservative government of #Mike Harris enacted the Tenant Protection Act, which created a new regime governing residential tenancies. The act established the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal as a quasi-judicial body to adjudicate disputes, thus largely removing landlord-tenant law from the (real and actual) court system.

The act and the tribunal were criticized by some people as being biased in favour of landlords, and yes, at this point I would have also agreed about it being skewed toward landlords, though that was still not my experience as a small landlord in 2004 when I nearly went bankrupt due to (what I call) professional tenants (who game the system and generally know it better than you would).

QUICK FACTS

In 2006, the Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty repealed the act and replaced it with the current Residential Tenancies Act, which also restructured and altered the rules of the tribunal and gave it its current name.

More BS treatment of small landlords

There are a few important differences between applications made by landlords and applications made by tenants when it relates to matters of jurisdiction. Under the Act a tenant must have been in possession of a rental unit (at any time) prior filling an application with the board.  If a landlord files an application with the board when a tenant is not in possession of the rental unit the application will be dismissed. If a landlord would like to make a claim against a tenant after a tenant has vacated the rental unit the landlord must seek compensation through the Ontario Small Claims Court.

How it differs from other provinces

In Ontario, the tenants are extremely protected, even when they threaten other tenants and/or the landlord.  Here are some highlights, along with the province that enacted them.

24-hour notice

In Alberta, if a tenant assaults or threatens to assault a landlord or another tenant or does significant damage to the residential rental premises the landlord can

• apply to the RTDRS or court to end the tenancy; or
• give the tenant a 24-hour notice to end the tenancy

This differs from Ontario in that we have to give the tenant 14-days notice and they will all dispute this eviction.  The police is unwilling to do anything when one tenant threatens the other and will not press charges on their own.

14-day notice

In Alberta, a substantial breach occurs when a tenant does not carry out any of their obligations under the RTA or when a tenant commits a series of breaches of the residential tenancy agreement and the cumulative effect is substantial. If a tenant commits a substantial breach of the residential tenancy agreement, the landlord can apply to the RTDRS or court to end the tenancy or give the tenant a 14-day notice to end the tenancy.

Further, a tenant cannot object to a 14-day notice for nonpayment of rent. The landlord can hire a civil enforcement agency to carry out a Distress for Rent. The agency can seize the tenant’s possessions to pay for the unpaid rent and costs.

This differs from Ontario in that here we give this notice and it is often invalidated by the tenant, many times in a full out lie in an affidavit, that the members of the Board are fully complicit in doing. You can easily google and find landlords that have never collected any rent from their tenants through the life of a tenancy and yet the tenants, via the complicit Board, remain in possession of the unit(s) for more than eight (8) months (such as this one: https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2012/08/31/case_highlights_flaws_in_landlord_tenant_rules.html).

10 Day Notice for Unpaid Rent or Utilities

Notice of repossession

In Quebec, under civil law, not common law as all the other provinces of #Canada, the owner-lessor may give notice to the tenant that they want to repossess the unit based on the length of lease. If the lessee refuses or does not reply to the notice, the owner-lessor may, with the Régie du logement’s authorization, repossess the dwelling. The application to the Régie du logement must be made within one month following receipt of the lessee’s refusal or the expiry of the period granted to the lessee to reply.

This differs from that of Ontario where possession and good faith can all be challenged by the tenant, as has recently happened with my wife and I who want to move into our home, yet the Ontario #Social Justice Tribunal will not allow us to take it back, as they state that they:

…find it curious that the Landlord and his spouse wanted to move into the unit after they got married, and to start a family; and they were married in June 2017…

Further, the member who made this order states:

If I am wrong, and the Landlord has met the good faith requirement, I would have used my discretion under section 83 of the Act to deny the eviction.

What we hear and understand from this is that, even though she IS completely wrong, she would still deny us our own home based on this. This is basically 100% discretionary power that the members possess where they can just, at any given point, deny a real need based on their gut feel.

Some appeals and (real) court cases based on LTB decisions

A decision of Justice Ted Matlow in the Ontario Superior Court in 2012 contains valuable lessons for residential landlords and tenants, along with a strong message for the Ontario government, the Landlord and Tenant Board and the officials charged with making rules for Ontario courts.

My recent experience sitting as a single judge of this court to hear motions has convinced me that there is a growing practice by unscrupulous residential tenants to manipulate the law improperly, and often dishonestly…

… It is practice that imposes an unfair hardship on landlords and reflects badly on the civil justice system in Ontario. It calls for the government, the Landlord and Tenant Board and this court to respond.

I have chosen this case, which is one of many similar cases that came before me during a five-day period hearing motions, as an example of the problem that I describe. I could easily have chosen many others.

Divisional Court decision has opened up a way to weed out vexatious litigants in the statutory courts and tribunals, but lawyers say a lot more needs to be done.

I find that the appeal is manifestly devoid of merit and should therefore be quashed…

… The tenants are vexatious litigants who must obtain leave of this court before filing additional materials regarding this matter

… There is not the same financial deterrent for a tenant acting in bad faith…

… ​This creates a situation where the tenant really has nothing to lose and everything to gain by unnecessarily prolonging litigation

And finally, a former member of the Social Justice Tribunal was on CBC proclaiming that changes need to occur in the system in order to make it more fair toward landlords.

The legislation has to change…

… The biggest problem with it is the amount of time it takes to get an eviction and how easy it is to create delays.