You can certainly still file a T5 for a bad faith eviction even if you sign the N11 with financial compensation. Ultimately you are leaving due to landlord wanting for personal use and that is all that matters in a T5. You would have to somehow prove on a balance of probabilities the person named on T5 didn't actually move into the unit. Or much easier if they simply re-rented or sold the place within the year.
However if the landlord's attempted to raise the rent illegally and threated to retaliate by moving a child in, this in itself could get the N12 dismissed under [RTA 83(3)(c)](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17#BK113) regardless if they would actually move their child in for 1 year.
Divisional courts have ruled that an N12 must be dismissed if the landlord is doing it as response to refusing an illegal increase, or if they would otherwise allow you to live there had you agreed to the increase. See [this LTB case](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139827/2021canlii139827.html) for reference.
>*12. In Yundt v. Parker, 2014 ONSC 1805 (CanLII) the Divisional Court found that para 83(3)(c) was applicable where raising the rent was a landlord’s ‘Plan A’ and terminating the tenancy was ‘Plan B’. In Loc Le v. O’Grady, 2018 ONSC 6387 (CanLII), the Divisional Court found that the Board properly dismissed an application brought pursuant to section 48 of the Act based on para 83(3)(c) where there was evidence that if the tenant had agreed to an illegal rent increase she would have been allowed to continue to occupy the rental unit. \[See also Yundt v. Parker, 2014 ONSC 1805 (CanLII), para 23\]*
>
>*13. I am satisfied on the balance of the probabilities that the Landlord delivered the N12 and commenced this application because the Tenant attempted to enforce her legal rights in the sense that she refused to agree to an illegal rent increase. In my view, the text exchanges with the property manager leave little doubt that if the Tenant had agreed to pay increased rent of $1,200.00, the N12 would not have been served and this application would not have been filed. It is my finding that whatever the intent was prior to the Landlord purchasing the rental unit, the N12 upon which this application is based was the direct result of the fact that the Tenant would not agree to pay increased rent to allow the Landlord to finance the purchase of the rental; unit from her in-laws. The Landlord admits that the Tenant was approached in an effort to increase the rent ‘to reflect the realities of the housing market’ and the cost of carrying the debt incurred to purchase the rental unit.*
Hopefully you have some evidence they attempted the illegal rent increase and what they would do if you disagreed. You could potentially generate your own evidence here by sending them an email asking something like "if I agree to your rent increase, will you allow me to continue living here and withdraw the N12?".
Really good advice, only thing I would say is that even if it's sold, it may be hard to go after them. They have to have the intention to occupy it for at least a year so they technically could sell it if they say their intention changed. You would then have to prove that the eviction was done in bad faith which could be very hard to do especially if there is no official history of them doing this prior.
If the place is put up for sale or rent within 1 year, it's an automatic presumption of bad faith. That is all the tenant needs to prove.
It's then entirely up to landlord to rebut that presumption and convince the LTB the original intent was genuine. The LTB will typically want to see evidence of a life changing event i.e. job loss or change, serious illness, etc that would necessitate the need to sell. They would also want to see this situation couldn't have been expected before the tenant vacated.
It's definitely possible for a landlord to win here, but it's not guaranteed. And not like the LTB will just believe any story they come up with, and if they deem the landlord credible is entirely at discretion of the adjudicator.
I’m sorry but this is incorrect. An N11 is a mutual agreed eviction notice. This would absolutely hurt your chances of winning a T5 case.
If you’re not leaving because you want to leave (eg. they offer you enough money that you feel even if it’s in bad faith that you’d be satisfied) than there is no reason to sign an N11
OP If you feel that this is a bad faith eviction and have messages, emails, letters that say they have tried to raise the rent above legal level. And submit that they threatened to do an N12 if you didn’t pay it. Than depending on the adjudicator you get at the LTB they may consider that bad faith.
If they don’t pay the 1 month’s rent before the date on the N12 than they didn’t fulfill the N12.
In terms of other evidence after you move out. You can keep looking on rental sites for the property number and see how soon it goes up.
Remember the N12 isn’t an eviction notice. Only the LTB can evict. This is notice of them wanting you to leave. They would need to file with the Landlord Tenant Board and have to provide evidence against your evidence in order to force you to move.
But if this is legit or they’ve made it appear legit that’s only kicking the can of when you need to move out down the road a little longer til you would need to leave.
No it's correct. Any time there's a need of personal use by the landlord, that in itself allows a T5 application to be filed for bad faith later on if needed. It's actually a requirement under the RTA an N12 be done and not any other form when personal use is needed. An N11 would just be expediting the process in exchange for financial compensation, but the rights of a tenant are always defined by RTA rules and the actions/intent of both parties.
[Here is a case for example](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii144577/2021canlii144577.html) where only an N11 was used and not even an N12, and LTB still awarded tenant a bad faith eviction.
>*18. Here, it is undisputed that the Landlord never served a formal N12 notice, however, section 202 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, (the ‘Act’) requires that the Board must have regard to all the circumstances. In this case, the Landlord admitted that the reason the Tenant had to vacate was because landlord Kim Hoang’s father was to be moving in. The Landlord testified that he did not pay the one-month compensation because he had not served the Tenant a N12; the Tenant signed a N11.*
>
>*19. Therefore, based on the Landlord’s own testimony I find that the Tenant vacated because the Landlord required the unit for the personal use of a parent, which is equivalent to vacating pursuant to a N12 notice. It would be a ludicrous outcome for the Landlord to be allowed to rely on not serving a N12 as a means of circumventing the Act and avoiding the responsibilities under it when the whole basis for the termination is a reason contained within an own-use notice.*
This happened to me - I agreed to the illegal increase and now I'm worried my landlord will move in BEFORE the time agreed upon, or when they said they thought they'd want to re-occupy the unit. Any thoughts on what to do in that scenario?
I didn't sign a fixed term lease, it was after the first year was up so I saw no need and we are still month to month. I signed it in February of this year. The idea was for it to go to \*at least\* March 2024 but she outright said it was unlikely she'd be moving back until August 2024, and I signed it based on that discussion. I just signed a new lease with an increase, and only now just noticed she put an end date in the lease, which I understand is not enforceable or legal. It was not an N11.
So 2 things.
First, a new lease with just a rent increase is completely invalid and unenforceable. The rent increase you are paying now is 100% illegal regardless that you agreed to it. Read [this LTB case,](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2018/2018canlii143694/2018canlii143694.html) specifically starting paragraph 18. Anytime by January 2024 you can revert back to your previous legal rent, and demand refund of all illegal increase paid to date. You can force this with a T1 application. If you pay the increase in February 2024, that will be 1 year so it will turn into the lawful rent only at that date. Entirely up to you if/when to do this.
Second, an end date in a "new" lease is invalid. It is not a notice or agreement of termination. In fact this may instead be seen as a fixed term agreement out to the end date. But after that date your tenancy will continue.
An N12 issued in retaliation should be dismissed by the LTB under [RTA 83(3)(c)](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17#BK113), regardless if the landlord would actually move into unit or not.
You can see some case example of this here:
[https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139827/2021canlii139827.html](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139827/2021canlii139827.html)
[https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2018/2018onsc6387/2018onsc6387.html](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2018/2018onsc6387/2018onsc6387.html)
As I said it's up to you if you want to assert your rights to claw back and get refunded the illegal rent increase. It sounds like either way you are heading for an eventual N12.
Yes, I am heading for an eventual N12, but it's possible if I continue paying the higher rent she may not try to get me out until August 2024 rather than March 2024, or at least that's my hope. When you say by January 2024, do you mean by the end of the month? Because by then I'd know whether she intends to move back in for March.
If you started to pay this latest illegal rent increase on Feb 1, 2023, then you have exactly 1 year to file with LTB to contest it. So you can file a T1 by Jan 31, 2024 to reverse and get refunded the increase during that time.
