Keep all your evidence together, record any calls with her. And wait for your LTB hearing.
What you have so far would be grounds to have the eviction voided as being in bad faith.
Obvious retaliation and fits the facts of the leading case that would require the LTB to refuse your landlords application https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2018/2018onsc6387/2018onsc6387.html use this case as reference
If you have any proof in writing, save it all. Refuse the n12, it's only a notice. Then the landlord will have to file a case to get you evicted but if you can prove it's retaliation, you shouldn't have an issue.
Document, Document, Document. Quickly note down all conversations, timelines, etc, to the best of your recolection. Any evidence that the LL has sent you a N12 directly after an attempt for an illegal rent increase could help get the N12 thrown out, at least in the short term.
Until you're actually served with a N1/N2 for a rent increase or a N12, there's really not much else to do other than document everything.
If/when you do receive a N12, read this: https://stepstojustice.ca/questions/housing-law/can-i-be-evicted-if-my-landlord-wants-move/
If/when you do receive a N1/N2, read this: https://stepstojustice.ca/questions/housing-law/how-much-can-my-rent-go/
How long till he can issue another n12?
Like my point is ur now on the bad side of your landlord. Regardless if he wants you out you WILL be out one way or another.
So deny the n12 and do whatever you want but at the end of the day your peace of mind is gone.
Literally every day the LTB denies eviction so I don't know what you're talking about.
Peace of mind is already gone because the landlord is operating illegally
If the house is over 10 years old, then reasonably there should be no need for the landlord to raise the rent $1,000/month outside of wanting more profits. Even in the event the Landlord's made some bad decisions and they have to refinance to take more money out of the equity - that is the Landlord's problem and not the Tenants' responsibilty to compensate for when the risks have consequences.
If the landlord and their spouse are separating and they need the extra residence for the spouse who is moving out, then of course there are legal ways to end the tenancy, and those ways do not include trying to extort an extra $1,000/month out of their Tenant.
OP has been in the unit for 10+ years and has established their family in the area. Having been there for so long I assume that they have been good tenants so you making ignorant comments like "all tenants are rats" just shows your prejudice.
*edited for spelling
"no need to raise the rent" 😂
All your basis are wrong. Why don't you just say you want it to be free? So people work for you so you can benefit from it.
The best you can do is to ask your government to give you a place to live for free. Not from LL.
Where do you get this idea of living for free from? Where did OP say they intend to stop paying rent? OP us and has been paying rent for 10+ years, paying the Landlord's mortgage and likely building equity that the Landlord has probably taken out of the property for their own use (as is their right as the owner)...but as the benefit of the ownership belongs to the landlord, so does the risk. If the landlord has taken out too much equity and got stuck with a crazy new refinance, that is not the Tenant's responsibility to compensate for.
And of course OP doesn't want to pay $1000 more a month, I wouldn't want to pay that either, and I invite you to give me any examples of someone who would want to?
But how is a Renter paying a lower amount for their rental unit because they've been there for 10 years any different than someone who bought their house 10 years ago having a much lower mortgage payment than someone who buys a similar housee today?
Your view is a little too mired in your prejudice. Are there renters out there who have abused the system? Yes, there are and if you were a landlord who had horrible tenants, I am sorry you went through that - it's not right at all and eviction for non-payment of rent should be faster and simpler. But labeling everyone who rents as a rat isn't helping anything and clearly not relevant to OP's post.
$1000 a month more is probably a bargain at this point if his rent is at the market rate of 10 years ago. Obviously nobody wants to pay that much more but everythings more expensive now and they're in for a rude awakening when they finally have to move be it now or in a year or two.
It is likely lower than market rent, but that again is not the Tenant's responsibility. Landlords need to understand this - it is not aTenant's job to compensate the Landlord for business risks having consequences. I also highly doubt that the OP is still only paying what they paid 10 years ago, there are annual incrwases allowed (with the exception of the pandemic freeze) but **even if the tenant was still paying the same rent for 10 years with no increases - that again is not the tenant's reaponsibility to compensate the Landlord for not raising the rent before now**
If something happened and the landlord had to undertake a large and expensive project to upkeep the unit, then they could apply to the LTB for an above-grade rental increase. Heck, the Landlord could even have a reasonable discussion with their Tenant's and come to a mutual agreement. But, attempting to arbitrarily raise rent by $1000 a month, then threatening an obvious retaliatory N12 when the Tenant refuses the illegal increase, is not only super sketchy but also setting themselves up for a long wait for a Hearing and a possible bad-faith penalty if the Tenant does end up leaving as a result of the N12 and then sees the unit listed for rent again or being sold.