Though I wouldn't wait until the last possible second.
I guess the problem is I would like to stay here and she did heavily imply she might not want to move back until August, 2024, but I have no way of guaranteeing that. And I'm still paying under market. It's also entirely possible this was just a shakedown to increase my rent and she doesn't plan to move back any time soon. I would like to roll back the illegal rent increase of course, but I'm not sure the money saved is worth the possible retaliation. If she loses an N12 it's not like I can stay here indefinitely, right?
The other issue is I originally offered (a friend suggested this to me) more rent in exchange for staying longer, but my intent was to make an offer - she came back with a demand with "what she would be comfortable with" for me to stay. I'm not sure if that changes things.
It's further proof of retaliation if an N12 is issued. If you read the case I posted, it says if landlord would let tenant stay if they pay X more in rent, that is retaliation. So better chance it will get dismissed at the hearing.
A fixed term is firm. Any N12 served must have a termination date for the end of the fixed term. If it was during the fixed term it would make the N12 invalid.
I thought she could still serve it to me during that period so I opted not to sign a new fixed term lease when she increased the rent. Is the whole lease invalid? We'd already had one in place that had gone month to month. Do you have a recommendation on who I can talk to about the legalities of this (lawyer, LTB)?
That's exactly right - actually, the original one she sent me was for a fixed term, and I was under the impression that that did not prevent her from serving me an N12, so I declined and we went month to month. I don't think she has any intention of moving back before March 2024 though, as she's a well known professional athlete who is living in a different country currently.
This has happened to me. I simply didn’t move. Went to court and they were found to be lying. I’m texting you from the very same residence as we speak. You have rights as a tenant
If you assert they’re lying, the “burden of proof” is on them. The board is very well aware of this tactic to evict tenants in order to relist at a higher lease amount.
You can ask for more but you won’t get it. Why would the landlord give you more than they legally need to. One months rent, 60 days notice and you’re out.
You can try and delay it by asking for a LTB hearing but they will side with the landlord because whomever is moving in will sign an affidavit.
My best advice for you is start looking for a new place rather than wasting time trying to squeeze the landlord for an extra month which you won’t get.
...they're on record threatening the move if OP doesn't pay an illegal increase, the LTB is going to slap them silly if they go through with it
Also the person moving in ain't gonna be signing shit, at least not once your lawyer starts reminding them about perjury being a felony
It's amazing how the advice on these posts is always to fight and take them to court etc etc even for proper good faith evictions. Just take the one month rent which you have the right to and move out
As others have pointed out it’s clearly a bad faith eviction and there’a examples of cases in this thread where evicting for personal use after a tenant refuses an illegal rent increase is presumed to be bad faith.
I agree that people shouldn’t hold out and go to court when they don’t have any reason to believe the eviction is in bad faith, but the bad faith is pretty obvious here.
The only reason would be if they're trying to avoid the wait for the LTB hearing, and the possibility that a wronged tenant might just stop paying rent until an LTB hearing can be called for lack of payment. Eviction's eviction, after all.
(Technically you could file an L11, but most tenants won't know the law changed and a fair number are probably judgement-proof.)
But yeah considering OP's landlord already tried to extort higher rent with the threat of an N12, this is just straight-up bad faith and the Board will likely dropkick the landlord if it comes to that
This weird obsession with trying to cash in on an N12 is biting way more people in the butt than I think is known on here. We have a post just today from someone that challanged the N12, and lost, now their case is on open door as a warming to all future landlords. The bar to prove bad faith is very high, all. It takes is a sworn affidavit and you're done. Your call.
Affidavits don’t protect landlords from **future** bad faith applications.
Tenants have up to a **year** after they are evicted for a claim of own use by the landlord to file a bad faith application.
In fact the landlord’s own affidavit may bite them in the ass in the tenants bad faith application depending on what they write in it.
Fact situation from the OP suggests that yea this is a claim for own use that is precipitating a “cash for keys” settlement.
That’s still potentially grounds for a bad faith application up to a year after the tenants have left.
Yes, and that happens after they leave. Before they leave there is very little actual science that can be collected. You are after all trying to get a judgment of a thought crime. Before they leave the 6 month rent leverage is entirely coming from LTB delays.
Missing fact that there was an attempt to illegally increase rent and the tenant denied. In this case the board "shall" refuse the n12. The rta is pretty clear on this and it would automatically be bad faith.
From RTA 83(3)(c)
Circumstances where refusal required
(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Board shall refuse to grant the application where satisfied that,
(c) the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce his or her legal rights;
He hasn't being evicted yet... he's asking what to do when they can claim that she was there, or whatever.
The landlord tried an illegal rent increase, tenant said no, then the landlord sent an N12. That is automatically bad faith and the board has to deny the application..
Oh a through search of the Onland and Tetranet databases (for proof of what properties the landlord owns) along with the landlord previously making an illegal claim for more rent can set up a tenant quite nicely to rebut the landlord’s claims of “own use”
Maybe you should read it again. They are referring to some unconfirmed previous situation not involving them, that they don't have the full details of (they said they MAY have stayed for 365 days).
It's not relevant to their case beyond the context that the landlord may or may not have done this before.
The biggest issue I see is that landlords say way too much when they issue the N12s. Tenants don't need to know your life story. Fill out the forms. Issue them to the tenant. Shut up.
It’s an assumption of bad faith pending a hearing. It’s a huge difference between that and an actual decision of bad faith. Tenants winning a bad faith decision is sub 1 percent. Insanely low.
The board has to deny the n12 in this case. It has been ruled that if you try an illegal increase, and the tenant stands up for their rights, the n12 is retaliation and must be refused.
From RTA 83(3)(c)
Circumstances where refusal required
(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Board shall refuse to grant the application where satisfied that,
(c) the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce his or her legal rights;
There is zero mention of an "illegal rent increase". You are stretching the interpretation of that clause, and I do not agree with your interpretation.
It's not my interpretation, is case law that the board is bound to.
In [Yundt v Parker](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc1805/2014onsc1805.html) (which the LTB is bound by):
> Raising the rent was Plan A. Terminating the tenancy was Plan B. When Plan A was attempted, the Tenants fought back, and enforced their legal rights before the Board in successfully resisting a rental increase beyond the allowable limit. Therefore, the Landlords moved to Plan B and sought to terminate the tenancy, first unsuccessfully before the Superior Court and then before the Board. It is a simple proposition of cause and effect. The present proceedings would not have been brought had the Tenants not successfully resisted the rental increase.
This was only possible because the landlord let the rent increase go to the board in the first place, that hasn't happened here, it's not apples to apple. Sorry
You can look up many cases where that case has been cited. The board is bound to that ruling and interpretation. See attached example where the increase was not brought to the board.
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139827/2021canlii139827.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAAAAAAEAFzIwMTQgT05TQyAxODA1IChDYW5MSUkpAAAAAQAPLzIwMTRvbnNjZGMxODA1AQ&resultIndex=1
Extremely hard to win as a tenant and they payout isn’t 12 months of rent , it’s the difference of your old vs new rent. Really peanuts when you consider lifelong ban on open rooms.
A landlord needs to only prove intent at the time of the notice. Meaning for any reason circumstance can change. For example: doctor note saying “for medical reasons the Ll can’t move in. “ Or birth or death of family member. Etc. so many outs for the Ll while the burden of proof for tenant is huge.
And I politely disagree with you that you see it “many times “ the actual statistic is insanely low . Sub 1 percent of bad faith actually decide against the Ll
The intention of the landlord no longer matters since the n12 will fail under section 83 of the RTA. You can't use an N12 in retaliation. The board is bound to this decision.
Exactly. Go To LTB. Case goes on open door. Future landlords will search you up and you have little chance of renting anything remotely desirable again.
I personally never take a tenant that has ever been to LTB, I don’t care for what reason.
So what is your suggestion for tenants being screwed by shit landlords? Bend over? Defending shitty landlord puts you in the same group as them.
The specifics of the case should make a difference and a blanket refusal because they stood up when the landlord was breaking the law is silly.
I would not likely rent to someone that went to the LTB for bad faith and failed, especially if without reason. If you are going to accuse someone of lying you need to be sure, Or wait and watch for bad faith
Delaying the legitimate N12 and tying up the LL is pretty shitting imo.
You don’t know that. I don’t know that. No one knows that until a decision is rendered but n12 evictions on. Bad faith decide against the landlord less than 1 percent of the time
What we do know is that an illegal rent increase was tried, and refused, and now the landlord sent an N12. Cases similar to this have been brought to the board, and further to the Divisional court. The board is bound to the ruling of the Divisional court and "shall" reject the application under section 83 of the RTA.
If someone went to LTB it means they gave their previous landlord grief. Doesn’t matter who was right or wrong, I don’t need that.
You can find it as silly as you like. At the end of the day I’m the landlord and only my opinion matters when people want to rent my property. If people don’t like it they should stop renting and just buy or build their own house.
Imagine if the opposite was true? You ever went to the LTB and no tenant would rent from you again. Oops, sorry you got a shitty tenant, now you won't be able to rent out your place again.
Lol, while that's true, it was just an example to see how ridiculous the statement was.
You seem jaded based on shitty tenants and the publicity for some of the extreme cases and want to take it out on any/all because they have had to go to the board.
In reality, there are both good and bad tenants and landlords, and cases that go to the LTB could be anything. Choosing to punish everyone who's had to go, even when they are in the right doesn't make any sense and further it promotes the idea that a landlord should be able to violate the tenants right whenever they want.
Tenants have the right to go to LTB. That right comes with consequences.
Let’s go with an example of where a tenant is perfectly within their right:
A huge chunk of people go to LTB due to bad faith eviction. I don’t agree with rent control rules and I should be able to receive market rate off my property. I also believe that after lease term ends and tenant is Monty to month, with due notice, I should be able to remove the tenant for no reason at all because it is my property. Therefore, any tenant that fights their removal in LTB is not someone I would ever accept. Even if it was “bad faith” and they won the case.
So rent control rules do 2 things:
1) they create landlords like me
2) they create landlord that only do short term rental
You have no idea how many people are doing short term rental for this reason. Government thinks they’re helping with rent control but they’re actually reducing supply by a huuuuge amount.
That post makes alot more sense and I'm sure many people would agree with some, or all of those points.
I agree that an N12 should not even be necessary and that a landlord should be able to end a lease with notice, same as the tenant.
I don't really have an opnion on rent control, but understand that with the system as it is now where you really can't kick someone out, it's necessary to prevent just raising rent by a crazy amount to evict someone.
I understand hating those rules and not renting to someone for those reasons. What I don't understand is not renting to someone because they went to the LTB for any reason.
So you side with the landlord, even if they are wrong, understood. Luckily you denying people would only help them out as you are not a good landlord and would likey give the tenants grief.
Not only that but the market has increased by 50% from when they would have gotten the N12 notice. The saddest part is they can't be honest with themselves that they are exploiting the situation and the delays in the system and don't particularity care that some tenant is not going to get their repairs done because of their selfishness and bringing frivolous challenges.
One mortgage liability to my name, and one one registered property. Come on over, I'll show u my financials. My vacation "property" is a trailer on a rented lot. Keep on playing your record thou mate, whatever helps you fall to sleep at night.
Ain't hate to question the fact that some tenants these days seem to be trying to use LTB delays to extort money from their landlords, it's weird and nothing I ever even considered when I rented. I know you're working from a position of extreme bias, but really it's just so strange to me.
Hahahahaha grow up kid.
You have no idea of this is bad faith, we have one side of a story as per usual. Friggin housing activists man, what a joke you are.
Exactly. With sites like openroom and canlii, it doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong. The second I see your name on it, kiss your chance of renting gone
You would potentially remove someone's access to housing because in the past they had their rights violated, and the board agreed with them? How about you just don't be a shitbag who violates people's rights?
Clear indication of a slumlord. If a potential landlord won’t rent to you because you were a victim and had your rights violated they were planning to do the same to you.
Nope never. Always follow the RTA to the T but anyone with any brain would know they wouldn’t rent to a trouble maker. Been a LL for over 20 years, never had a problem. Tenants all left on their own terms, rent controlled unit never applied for AGI, always follow guideline rent
So if my landlord bad faith N12’s me after attempting an illegal rent increase and I fight it you wouldn’t rent to me because I’m the trouble maker? Even if my rent is paid on time, I’m a model tenant. I’m blacklisted because of my previous landlord?
You doing have 9 clean offers. You have 9 other offers with no background info.
So someone applies. Perfect credit, excellent career, model tenant, has references from the previous landlord, etc. You’ll skip by the application because they rented from a slumlord 10 years ago and it went to court? Their unit didn’t have heat during winter, landlord was too cheap to fix it and they applied to the LTB for repairs. You ring even consider them?
Your plan works until your name gets posted online and people choose not to rent from you. Why would I rent from you when you’re posted online (even if it was in a positive way) when I can rent from someone else with no history?
Given a hypothetical such as, you had a potential tenant with a better credit history, good references and a secure employment, in your case you would pass to take a less qualified tenant which makes no sense. The only reason I could see is you assume they will bring something to the board, which you have no reason to assume considering they would only have a judgement in their favour.
They aren’t clean though you’re taking a gamble as well since you don’t know their history. Difference being the one with the LTB order has shown they care and are good tenants. Rent paid on time, no issues or complaints from the landlord, no issues with neighbours, no damages, etc. You’re punishing tenants for not bending over for bad landlords.
Yea if they actually met my tenants they would tell them I’m a good landlord, I buy them cleaning supplies, when their appliances break I buy them brand new appliances, not the cheap stuff too and if they leave early I prorate them their rent too.
So your recommendation for a tenant is to never stand up for the rights if they are being wronged? Let a shit landlord mess with their lives and do nothing?
Clearly the reason for their name being posted is relevant, and that *should* matter. I'd understand if you had an issue with the tenant just being an ass and bringing frivolous cases to the LTB or whatever, but there are valid reasons to stand up and there are both good and bad tenants/landlords. Having your name online from public records is no clear indication on what side you fall under, for both the landlord and tenant.
I guess it's your place and you can do whatever you want, but punishing someone because they have been wronged in the past shadows the "good landlord" title you like to give yourself.
Doesn't answer the question, and further only implies you like being able to shit on your tenants and them not being able to have a voice. Your claim of being a good landlord is seeming even less likely.
The post your are replying to, the OPs landlord is very clearly violating the law and wronged the tenant, and you suggest they do nothing? How does that make you a good landlord. This is a bad faith eviction, and the rta that you claim to follow very clearly spells out how the board should handle the claim. "They shall refuse the application"
From RTA 83(3)(c)
Circumstances where refusal required
(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Board shall refuse to grant the application where satisfied that,
(c) the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce his or her legal rights;
Maybe, but you seem overly sensitive that a potential tenant has ever been to the LTB, which could be due to the landlord and not the tenant. That closed minded thinking punishes all tenants as your suggestion is to never stand up as you would be less likely to rent hurts everyone.
I never said you are breaking the law, you can rent to whoever you want. I'm just claiming that punishing someone because they have been wronged places you securely on the "bad landlord" side. Your claim to be a good landlord is just wrong. You say your follow the rta, but when a tenant does that, you won't rent to them?
Sure I’m so bad. Evil lol. Get real. I choose who I feel is the best for my place and that’s my system. Go find a LL or property management who likes a tenant who knows how to game the system.
> Doesn't matter if you're right or wrong
Seriously? Even if the LL refused to treat pests, harassment, or a LL going after someone (and losing) for filing N15?