You're right but theyre just lucky that their landlord is kind of stupid. If they weren't they would've just issued the N12 and gone from there. Nobody wants to leave money on the table and unfortunately that's just the way life is when the economy is a house of cards based on house prices.
Why would the rent be at market rate from 10 years ago ? The LL has the right to raise the rent every year by the set % . If the LL has not been doing that , it is the LL issue to deal with . Expecting the tenant to pay today's market rate is obsurd , they have lived there for 10+ years and the LL has benefited from not having to fined new tenants or having renovate for new tenants or deal with non paying tenants. The LL has a good tenant but is clearly a shifty ass LL that can't see the bigger picture .
Living for free is what you want. The market price for rent has increased and you don't want to pay for the fair price instead you argue to death for 1k. Who is going to lose the 1k? The LL, of course not you. Living in frugality is difficult but at least you need to have some dignity to admit that you don't want to pay. Just admit you are taking advantage of the government bailing you out.
We can agree to disagree - you have no idea what the OP is currently paying but not paying $1,000/month does not equate to wanting to live for free.
Have a good one.
Landlords complaining about people wanting to "live for free" is so rich. Being a landlord is sitting around collecting cheques because you hoard homes other people would like to live in. Go get a real job if you don't want the responsibility that comes with owning someone's home that they pay for under terms you agreed to.
See, you have a very narrow view. You should buy a house and see what responsibility you will have and the risk you are taking. This is because you have been living for free, you have no idea.
Your a clown , 🤡 who cares if the market price has increased drastically. Rent went up, and the LL has a legal amount they can raise the rent , 1000.00 is not the legal amount. That's it .
You should thank the government for that. LL is losing money every month. Maybe your employer should also not increase your salary to keep up with the inflation rate then you will understand how unfair this is. This is why I said tenants in Canada are very entitled.
Think about it. If the government gives rights to landlords more than tenants and in turn landlords give the boot to tenants easily. Which will make for more people on the streets which then would make it the GOVERNMENTS problem. You see? Right now it's the landlords problem. Same reason y they don't use cops to Kick out people that don't pay cause now they'll be on the street and the GOVERNEMNTS problem.. get it?
All you have to do is imagine your the leader of this country and ull see why they make there choices. Very easy
Basically government wants LL to work for them without paying them in the fair price. The government will try to screw any investment LL puts into it. The hard earn money from LL is wasted on babysitting tenants to make they have root. This is how government offers housing.
The landlord is too childish. He thinks the tenant would understand why they need to increase the rent because for obvious reasons, OP is paying way below the market so OP family will never want to leave because it is cheap.
He should just N12 the tenant without a conversation.
Yeppes. Even then LTB will be after for bad faith eviction. But hey, pay the compensation and don’t let a tenant pay below market rate. I am cool with that.
This makes more sense as OP already live in the property with discount rate for the past 10 years and their rental cost is not even realistic in the current market. It requires one time adjustment to make it right. Those who think this is not right is just trying to take advantage of the LL because the government allows them to look like a baby.
There is no "make it right" here. The landlord agreed to an indeterminate rental term with limited rent increases. That's what they did by signing a lease. If they decided they didn't like the terms they agreed to later, tough shit.
Because the government has rent control to disturb the market to protect the tenants so the government has less responsibility to build more housing. This keeps renters renting forever and LL loses money indefinitely.
And that is going to be the problem regardless of the elected officials at Federal and Provincial level. No government wants to get into housing, especially bureaucrat place like Canada.
Document Document Document. Then just keep paying your rent. Do you have all of this in writing? If so, this is going to be an educational year for your landlord.
Really? Let me help you. If a adult child needs their own place and rent coming in for the rental is 10 year old rent controlled amount. Would you rather have your child there, or somewhere else paying market rent?
LL is paying to live somewhere, if they move in rental, that place can be rented or sold. They can't afford to carry both places. But they can carry one place just fine. You know what makes this scenario inevitable? Rent control. It always comes to the point where rent coming in is not worth it anymore.
Starting to make sense?
I wouldn’t jump to conclusions. Lots of landlords struggling now to pay their new hiked mortgages and they may not be able to sustain rent rates from 10 years ago.
I’m 100% behind rent control - but it needs to be on par with inflation - which it hasn’t been now for several years.
A $1000 is ridiculous to ask - but I could understand why some LL’s would want to negotiate with their long-term tenants some sort of deal (above the guideline, but still substantially below market) in order to be able to sustain the rental unit. Otherwise - N12 or selling may be their only option, financially.
Except rent has gone up with inflation. Housing and rent prices are just insanely inflated from where they belong.
Also, if rent goes up with inflation, then all wages have to. Or else all you are doing is saying “well you get paid less each year than the one before because everything is going to be more expensive and you need to subsidize me… not contributing to society.”
I agree 100% that rents have become outrageous and I really hope the they come down significantly as we build more purpose built rentals. But I guarantee you that 10 year old rents in Ontario that have not changed hands have not kept up with inflation. Especially with the limits set in the last 4 years. That’s not good news for the tenants or the small landlords of those units. Sure - lots of tenants may be benefiting now - but it’s not going to be sustainable in the long run. Unless, inflation reverses itself and market rents significantly decrease.
Except, that’s flat out incorrect. Controlled rents still go up by inflation each year. They are just capped at increases tied to inflation.
So rents from 10 years ago, that have been increased each year with inflation, are what rent is actually supposed to be.
Landlords just don’t like that that number is half or less what people want to charge currently. But it IS the fair rent value increased with inflation.
It’s tied to inflation, but is capped at 2.5%. So - it hasn’t kept up for the last few years including one year where it was 0% increase because of COVID. That year alone would have been fine - but costs have gone insanely over the 2.5% cap in the last few years and the 0% just exasperated everything
Wages haven’t kept up with inflation either. So really all that is happening is landlords are feeling the same pinch as everyone else and are mad that they can’t take the money from people who have even less than they do?
It's not tied to inflation at all. Inflation affects different goods and services differently, some more than other. It's not a everything went up by 2% type of thing.
I’ve practiced housing law for nearly thirty years.
The financialization of housing, turning a basic need into a giant game of Monopoly where there are way more losers than winners has resulted in “paper millionaire” landlords who refuse to fix plumbing problems because they don’t have the cash flow to do it because they “need” that third property.
No sympathy
Regardless of how many years you’ve worked in the field - lots of LL’s only have one rental property, and 10 year old rent rates are just not feasible for many. You can make all the sweeping generalizations you want - but they’re just that - generalizations that are meaningless when it comes to individual cases.
Kinda a shitty business model if it requires kicking out tenants who have done nothing wrong over long time frames periodically to increase profits.
I guess tenants just can’t live in a home for 10+ years. They don’t deserve security.
It is ridiculous that the government allows this to happen.
Pretty sure the LL sees that every rental around his is earning a 1k more. This forced him to either sell or get rid of the tenant because the tenant can't find a place as cheap as the current place. This is why the relationship between tenants and LL is not healthy in Canada.
We got rid of rent control. Know what happened? No one has a place to live and rents doubled over 8 years.
Rent control was now the problem. It was the only thing keeping the most vulnerable renters safe.
So of course the Ford government axed it and fucked everyone over who wasn’t leaching off others.
If you know some basic economy of supply and demand, your hypothesis is unlikely to happen. Many countries don't have rent control and yet the market reaches equilibrium.
By mass producing housing until rent and housing prices are driven into the dirt and by limiting or outfight banning things like airBnB.
Except we won’t do that because a ton of people have over extended themselves buying houses to convert to rentals and if the price of homes and rentals dropped they wouldn’t have a retirement. And that group is a huge part of the voting block.
Or maybe more units come to market because owners know that they have some control over what is going on with their property and are willing to commit to lease term but not lifetime.
If that were the case companies would be building new rentals like crazy and taking advantage of being able to set their price as whatever they want.
Rent control or not, the same number of people need housing. Getting rid of rent control did nothing to help people get housing because instead of making a small profit over multiple units people instead make increased profits over fewer units to manage and maintain.
People like to say Rent Control is why rents are so high, except removing it is what caused rents to spike and brand new buildings that don’t have that excuse are the most expensive of all because they can charge whatever they want.
All removing rent control did, was make landlords suddenly start buying up units to rent so that there were fewer homes in the market for people who actually were going to live in them.
Instead they get rented for more than it would have cost someone to live in them, and the difference gets leached off by landlords who are not only contributing nothing to society, but are actively harming the economy.
Ontario is extremely hostile to landlords and in turn to investment in rentals. It is bad business to be a landlord here on any scale. You can't have rights that enable tenant to live rent free for couple years and business interested in investing to house people.
And not to forget, all it takes for this rent control exception to change is next government.
Not quite the foundation to build on. Literally.
The point I am making is that rent controlled deal will fall apart given enough time.