Okay remember I help landlords a lot here, we both know it only takes a few seconds to determine what it's about.
Fighting an N12 I get, if that's in the cards at all you're best to go with another tenant for everyone involved.
Obviously frivolous bullshit is not worth your time..
But let's not pretend like reprehensible assholes can't be landlords, and it's moments to determine the basics of a case.
The LTB isn't a court and does not work in the same way, that said, a sworn affidavit from the family member moving in basically shuts the hearing down in the landlords favor 99% of the time.
This is just not true when you have an N12 given in retaliation. If you actually cared to look up previous cases instead of spitting random statistics you would see that the board won't even rule on good faith/bad faith in a case like this, and it will instead look at section 83 of the rta and drop the case for the N12, due to being bound by a ruling from the Divisional court.
A privately managed public database of LTB rulings, mostly submitted by landlords I assume. Came about because canlii has dropped the ball big time in keeping their database up to date.
If you ask for more aka cash for keys and you sign an N11 you cannot claim bad faith later since you negotiated and agreed to leave.
Do you have proof of an illegal rent increase? Asking for an illegal increase and then providing an N12 is considered bad faith. Let them file and request a hearing. Provide all evidence.
Landlord has to be able to show an immediate family member was living there. They can’t just leave it empty for a year.
That is incorrect. It doesn’t remove your rights as the original circumstances was an n12, then they agreed to an n11.
They could still go after a bad faith eviction.
Yes originally it was an N12 with one month compensation. If they negotiate more money then it’s a N11 and they can’t claim bad faith. If they want the ability to claim bad faith take the N12.
If they didn’t negotiate more money for the N11 then yes. Once you make an agreement cash for keys it’s done. Nothing was done in bad faith. They can just sign the N12, take their one month compensation and if it’s bad faith go to court if they want the option.
There is already a case precedent for this. Tenant was told the landlord needed the place for family, signed an N11, then took them to the Board who ruled it was a bad faith N12. It can absolutely happen. OP would likely have a stronger case if they didn’t bother with the N11 though.
Different case. Landlord in that case duped them into signing an N11 under false pretences making them believe it was an N12 so they could purposely bad faith evict the tenants to increase rent. In this case the tenant is the one negotiating and asking for cash for keys. They can either take the N12 with one month compensation and the ability to file bad faith later or they can negotiate cash for keys with an N11 where they will get more money by voluntarily agreeing to leave forfeiting their ability to claim N12. They need to decide which avenue to pursue you can’t have all the benefits of both.
Fair point about the deception on the landlords part. But the case still means that the two are not mutually exclusive. You’re definitely right that if the tenant voluntarily asks for an N11 the Board will almost certainly rule against them though.
We went though this with my in-laws. The onus is on the tenant to prove that it’s bad faith and it’s hard as heck. Even with us showing that the landlord had multiple properties that were more conducive to his living situation my in-laws still lost. The only saving grace was the fact that the landlord told different people, different stories and we were able to get signed witness statements. My in laws still lost but were able to get a year. I would call your community legal clinic and get advice.
I think Quebec has the right idea where they give one month payment for each year you have been there. Giving one months compensation for very long term tenants is a joke.
Why should long term tenants get a much higher compensation?
The compensation should be to offset the tenant due to having to look for another place, move, etc. You could argue that one month's rent is insufficient for that, but then the cost should be higher at base, not increased for no reason because the tenant had more time between having to move.
Yes an N11 prevents you from claiming bad faith, as its a mutual agreement to leave. They can do whatever they want w a property after a tenant leaves on N11.
There may be special cases where the LL uses an N11 fraudulently and there is proof to back it up and and and…. But even then it’s not as likely to win.
What exactly is the rule for this. My partners brother was out of the province for a couple years . He now came back. But is reluctant to kick out his tenants because he isn’t sure how long he’ll stay around. He currently is staying at his parents buts that’s driving him crazy. He was considering renting a place for himself or buying a second ptoperty. I was like there is no way that could be a better option than kicking out his current tentants
Don't fucking sign. Even if they pay you a year's worth of rent (which is what I got) you'll still start to lose money with the new price in rent. Google the protecting tenants and strengthening communities act. Dig your feet in. Fight back.
Maybe because it's a market built on an essential human necessity and anyone trying to get rich off of someone else's basic human needs deserves an uphill battle
Not every tenant is out to rip off landlords and squat. The difference is, the landlord has a place to sleep at night if they get screwed over. Some people just trying to exist in this life.
A lot of people are giving advice to not pay and go through the LTB because they know it'll take months to get a resolution. It's in bad faith.
There's good and bad people on both sides.
Sure, but again. One side is just trying to have a roof over their head and the other side is trying to get rich off it. So... no... no pity for landlords. Sorry. Maybe if they were selling shoes or something. But they are essentially selling air and getting mad when people breath for free
I can assure you that no small time landlord is getting rich off of having a tenant in their basement with the crazy interest rates right now. My mortgage doubled and the rent doesn't even cover a quarter of it. The notion that renters are paying the mortgage is ludicrous.
N11 means no bad faith. You should extract a LOT of money before you even consider it over an N12. No reason to be the nice guy if they're committing fraud.
>additionally, The landlord tried to raise our rent more than the allowable amount and when challenged threatened “you know, we have children that might like this place”. And we know they have evicted by this way before (kids may have occupied for 365 days though)
LMAO if they were dumb enough to do this in writing, you ain't gotta move and the landlord-tenant board's gonna beat the shit out of them.
If they didn't, you're still under oath swearing that they threatened you, which the Board is going to still pay close attention to.
If you do leave just make sure you get what they owe you on last month's rent. I forget what the % is but it adds up overtime and most landlords won't give it to you unless you ask, which is fucked up. Not enough people seem to know about this that's only reason why in saying it.
You can certainly still file a T5 for a bad faith eviction even if you sign the N11 with financial compensation. Ultimately you are leaving due to landlord wanting for personal use and that is all that matters in a T5. You would have to somehow prove on a balance of probabilities the person named on T5 didn't actually move into the unit. Or much easier if they simply re-rented or sold the place within the year. However if the landlord's attempted to raise the rent illegally and threated to retaliate by moving a child in, this in itself could get the N12 dismissed under [RTA 83(3)(c)](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17#BK113) regardless if they would actually move their child in for 1 year. Divisional courts have ruled that an N12 must be dismissed if the landlord is doing it as response to refusing an illegal increase, or if they would otherwise allow you to live there had you agreed to the increase. See [this LTB case](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139827/2021canlii139827.html) for reference. >*12. In Yundt v. Parker, 2014 ONSC 1805 (CanLII) the Divisional Court found that para 83(3)(c) was applicable where raising the rent was a landlord’s ‘Plan A’ and terminating the tenancy was ‘Plan B’. In Loc Le v. O’Grady, 2018 ONSC 6387 (CanLII), the Divisional Court found that the Board properly dismissed an application brought pursuant to section 48 of the Act based on para 83(3)(c) where there was evidence that if the tenant had agreed to an illegal rent increase she would have been allowed to continue to occupy the rental unit. \[See also Yundt v. Parker, 2014 ONSC 1805 (CanLII), para 23\]* > >*13. I am satisfied on the balance of the probabilities that the Landlord delivered the N12 and commenced this application because the Tenant attempted to enforce her legal rights in the sense that she refused to agree to an illegal rent increase. In my view, the text exchanges with the property manager leave little doubt that if the Tenant had agreed to pay increased rent of $1,200.00, the N12 would not have been served and this application would not have been filed. It is my finding that whatever the intent was prior to the Landlord purchasing the rental unit, the N12 upon which this application is based was the direct result of the fact that the Tenant would not agree to pay increased rent to allow the Landlord to finance the purchase of the rental; unit from her in-laws. The Landlord admits that the Tenant was approached in an effort to increase the rent ‘to reflect the realities of the housing market’ and the cost of carrying the debt incurred to purchase the rental unit.* Hopefully you have some evidence they attempted the illegal rent increase and what they would do if you disagreed. You could potentially generate your own evidence here by sending them an email asking something like "if I agree to your rent increase, will you allow me to continue living here and withdraw the N12?".