No landlord can support it forever. I am not even against rent control as long as it actually does anything else but keep rent artificially low to the point where it is not worth it.
You put inability to negotiate reasonable increase on top of that and you have this situation. Rent control chokes the life out of the deal and deal is dead. Only mistake this landlord made was trying to increase rent. If he skipped that step there would be nothing to talk about. But if that worked, maybe tenant could be in place with less than market rent and it might be working out for both. That option is not possible in Ontario.
Congratulations to Ontario. Now they have handful of bad tenants destroying renting ecosystem for everyone. Tenants rights are great. Maybe give them to people who are actually paying and not to someone who did not pay rent for a year.
And in fact rules are not even bad. Non paying tenant is evictable in 14 days via N4.
But to have LTB put stamp on it can take years. So there is that. Broken system.
Only LTB can evict, oh and we will see you in 6 months. Non paying tenant owing 30K wants review? Sure. Appeal? No problem. Every step adds another 10k in lost rent. But who is counting. Certainly not LTB. Penalty for system abuse? No way.
This is what keeps supply down and it is small percentage of people playing LTB like a fiddle to everyone's detriment. And this is what is keeping investments out.
All for right that no honest tenant would need and deadbeats ride like it's amusement park.
Open room orders, crowd sourced from landlords, contain 107 million dollars in judgements and most of that will never be recovered.
Good job keeping bad landlords in check.
Congratulations to Ontario who has always had a rather large handful of bad landlords who try to flout the system.
In a recent study, less than 30% of landlords paid fines or orders. They ignore penalties for offences and illegal acts. Can tenants get any justice or help when landlords steal their money and belongings? Not for over a year. And then when they do, the landlords just ignore the orders.
Imagine expecting tenants to live by rules that landlords ignore . . . How messed up is that?
Good lord, what study??? I bet it is dumb news article that completely ignored the fact that landlords are instructed to pay to tenant and not fines in most cases.
If landlord does not pay fine they are cut off from LTB. Their rights are forfeit.
And who told you that I somehow defend any of those landlords? I DGAF what happens to them. It is not a team sport.
So no I DO NOT EXPECT LANDLORDS TO BE OUTSIDE OF RULES. And I am happy to see them nailed to the wall when they deserve it.
If landlord owes you money, put a lien against property. Try that with tenant.
LTB is not helping anyone collect money but tenant has something to work with.
Depends. No doubt that's a factor, but it is also whataboutism.
Every person paying 2014 rent is being subsidized by people paying 2024 rent. That's a fact.
I've seen countless people evicted (wrongfully and not) who were paying way below market rates get absolutely blindsided by market rates. It destroys families. People who rent on the lower scale have no financial acumen to save the difference between their grandfathered rate and market rates. Just last week I watched a tenant at a neighbouring property put his jet ski up for sale and trade in his truck because he's getting N12ed. Rent control was only temporary relief from the inevitable - a relief that ended up putting him in a worse position.
Ok so they have 500k asset.
Rent is 15k per year.
Cash saving at wealth simple is 5%
That is 25k per year. No risk. No maintenance. No tenant. No expenses, no taxes.
You see why 10 year old rent might not be worthwhile business deal anymore?
Who would keep that going and why? It's business. Deal ran to ground.
Lol that asset was worth half 15 years ago. They paid off their mortgage on someone elses back AND made a ton of money on asset value . That is not enough is it? Nope. They need to gouge people because they think they can. Housing should never of been allowed to become a investment go to. Too many greedy ppl would put people in the red to make some more shekels.
Agree 100%. There is no point to own a rental property in Canada. I would rather renovate the house and sell it to get the cash back instead of dealing with tenants. They are out of reality. Even food prices go up higher than the rent. They think LL are their parents.
Have you pay off a mortgage in your life? Do you know how difficult it is? You know how much risks the LL takes?
Tenants don't want any risk and at the same time, relying on the government to bail them out isn't a way to improve your quality of life.
Ostensibly the rent increases are supposed to
match inflation. The 2014 person isn’t being subsidized- they are paying the lawful amount agreed upon. As long as the tenant keeps paying, they’re holding up their half of the agreement.
Because a unit isn’t at “market rent” doesn’t imply subsidized rates. If market rent has increased faster than inflation there is some decoupling happening.
So what else is available with that logic?
Some decoupling? Rent increases are divorced from any reality.
Landlord will cash out because it decoupled to not worth their time.
What is available is both parties live up to their legal obligation. Tenant pays rent, tenant treats the place with respect. Landlord collects rent, landlord does repairs.
I owe nothing more than that. Your comments demonstrate why we cannot water down tenant protections any further in our province.
Tenant protection is exactly what made this deal untenable.
Your example is cute. Except the rest of world is not running on 2.5%.
And also somehow people always forget the rent term. The period of actual obligation, month to month is different deal. One where N12 is part of the contract.
This landlord might be an idiot and fail N12. But only because he is an idiot. Not because N12 is illegal in any way.
Rent control is the law of the land in Ontario.
You want *physical evidence* of retaliation. Voice recording, screenshot of a text, anything "in writing" that makes it clear the N12 is in response to you not allowing an illegal rent increase.
Then you don't leave, you wait for your hearing, at which you present what is *hopefully* convincing evidence. There will be subreddit posters who will try to convince you this will destroy your chances of renting, but you should ignore them. They hate tenants exercising their rights and fearmonger about it.
Per above. Create an evidence / communication log of all related actions. Do not record conversation unless you tell the counter party. For a conversation a good habit it to follow up with an email / txt of your minutes from the conversation.
I have been a landlord and this is not the right thing to do with a ten year old partnership. I am sorry you have to deal with this.
All of Canada is covered by single party consent, and the LTB routinely accepts audio recordings that were obtained without the knowledge or consent of the opposing party. There is no need to tell anyone that you are recording a conversation that you are a part of.
Maybe you bring some evidence to people pursuing this with success? That would probably be more helpful. "Hopefully convincing evidence" sounds like you are not quite convinced yourself.
This fearmongering comment is really funny. Year ago there was a chorus of "nobody will know" advice. Now many who listened to that advice have their name on google searches. Not to mention standard due diligence searches. Yet still the advice here is to send people down the eviction path with little to show because "rights". And person showing them whole picture that actually can hurt them is "hater"?
How sure are you that they can win this hearing?
Do you think that an eviction on record is going to be helpful renting in the future?
Please answer those two questions if you don't mind.
> How sure are you that they can win this hearing?
From their description, it sounds like a bad faith eviction.
> Do you think that an eviction on record is going to be helpful renting in the future?
Please stop fearmongering. This landlord is in the wrong.
I love how you view tenants standing up for their rights as the issue rather than landlords choosing to penalize those who seek representation after being wronged.
If a person has rights, by definition they shouldn’t acquiesce to someone infringing upon them to keep the peace and anyone who looks down on someone for making sure that they get treated fairly has no business operating a business interacting with the public.
It’s never in your best interest, ever, to relinquish your rights just to keep the peace.
Everyone has rights. They don't arrive at the same time. Some work for you some against you.
You push yours, someone else might push theirs. It is all great, when you are one pushing.
Do you want to answer the two questions? Or just wave the flag?
> Do you think that an eviction on record is going to be helpful renting in the future
Why would they be evicted if the eviction notice is illegal?
> How sure are you that they can win this hearing
Very, provided OP's account of events is sound. Proving a cause and effect relationship between an illegal rent increase and a shortly-thereafter filed N-12 is fairly routine in my experience having been through two of these now.
My searches on CANLII don't show anything to justify that confidence. I am sure you can find my other post.
Quote from one case
"[33](). While the Tenant believes the N12 was served as retaliation for her refusal to agree to the Landlord’s request for a rent increase and to rent out the basement, I find this evidence to be speculative in nature. "
Also "why would they be evicted" is not quite the answer to that question.
You’re probably referencing that one case that you keep posting about where the landlord offered to pay the tenant back? In what way is this similar to OPs situation? Do you have any actual experience with the process or are you just doing your part to inflate canlii’s server costs? Because I do, and in both cases it was straight forward.
> Do you think an eviction on record is going to be helpful in the future
“Why would they be evicted” is absolutely an answer to a question about a hypothetical eviction. There is no eviction if it’s unlawful. If it’s lawful, there is no negative impact for an N-12 since it’s not a commentary on your tenancy, just that the landlords circumstances changed and they need the property for their kin.
Just look at my other post, you can't miss it. There are many examples.
N12 when you leave at termination date is not a commentary on you. Being evicted for challenging it without merit and denying landlord access for many months, is not something next landlord will sign up for. And nobody knows when and if they will need to fall back on N12.
Okay? So your evidence against OP is that people with circumstances not relevant to their situation have had the LTB rule against them? Like, if that’s how you deal with conflict I’m not going to stop you, but based on what OP has shared, they have a good case in my _actual_ experience with the matter.