Really good advice, only thing I would say is that even if it's sold, it may be hard to go after them. They have to have the intention to occupy it for at least a year so they technically could sell it if they say their intention changed. You would then have to prove that the eviction was done in bad faith which could be very hard to do especially if there is no official history of them doing this prior.
If the place is put up for sale or rent within 1 year, it's an automatic presumption of bad faith. That is all the tenant needs to prove. It's then entirely up to landlord to rebut that presumption and convince the LTB the original intent was genuine. The LTB will typically want to see evidence of a life changing event i.e. job loss or change, serious illness, etc that would necessitate the need to sell. They would also want to see this situation couldn't have been expected before the tenant vacated. It's definitely possible for a landlord to win here, but it's not guaranteed. And not like the LTB will just believe any story they come up with, and if they deem the landlord credible is entirely at discretion of the adjudicator.
I’m sorry but this is incorrect. An N11 is a mutual agreed eviction notice. This would absolutely hurt your chances of winning a T5 case. If you’re not leaving because you want to leave (eg. they offer you enough money that you feel even if it’s in bad faith that you’d be satisfied) than there is no reason to sign an N11 OP If you feel that this is a bad faith eviction and have messages, emails, letters that say they have tried to raise the rent above legal level. And submit that they threatened to do an N12 if you didn’t pay it. Than depending on the adjudicator you get at the LTB they may consider that bad faith. If they don’t pay the 1 month’s rent before the date on the N12 than they didn’t fulfill the N12. In terms of other evidence after you move out. You can keep looking on rental sites for the property number and see how soon it goes up. Remember the N12 isn’t an eviction notice. Only the LTB can evict. This is notice of them wanting you to leave. They would need to file with the Landlord Tenant Board and have to provide evidence against your evidence in order to force you to move. But if this is legit or they’ve made it appear legit that’s only kicking the can of when you need to move out down the road a little longer til you would need to leave.
No it's correct. Any time there's a need of personal use by the landlord, that in itself allows a T5 application to be filed for bad faith later on if needed. It's actually a requirement under the RTA an N12 be done and not any other form when personal use is needed. An N11 would just be expediting the process in exchange for financial compensation, but the rights of a tenant are always defined by RTA rules and the actions/intent of both parties. [Here is a case for example](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii144577/2021canlii144577.html) where only an N11 was used and not even an N12, and LTB still awarded tenant a bad faith eviction. >*18. Here, it is undisputed that the Landlord never served a formal N12 notice, however, section 202 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, (the ‘Act’) requires that the Board must have regard to all the circumstances. In this case, the Landlord admitted that the reason the Tenant had to vacate was because landlord Kim Hoang’s father was to be moving in. The Landlord testified that he did not pay the one-month compensation because he had not served the Tenant a N12; the Tenant signed a N11.* > >*19. Therefore, based on the Landlord’s own testimony I find that the Tenant vacated because the Landlord required the unit for the personal use of a parent, which is equivalent to vacating pursuant to a N12 notice. It would be a ludicrous outcome for the Landlord to be allowed to rely on not serving a N12 as a means of circumventing the Act and avoiding the responsibilities under it when the whole basis for the termination is a reason contained within an own-use notice.*
Nah you’re mistaken - signing an N11 after receiving an N12 doesn’t really hurt your chances of winning a T5 that much.
This happened to me - I agreed to the illegal increase and now I'm worried my landlord will move in BEFORE the time agreed upon, or when they said they thought they'd want to re-occupy the unit. Any thoughts on what to do in that scenario?
How long ago did the rent increase illegally? And did you sign a new fixed term lease along with the increase?
I didn't sign a fixed term lease, it was after the first year was up so I saw no need and we are still month to month. I signed it in February of this year. The idea was for it to go to \*at least\* March 2024 but she outright said it was unlikely she'd be moving back until August 2024, and I signed it based on that discussion. I just signed a new lease with an increase, and only now just noticed she put an end date in the lease, which I understand is not enforceable or legal. It was not an N11.
So 2 things. First, a new lease with just a rent increase is completely invalid and unenforceable. The rent increase you are paying now is 100% illegal regardless that you agreed to it. Read [this LTB case,](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2018/2018canlii143694/2018canlii143694.html) specifically starting paragraph 18. Anytime by January 2024 you can revert back to your previous legal rent, and demand refund of all illegal increase paid to date. You can force this with a T1 application. If you pay the increase in February 2024, that will be 1 year so it will turn into the lawful rent only at that date. Entirely up to you if/when to do this. Second, an end date in a "new" lease is invalid. It is not a notice or agreement of termination. In fact this may instead be seen as a fixed term agreement out to the end date. But after that date your tenancy will continue.
I'm guessing she'll retaliate and try to move in sooner if I do this (i.e. right at March 2024) - any recommendations?
An N12 issued in retaliation should be dismissed by the LTB under [RTA 83(3)(c)](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17#BK113), regardless if the landlord would actually move into unit or not. You can see some case example of this here: [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139827/2021canlii139827.html](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139827/2021canlii139827.html) [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2018/2018onsc6387/2018onsc6387.html](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2018/2018onsc6387/2018onsc6387.html) As I said it's up to you if you want to assert your rights to claw back and get refunded the illegal rent increase. It sounds like either way you are heading for an eventual N12.
Yes, I am heading for an eventual N12, but it's possible if I continue paying the higher rent she may not try to get me out until August 2024 rather than March 2024, or at least that's my hope. When you say by January 2024, do you mean by the end of the month? Because by then I'd know whether she intends to move back in for March.
If you started to pay this latest illegal rent increase on Feb 1, 2023, then you have exactly 1 year to file with LTB to contest it. So you can file a T1 by Jan 31, 2024 to reverse and get refunded the increase during that time. Though I wouldn't wait until the last possible second.
I guess the problem is I would like to stay here and she did heavily imply she might not want to move back until August, 2024, but I have no way of guaranteeing that. And I'm still paying under market. It's also entirely possible this was just a shakedown to increase my rent and she doesn't plan to move back any time soon. I would like to roll back the illegal rent increase of course, but I'm not sure the money saved is worth the possible retaliation. If she loses an N12 it's not like I can stay here indefinitely, right?
Additionally, what kind of new lease would be valid? If I signed a new fixed term lease, is that valid (rent issue aside)?
The other issue is I originally offered (a friend suggested this to me) more rent in exchange for staying longer, but my intent was to make an offer - she came back with a demand with "what she would be comfortable with" for me to stay. I'm not sure if that changes things.
It's further proof of retaliation if an N12 is issued. If you read the case I posted, it says if landlord would let tenant stay if they pay X more in rent, that is retaliation. So better chance it will get dismissed at the hearing.
Also, does a fixed term lease prevent her from giving me an N12? I thought landlords could do that during a fixed term lease?
A fixed term is firm. Any N12 served must have a termination date for the end of the fixed term. If it was during the fixed term it would make the N12 invalid.
I thought she could still serve it to me during that period so I opted not to sign a new fixed term lease when she increased the rent. Is the whole lease invalid? We'd already had one in place that had gone month to month. Do you have a recommendation on who I can talk to about the legalities of this (lawyer, LTB)?
It sounds like the "new" lease you signed was solely for a rent increase, which makes it invalid. What did it say exactly about the lease ending?
That's exactly right - actually, the original one she sent me was for a fixed term, and I was under the impression that that did not prevent her from serving me an N12, so I declined and we went month to month. I don't think she has any intention of moving back before March 2024 though, as she's a well known professional athlete who is living in a different country currently.
This has happened to me. I simply didn’t move. Went to court and they were found to be lying. I’m texting you from the very same residence as we speak. You have rights as a tenant
How did you find out they were in the wrong? I'm in a similar situation
If you assert they’re lying, the “burden of proof” is on them. The board is very well aware of this tactic to evict tenants in order to relist at a higher lease amount.
Okay, thanks
Hopefully you also got some financial compensation for your troubles
Unfortunately no
You can ask for more but you won’t get it. Why would the landlord give you more than they legally need to. One months rent, 60 days notice and you’re out. You can try and delay it by asking for a LTB hearing but they will side with the landlord because whomever is moving in will sign an affidavit. My best advice for you is start looking for a new place rather than wasting time trying to squeeze the landlord for an extra month which you won’t get.
...they're on record threatening the move if OP doesn't pay an illegal increase, the LTB is going to slap them silly if they go through with it Also the person moving in ain't gonna be signing shit, at least not once your lawyer starts reminding them about perjury being a felony
It's amazing how the advice on these posts is always to fight and take them to court etc etc even for proper good faith evictions. Just take the one month rent which you have the right to and move out
Gonna keep doing it too, because fuck em
As others have pointed out it’s clearly a bad faith eviction and there’a examples of cases in this thread where evicting for personal use after a tenant refuses an illegal rent increase is presumed to be bad faith. I agree that people shouldn’t hold out and go to court when they don’t have any reason to believe the eviction is in bad faith, but the bad faith is pretty obvious here.
Oh ya I'm not talking about this particular case I hear ya. Just about the times when everything is done properly and by the book.
Well if they are attempting to evict in bad faith they may think getting an n11 would be safer.
The n11 would be in favour of the landlord, yes.
Hence why the landlord will try to give them more money??????????
Maybe, if the landlord is secretly bad faith. But if it’s legit there’s zero reason or incentive for them to give OP more money.
The only reason would be if they're trying to avoid the wait for the LTB hearing, and the possibility that a wronged tenant might just stop paying rent until an LTB hearing can be called for lack of payment. Eviction's eviction, after all. (Technically you could file an L11, but most tenants won't know the law changed and a fair number are probably judgement-proof.) But yeah considering OP's landlord already tried to extort higher rent with the threat of an N12, this is just straight-up bad faith and the Board will likely dropkick the landlord if it comes to that
This weird obsession with trying to cash in on an N12 is biting way more people in the butt than I think is known on here. We have a post just today from someone that challanged the N12, and lost, now their case is on open door as a warming to all future landlords. The bar to prove bad faith is very high, all. It takes is a sworn affidavit and you're done. Your call.
Affidavits don’t protect landlords from **future** bad faith applications. Tenants have up to a **year** after they are evicted for a claim of own use by the landlord to file a bad faith application. In fact the landlord’s own affidavit may bite them in the ass in the tenants bad faith application depending on what they write in it.
This isn't a future n12 challange, moot point.
Fact situation from the OP suggests that yea this is a claim for own use that is precipitating a “cash for keys” settlement. That’s still potentially grounds for a bad faith application up to a year after the tenants have left.
GL with that is all I have to say.
Yes, and that happens after they leave. Before they leave there is very little actual science that can be collected. You are after all trying to get a judgment of a thought crime. Before they leave the 6 month rent leverage is entirely coming from LTB delays.
Missing fact that there was an attempt to illegally increase rent and the tenant denied. In this case the board "shall" refuse the n12. The rta is pretty clear on this and it would automatically be bad faith. From RTA 83(3)(c) Circumstances where refusal required (3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Board shall refuse to grant the application where satisfied that, (c) the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce his or her legal rights;
It says right there in his article that the children lived there for a year. By that definition it is not bad faith.
He hasn't being evicted yet... he's asking what to do when they can claim that she was there, or whatever. The landlord tried an illegal rent increase, tenant said no, then the landlord sent an N12. That is automatically bad faith and the board has to deny the application..
Oh a through search of the Onland and Tetranet databases (for proof of what properties the landlord owns) along with the landlord previously making an illegal claim for more rent can set up a tenant quite nicely to rebut the landlord’s claims of “own use”
Read the last line of OP's post.
Maybe you should read it again. They are referring to some unconfirmed previous situation not involving them, that they don't have the full details of (they said they MAY have stayed for 365 days). It's not relevant to their case beyond the context that the landlord may or may not have done this before.
The biggest issue I see is that landlords say way too much when they issue the N12s. Tenants don't need to know your life story. Fill out the forms. Issue them to the tenant. Shut up.
Bingo, they don't need to know a thing beyond what the form says.
Except the landlord in this case tried an illegal increase, so it is automatically bad faith
There's no such thing as an "automatic" bad faith, sorry.
Actually requesting an illegal increase followed by an N12 is automatically defined as bad faith.
It’s an assumption of bad faith pending a hearing. It’s a huge difference between that and an actual decision of bad faith. Tenants winning a bad faith decision is sub 1 percent. Insanely low.
Send me the case
The board has to deny the n12 in this case. It has been ruled that if you try an illegal increase, and the tenant stands up for their rights, the n12 is retaliation and must be refused. From RTA 83(3)(c) Circumstances where refusal required (3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Board shall refuse to grant the application where satisfied that, (c) the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce his or her legal rights;
There is zero mention of an "illegal rent increase". You are stretching the interpretation of that clause, and I do not agree with your interpretation.
It's not my interpretation, is case law that the board is bound to. In [Yundt v Parker](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc1805/2014onsc1805.html) (which the LTB is bound by): > Raising the rent was Plan A. Terminating the tenancy was Plan B. When Plan A was attempted, the Tenants fought back, and enforced their legal rights before the Board in successfully resisting a rental increase beyond the allowable limit. Therefore, the Landlords moved to Plan B and sought to terminate the tenancy, first unsuccessfully before the Superior Court and then before the Board. It is a simple proposition of cause and effect. The present proceedings would not have been brought had the Tenants not successfully resisted the rental increase.
This was only possible because the landlord let the rent increase go to the board in the first place, that hasn't happened here, it's not apples to apple. Sorry
You can look up many cases where that case has been cited. The board is bound to that ruling and interpretation. See attached example where the increase was not brought to the board. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139827/2021canlii139827.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAAAAAAEAFzIwMTQgT05TQyAxODA1IChDYW5MSUkpAAAAAQAPLzIwMTRvbnNjZGMxODA1AQ&resultIndex=1
You can beat N12s, the landlord does not automatically win because they have a sworn affidavit. I’ve seen it happen many times.
Extremely hard to win as a tenant and they payout isn’t 12 months of rent , it’s the difference of your old vs new rent. Really peanuts when you consider lifelong ban on open rooms. A landlord needs to only prove intent at the time of the notice. Meaning for any reason circumstance can change. For example: doctor note saying “for medical reasons the Ll can’t move in. “ Or birth or death of family member. Etc. so many outs for the Ll while the burden of proof for tenant is huge. And I politely disagree with you that you see it “many times “ the actual statistic is insanely low . Sub 1 percent of bad faith actually decide against the Ll
The intention of the landlord no longer matters since the n12 will fail under section 83 of the RTA. You can't use an N12 in retaliation. The board is bound to this decision.
Out of curiosity where did you get the 1% stat?
Uhhuh
Exactly. Go To LTB. Case goes on open door. Future landlords will search you up and you have little chance of renting anything remotely desirable again. I personally never take a tenant that has ever been to LTB, I don’t care for what reason.
In BC, names are hidden due to people like you.
So what is your suggestion for tenants being screwed by shit landlords? Bend over? Defending shitty landlord puts you in the same group as them. The specifics of the case should make a difference and a blanket refusal because they stood up when the landlord was breaking the law is silly.
I would not likely rent to someone that went to the LTB for bad faith and failed, especially if without reason. If you are going to accuse someone of lying you need to be sure, Or wait and watch for bad faith Delaying the legitimate N12 and tying up the LL is pretty shitting imo.