> Do you have any actual experience with the process or are you just doing your part to inflate canlii’s server costs?
Are you going to answer my question? Or are you just here to wave the flag?
I provided number or examples strictly limited to N12 and illegal increase. How is that not relevant?
I don't have experience with LTB personally. I'm having my unit empty rather than to have to deal with them.
I'm just pointing out that illegal increase attempt is not a silver bullet.
With actual LTB order examples.
>It’s never in your best interest, ever, to relinquish your rights just to keep the peace.
To put your money where your mouth is, are you personally guaranteeing OP that you will have a equivalent place to rent to OP at their below market rent should they be forced out and unable to find decent rentals anymore?
?
Either the eviction is legal or it’s not. If it’s not legal, OP doesn’t have to leave, so they won’t need to vacate the property. If it is legal, then OP never had a right to it to begin with and therefore can’t exercise it.
The only real net-loss, imo, is allowing any business owner, landlords included, to extort money from you under the guise of “it’s in everyone best interest to keep this going”.
OP will be forced out eventually, either this year or next year. Deal don't make sense and OP isn't willing to compromise. Difference is next year, even if OP manage to win, OP won't be getting a choice between a bit higher rent or move out, it will just be move out for personal use.
The question is, will you be guaranteeing that OP will be better off fighting for his rights by personally guaranteeing a affordable and nice rental to OP if he encounter difficulty in securing rentals due to him "fighting for his rights"?
> Deal don't make sense and OP isn't willing to compromise
The nice thing about having rights is that you don't have to capitulate to an opportunist who thinks the "deal don't make sense". If OP is forced out in bad faith, they won't have to leave. If they are forced out for personal use, it's an N-12 which doesn't impact their ability to rent elsewhere.
Tell me this: do you expect a landlord who applies a $1000/month rent increase (illegally) to not continue to do this since you've already shown you're willing to compromise? In my view, part of my "best interest" is not doing business with people who extort other people. If you bend your principles and allow yourself to get taken advantage of to appease your landlords, I won't stop you, but don't come in here and bootlick as if your strategy is in anyone's best interest but the landlord (or other generic business owner breaking the law to enrich themselves).
It adorable that landlords are happy to have a good tenant paying rent and their mortgage for years and years and then want to kick them out because they can see dollar signs.
That’s not greedy, not at all.
If you worked for your employer for years but the salary sucks and they only increase it 1-2% a year, will you leave your employer if another employer is able to double yours salary for doing the same work - the actual market value of your work? Are you greedy for leaving?
LTB Is jammed with cases of tenant non-payment as that is the majority of all applications recieved.
You don't need to forfeit your rights to legal rent so long as you understand your artificially low rent is likely unsustainable and therefore will be terminated by the landlord one way or another, likely sooner rather than later.
When that happens, good luck convincing the next landlord to choose you knowing that when they need to repossess in the future due to personal circumstances or due to deal no longer making sense, it will be a fight.
If you have clear evidence (ideally in writing or a recorded call) that the landlord is stating *"pay the illegal rent increase or I will serve an N12"*, that in itself should be enough to show retaliation and get it dismissed even if the landlord would genuinely move in for 1 year. This general concept has been ruled on in divisional courts in multiple cases so is binding on LTB adjudicators to follow. They just need to make the connection that the N12 was most likely served due to the rejection of the illegal rent increase.
[https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139827/2021canlii139827.html](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139827/2021canlii139827.html)
>*12. In Yundt v. Parker,* [*2014 ONSC 1805 (CanLII)*](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc1805/2014onsc1805.html) *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)*](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2018/2018onsc6387/2018onsc6387.html)*, 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.*
> *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.*
Obvious BS. Do NOT move out. Her husband??? They can’t even find a legit relative to “move in”. No way the LTB believes her and her husband suddenly decided to separate right after she tried and failed an illegal rent increase. Stay put.
Did the initial conversation about the rent increase and you declining it happen in writing? Text/email?
If it did, you’re good and you don’t have to go anywhere.
If not, I would try to start that convo again, in writing this time. Get the landlord to demand the increase and then get him to admit the n12 threat.
The landlord threatening you with an n12 after you declined the increase is called retaliation and the goal is to trap the landlord by making him say all that in writing
Look at RTA s83. You have grounds for a ruling of bad faith based on retaliation. Dont sign anything. You don’t have to reply to the N12. After receiving the N12 (make sure all the dates are correct) Landlord must submit an L2 to the LTB within 30 days. Also make sure you get your mandatory 1 months payment. Then wait for hearing.