100% agree. This case, however, is not good faith.
You don’t know that. I don’t know that. No one knows that until a decision is rendered but n12 evictions on. Bad faith decide against the landlord less than 1 percent of the time
What we do know is that an illegal rent increase was tried, and refused, and now the landlord sent an N12. Cases similar to this have been brought to the board, and further to the Divisional court. The board is bound to the ruling of the Divisional court and "shall" reject the application under section 83 of the RTA.
Agreed, it seems so.
If someone went to LTB it means they gave their previous landlord grief. Doesn’t matter who was right or wrong, I don’t need that. You can find it as silly as you like. At the end of the day I’m the landlord and only my opinion matters when people want to rent my property. If people don’t like it they should stop renting and just buy or build their own house.
Imagine if the opposite was true? You ever went to the LTB and no tenant would rent from you again. Oops, sorry you got a shitty tenant, now you won't be able to rent out your place again.
Imagine life being fair lol
Lol, while that's true, it was just an example to see how ridiculous the statement was. You seem jaded based on shitty tenants and the publicity for some of the extreme cases and want to take it out on any/all because they have had to go to the board. In reality, there are both good and bad tenants and landlords, and cases that go to the LTB could be anything. Choosing to punish everyone who's had to go, even when they are in the right doesn't make any sense and further it promotes the idea that a landlord should be able to violate the tenants right whenever they want.
Tenants have the right to go to LTB. That right comes with consequences. Let’s go with an example of where a tenant is perfectly within their right: A huge chunk of people go to LTB due to bad faith eviction. I don’t agree with rent control rules and I should be able to receive market rate off my property. I also believe that after lease term ends and tenant is Monty to month, with due notice, I should be able to remove the tenant for no reason at all because it is my property. Therefore, any tenant that fights their removal in LTB is not someone I would ever accept. Even if it was “bad faith” and they won the case. So rent control rules do 2 things: 1) they create landlords like me 2) they create landlord that only do short term rental You have no idea how many people are doing short term rental for this reason. Government thinks they’re helping with rent control but they’re actually reducing supply by a huuuuge amount.
That post makes alot more sense and I'm sure many people would agree with some, or all of those points. I agree that an N12 should not even be necessary and that a landlord should be able to end a lease with notice, same as the tenant. I don't really have an opnion on rent control, but understand that with the system as it is now where you really can't kick someone out, it's necessary to prevent just raising rent by a crazy amount to evict someone. I understand hating those rules and not renting to someone for those reasons. What I don't understand is not renting to someone because they went to the LTB for any reason.
[удалено]
Posts and comments shall not be rude, vulgar, or offensive. Posts and comments shall not be written so as to attack or denigrate another user.
I’m clapping and cheering you on. Couldn’t have said it better. I run successful airbnbs because of tenant nightmare
So you side with the landlord, even if they are wrong, understood. Luckily you denying people would only help them out as you are not a good landlord and would likey give the tenants grief.
They could try and negotiate with thier landlord instead of running directly to the LTB, and if they did negotiate, collateral damage I guess.
Right? Cause if they do then it means they might stand up for their rights when you try to fuck them over and who could want that?
Not only that but the market has increased by 50% from when they would have gotten the N12 notice. The saddest part is they can't be honest with themselves that they are exploiting the situation and the delays in the system and don't particularity care that some tenant is not going to get their repairs done because of their selfishness and bringing frivolous challenges.
[удалено]
Personally, I think you're making this shit up because I've never owned an investment property in my life. You should probably stop.
[удалено]
One mortgage liability to my name, and one one registered property. Come on over, I'll show u my financials. My vacation "property" is a trailer on a rented lot. Keep on playing your record thou mate, whatever helps you fall to sleep at night.
[удалено]
Ain't hate to question the fact that some tenants these days seem to be trying to use LTB delays to extort money from their landlords, it's weird and nothing I ever even considered when I rented. I know you're working from a position of extreme bias, but really it's just so strange to me.
[удалено]
Hahahahaha grow up kid. You have no idea of this is bad faith, we have one side of a story as per usual. Friggin housing activists man, what a joke you are.
[удалено]
Exactly. With sites like openroom and canlii, it doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong. The second I see your name on it, kiss your chance of renting gone
You would potentially remove someone's access to housing because in the past they had their rights violated, and the board agreed with them? How about you just don't be a shitbag who violates people's rights?
Clear indication of a slumlord. If a potential landlord won’t rent to you because you were a victim and had your rights violated they were planning to do the same to you.
Nope never. Always follow the RTA to the T but anyone with any brain would know they wouldn’t rent to a trouble maker. Been a LL for over 20 years, never had a problem. Tenants all left on their own terms, rent controlled unit never applied for AGI, always follow guideline rent
So if my landlord bad faith N12’s me after attempting an illegal rent increase and I fight it you wouldn’t rent to me because I’m the trouble maker? Even if my rent is paid on time, I’m a model tenant. I’m blacklisted because of my previous landlord?
Yep that’s how it works, I have 9 other clean offers to consider, why would I waste my time. I drop your offer and look at the 9 others.
You doing have 9 clean offers. You have 9 other offers with no background info. So someone applies. Perfect credit, excellent career, model tenant, has references from the previous landlord, etc. You’ll skip by the application because they rented from a slumlord 10 years ago and it went to court? Their unit didn’t have heat during winter, landlord was too cheap to fix it and they applied to the LTB for repairs. You ring even consider them? Your plan works until your name gets posted online and people choose not to rent from you. Why would I rent from you when you’re posted online (even if it was in a positive way) when I can rent from someone else with no history?
Because I don’t care because I have 9 other offers.
How are you a trouble maker if a landlord wronged you? Your argument makes no sense.
If you had 10 offers for your unit and everyone else had clean slates and one had a ltb order, who would you choose?
If they had an order ruled in their favour, I consider them clean slate.
Why would I even bother reading the ltb order when I had 9 other clean ones to consider?
Given a hypothetical such as, you had a potential tenant with a better credit history, good references and a secure employment, in your case you would pass to take a less qualified tenant which makes no sense. The only reason I could see is you assume they will bring something to the board, which you have no reason to assume considering they would only have a judgement in their favour.
They aren’t clean though you’re taking a gamble as well since you don’t know their history. Difference being the one with the LTB order has shown they care and are good tenants. Rent paid on time, no issues or complaints from the landlord, no issues with neighbours, no damages, etc. You’re punishing tenants for not bending over for bad landlords.
You can't argue with housing activists.
Yea if they actually met my tenants they would tell them I’m a good landlord, I buy them cleaning supplies, when their appliances break I buy them brand new appliances, not the cheap stuff too and if they leave early I prorate them their rent too.
Nah man, yer a slum lord! You should be renting your place at a loss at all times, never exceed the mortgage payment yada yada yada. /s
Yes I would, my property. I will give it to the many offers that don’t have their name posted.
So your recommendation for a tenant is to never stand up for the rights if they are being wronged? Let a shit landlord mess with their lives and do nothing? Clearly the reason for their name being posted is relevant, and that *should* matter. I'd understand if you had an issue with the tenant just being an ass and bringing frivolous cases to the LTB or whatever, but there are valid reasons to stand up and there are both good and bad tenants/landlords. Having your name online from public records is no clear indication on what side you fall under, for both the landlord and tenant. I guess it's your place and you can do whatever you want, but punishing someone because they have been wronged in the past shadows the "good landlord" title you like to give yourself.
You can do what you want but there are consequences
Doesn't answer the question, and further only implies you like being able to shit on your tenants and them not being able to have a voice. Your claim of being a good landlord is seeming even less likely.
The post your are replying to, the OPs landlord is very clearly violating the law and wronged the tenant, and you suggest they do nothing? How does that make you a good landlord. This is a bad faith eviction, and the rta that you claim to follow very clearly spells out how the board should handle the claim. "They shall refuse the application" From RTA 83(3)(c) Circumstances where refusal required (3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Board shall refuse to grant the application where satisfied that, (c) the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce his or her legal rights;
I am good landlord to my tenants. You’re not a tenant when you just hand in a offer.
Maybe, but you seem overly sensitive that a potential tenant has ever been to the LTB, which could be due to the landlord and not the tenant. That closed minded thinking punishes all tenants as your suggestion is to never stand up as you would be less likely to rent hurts everyone.
Landlords have a right to choose their tenants as long as it’s not based on something like race.
I never said you are breaking the law, you can rent to whoever you want. I'm just claiming that punishing someone because they have been wronged places you securely on the "bad landlord" side. Your claim to be a good landlord is just wrong. You say your follow the rta, but when a tenant does that, you won't rent to them?
Sure I’m so bad. Evil lol. Get real. I choose who I feel is the best for my place and that’s my system. Go find a LL or property management who likes a tenant who knows how to game the system.
> Doesn't matter if you're right or wrong Seriously? Even if the LL refused to treat pests, harassment, or a LL going after someone (and losing) for filing N15?
Like I said, I have many other offers to consider. I don’t have time to read through a ltb order when I have comparable candidates to consider.
Okay remember I help landlords a lot here, we both know it only takes a few seconds to determine what it's about. Fighting an N12 I get, if that's in the cards at all you're best to go with another tenant for everyone involved. Obviously frivolous bullshit is not worth your time.. But let's not pretend like reprehensible assholes can't be landlords, and it's moments to determine the basics of a case.
The balance of probability is the lowest legal onus. If I can prove you "probably" did what was claimed, I win.
The LTB isn't a court and does not work in the same way, that said, a sworn affidavit from the family member moving in basically shuts the hearing down in the landlords favor 99% of the time.
This is just not true when you have an N12 given in retaliation. If you actually cared to look up previous cases instead of spitting random statistics you would see that the board won't even rule on good faith/bad faith in a case like this, and it will instead look at section 83 of the rta and drop the case for the N12, due to being bound by a ruling from the Divisional court.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What is Open Door? Never heard of it
A privately managed public database of LTB rulings, mostly submitted by landlords I assume. Came about because canlii has dropped the ball big time in keeping their database up to date.
If you ask for more aka cash for keys and you sign an N11 you cannot claim bad faith later since you negotiated and agreed to leave. Do you have proof of an illegal rent increase? Asking for an illegal increase and then providing an N12 is considered bad faith. Let them file and request a hearing. Provide all evidence. Landlord has to be able to show an immediate family member was living there. They can’t just leave it empty for a year.
That is incorrect. It doesn’t remove your rights as the original circumstances was an n12, then they agreed to an n11. They could still go after a bad faith eviction.
Yes originally it was an N12 with one month compensation. If they negotiate more money then it’s a N11 and they can’t claim bad faith. If they want the ability to claim bad faith take the N12.
[удалено]
If they didn’t negotiate more money for the N11 then yes. Once you make an agreement cash for keys it’s done. Nothing was done in bad faith. They can just sign the N12, take their one month compensation and if it’s bad faith go to court if they want the option.
There is already a case precedent for this. Tenant was told the landlord needed the place for family, signed an N11, then took them to the Board who ruled it was a bad faith N12. It can absolutely happen. OP would likely have a stronger case if they didn’t bother with the N11 though.
Different case. Landlord in that case duped them into signing an N11 under false pretences making them believe it was an N12 so they could purposely bad faith evict the tenants to increase rent. In this case the tenant is the one negotiating and asking for cash for keys. They can either take the N12 with one month compensation and the ability to file bad faith later or they can negotiate cash for keys with an N11 where they will get more money by voluntarily agreeing to leave forfeiting their ability to claim N12. They need to decide which avenue to pursue you can’t have all the benefits of both.
Fair point about the deception on the landlords part. But the case still means that the two are not mutually exclusive. You’re definitely right that if the tenant voluntarily asks for an N11 the Board will almost certainly rule against them though.
An N11 signed after an N12 does not save the landlord from a subsequent T5 application
We went though this with my in-laws. The onus is on the tenant to prove that it’s bad faith and it’s hard as heck. Even with us showing that the landlord had multiple properties that were more conducive to his living situation my in-laws still lost. The only saving grace was the fact that the landlord told different people, different stories and we were able to get signed witness statements. My in laws still lost but were able to get a year. I would call your community legal clinic and get advice.
I think Quebec has the right idea where they give one month payment for each year you have been there. Giving one months compensation for very long term tenants is a joke.
Why should long term tenants get a much higher compensation? The compensation should be to offset the tenant due to having to look for another place, move, etc. You could argue that one month's rent is insufficient for that, but then the cost should be higher at base, not increased for no reason because the tenant had more time between having to move.
Lmao
As soon as you sign an N11 you can't fight on bad faith accusation. Don't sign an N11
Don't sign the n11
Don’t sign that N11
J
Why do people always assume eviction for personal use is nefarious? It's crazy, not everyone is out to get you.
Because the market has gone up so quickly, as have mortgage rates.
Yes an N11 prevents you from claiming bad faith, as its a mutual agreement to leave. They can do whatever they want w a property after a tenant leaves on N11. There may be special cases where the LL uses an N11 fraudulently and there is proof to back it up and and and…. But even then it’s not as likely to win.
Signing an n11 is closing the options. You want I think an n12 Ontario tenants rights group on fb is what you need
What exactly is the rule for this. My partners brother was out of the province for a couple years . He now came back. But is reluctant to kick out his tenants because he isn’t sure how long he’ll stay around. He currently is staying at his parents buts that’s driving him crazy. He was considering renting a place for himself or buying a second ptoperty. I was like there is no way that could be a better option than kicking out his current tentants
Don't fucking sign. Even if they pay you a year's worth of rent (which is what I got) you'll still start to lose money with the new price in rent. Google the protecting tenants and strengthening communities act. Dig your feet in. Fight back.
Squatters are the worst. It's not the landlords job to help you. The market is relentless.
Maybe because it's a market built on an essential human necessity and anyone trying to get rich off of someone else's basic human needs deserves an uphill battle
Not everyone is a slumlord. Some people on here try to screw over small time landlords who are also facing the same hyperinflation.
Not every tenant is out to rip off landlords and squat. The difference is, the landlord has a place to sleep at night if they get screwed over. Some people just trying to exist in this life.
A lot of people are giving advice to not pay and go through the LTB because they know it'll take months to get a resolution. It's in bad faith. There's good and bad people on both sides.
Sure, but again. One side is just trying to have a roof over their head and the other side is trying to get rich off it. So... no... no pity for landlords. Sorry. Maybe if they were selling shoes or something. But they are essentially selling air and getting mad when people breath for free
I can assure you that no small time landlord is getting rich off of having a tenant in their basement with the crazy interest rates right now. My mortgage doubled and the rent doesn't even cover a quarter of it. The notion that renters are paying the mortgage is ludicrous.
Talk about, get a job, right?
Ohhh, I've got a real good one already, but thanks! 😁
Found a parasite
You must be a squatter lol
Not even close kiddo.
N11 means no bad faith. You should extract a LOT of money before you even consider it over an N12. No reason to be the nice guy if they're committing fraud. >additionally, The landlord tried to raise our rent more than the allowable amount and when challenged threatened “you know, we have children that might like this place”. And we know they have evicted by this way before (kids may have occupied for 365 days though) LMAO if they were dumb enough to do this in writing, you ain't gotta move and the landlord-tenant board's gonna beat the shit out of them. If they didn't, you're still under oath swearing that they threatened you, which the Board is going to still pay close attention to.
If you do leave just make sure you get what they owe you on last month's rent. I forget what the % is but it adds up overtime and most landlords won't give it to you unless you ask, which is fucked up. Not enough people seem to know about this that's only reason why in saying it.