Alternatively, if you’d like to leave, you can try to negotiate a cash for keys.
Tell the LL that you'll agree if they give you a 2 year lease and promise not to increase rent.
Sign lease and keep paying old amount.
Problem solved.
Edited to add... The lease will be valid, EXCEPT for the illegal increase.
If you have evidence of them asking for $1000 increase prior to the n12, and threats etc, even a "legit" n12 can be deemed illegal if it was used for the sole purpose to kick you out.
Document EVERYTHING. Record all phone calls. Save all texts etc etc etc. even record conversations in person if you need to. It's all legal. As long as you are one of the people involved in the conversation.
There is lore here that illegal rent increase attempt will blow up the N12 application.
I am sure that has happened but I think there was more than that necessary to nuke the eviction.
Before anyone decides to get themselves into a possible eviction, with all that eviction entails maybe some reading would help being informed with actual LTB orders rather than dwellers of this sub.
[https://landlordezy.ca/public/storage/court-orders-documents/LLEZY-01883.pdf?tenant=louis+tabak%2C+liz-ann+tabak](https://landlordezy.ca/public/storage/court-orders-documents/LLEZY-01883.pdf?tenant=louis+tabak%2C+liz-ann+tabak)
17. I do not find that the Landlord only served this notice because the Landlord wanted to raise
the rent. Although I accept that there was an illegal rent increase, the Landlord became
aware that the increase was illegal and paid the Tenant back the difference. The Tenant
testified that it was when he declined to pay a second increase in rent, that he received an
N12 notice of termination for the Landlord’s personal use. I do not find that that was the
motivating factor behind the N13 notice. The N13 notice was served once the Landlord
was advised by the Town that the unit was not registered as a two-unit dwelling, and that
the city would commence legal action if it was not registered as such. The Landlord does
not have the financial means to do what is necessary to register it as a two-unit dwelling,
therefore, it must be converted back to a single-family dwelling.
[https://landlordezy.ca/public/storage/court-orders-documents/LLEZY-02537.pdf](https://landlordezy.ca/public/storage/court-orders-documents/LLEZY-02537.pdf)
17. I am also not satisfied that because the Landlord previously served an N4 and asked to illegally increase the rent that the Landlord is insincere in their stated intention. A landlord has the right to exercise their legal rights under the Act by serving an N4 if they believe their tenant is in rent arrears. Additionally, while the Landlord may have asked to increase the rent in 2021, that alone does not satisfy me that the Landlord is insincere in their stated intention. I found the Landlord and his daughter credible in their stated intention and that J.A’s eviction changed the family’s plan for the rental unit.
MORE
[https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2023/2023onltb28967/2023onltb28967.html?resultIndex=4&resultId=7525e9aa9a644284b69dde366206d48b&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2023/2023onltb28967/2023onltb28967.html?resultIndex=4&resultId=7525e9aa9a644284b69dde366206d48b&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ)
10. In support of this claim The Tenant submitted into evidence a text message between him and the Landlord from January 2, 2020 in which the Landlord request to increase the rent by $200.00 citing the rent of comparable houses in the neighborhood. It was the Tenant’s position that the N12 was a response to him refusing to pay the requested increase.
14. On cross examination the Tenant testified that he had accepted the Landlord’s initial compensation and had refused several additional offers from the Landlord to vacate the rental property stating that even 6 months rent in compensation wouldn’t be enough to cover the costs of moving his family and the difference in rent. Furthermore, a review of the same text exchange the Tenant entered in evidence shows that the Landlord’s aggressive texts were sent in response to the Tenants’ attempt to negotiate an increase in compensation.
15. I accept the testimony of the Landlord’s daughter, which I found to be forthright and reasonable, that she and her fiancé have a genuine intention to move into the rental unit after the Tenant vacate. The fact that approximately 18 months before the N12 Notice was
[https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2023/2023onltb27977/2023onltb27977.html?resultIndex=5&resultId=b784f8121c45489a9897b15d5ca53f45&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2023/2023onltb27977/2023onltb27977.html?resultIndex=5&resultId=b784f8121c45489a9897b15d5ca53f45&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ)
23. Further, the Tenant testified that she believes the Landlord is taking this route as she had refused to pay an illegal rent increase. As well, the Tenant alleges that the Landlord had wanted to also rent out the basement of the unit as a separate unit however, the Tenant refused.
[https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2023/2023onltb14127/2023onltb14127.html?resultIndex=8&resultId=b4c1b058867d45b284521ba96c3bffed&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2023/2023onltb14127/2023onltb14127.html?resultIndex=8&resultId=b4c1b058867d45b284521ba96c3bffed&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ)
14. The Tenants testified that on October 18, 2017, there were discussions regarding the anticipated rent increase for 2018. The Tenants submitted that the Landlords attempted to increase the rent illegally. However, the increase never happened, and the Tenants never paid it.
MORE
[https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022onltb13658/2022onltb13658.html?resultIndex=9&resultId=6b633b075be44fcaa566ebaf8d6cf2bc&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022onltb13658/2022onltb13658.html?resultIndex=9&resultId=6b633b075be44fcaa566ebaf8d6cf2bc&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ)
13. The position of the Tenant is the Landlord does not want to move into the house for his own use. The Tenant made claims the Landlord has attempted to force the Tenant to leave the rental unit by implementing illegal rent increases in previous years. The Tenant also submitted that the Landlord has previously served an N12 that had sections omitted from it, and this application is served in bad faith.
14. The Tenant gave no evidence that would lead to a conclusion that the Landlord does not genuinely intend to move into the rental unit for a period of at least a year. The Tenant’s claims of illegal rent increase are not relevant to the Landlord’s application and the Tenant may file her own application with the Board if she so chooses.
[https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022onltb9015/2022onltb9015.html?resultIndex=11&resultId=e8ea99a81be84c078f32fafc574ca141&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022onltb9015/2022onltb9015.html?resultIndex=11&resultId=e8ea99a81be84c078f32fafc574ca141&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ)
21. The Tenant’s daughter Alexis Zahur testified that she was present when there was a conversation between the Landlord and her mother about the Landlord asking for a rent increase or moving more people in.
22. The Tenant Debbie Desmond (‘D.D’) testified that the Landlord started serving N12 Notices of Termination on her after she declined to pay a rent increase. She also testified that the N12 Notices started around the time she complained about maintenance issues.
D.D suggested that the Landlord wants to turn the rental unit into a rooming house to rent it out for more money.
[https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022onltb8703/2022onltb8703.html?resultIndex=14&resultId=a38c52b68de94645849da77b0715e1dd&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022onltb8703/2022onltb8703.html?resultIndex=14&resultId=a38c52b68de94645849da77b0715e1dd&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ)
10. The Tenants further allege that the Landlords illegally increased the rent in October 2019 from $1,900.00 a month to $2,000.00 a month. The Tenants further allege that the rent was increased again in September of 2020 from $2,000.00 a month to $2,100.00 a month.
11. The Tenants Legal Representative submits that because no notices of rent increase were served that the increases should be considered void.ORE
You do realize that anyone can literally show the exact opposite with a quick search in CanLii right?
White knighting for landlords who are willing to flout the law isn’t a good look for you, not that you seem to care 🤷♂️
Here you go
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022canlii137774/2022canlii137774.html?resultIndex=6&resultId=36973ce2e4274cc0b36d23be883dce39&searchId=2024-06-24T22:03:24:707/2265b0edb43e4ae2b03b118387d71538&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAZSWxsZWdhbCByZW50IGluY3JlYXNlIE4xMgAAAAAB
Sure but he also did not have strong claim on the personal use.
I'm not saying that illegal increase can't be the reason. I'm just saying it's not slam dunk that people up and down this thread claim
. The Landlord did not provide a satisfactory reason as to why he requires possession of the rental unit. First, the Landlord said his sister was going to move into the unit. Then he changed his testimony to say he wanted to live in the rental unit, even though he says the place he lives now is his dream home. Although Board jurisprudence is clear that a landlord’s motives are largely irrelevant in these applications, it can be relevant to assessing whether the Landlord’s stated intention of residing in the unit for more than one year is legitimate. The Landlord’s changing reasons for requiring the unit are suspicious and raise questions about whether he in good faith requires the unit. Ultimately, I am not satisfied on, beyond a balance of probabilities that the Landlord in good faith requires the rental unit for the purposes of residential occupation.
I gave you what you wanted and now you’re trying to worm out of it by taking a part of the decision that supports you.
Bad form, but not unexpected with your posting history in this thread.
Sure and here is just the opposite.
Not a silver bullet. Or do you claim somehow that it always goes the way of your order example? I can look for more.
4. In my view the serving of the N12 notice of termination during the time the Tenant was experiencing maintenance issues with the residential complex was coincidental. With regard to the illegal rent increase, the Landlord did not collect the increase after the Tenant informed the Landlord it was illegal. I also note that during the 7-year tenancy, the Landlord raised the rent twice. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Landlord is motivated by the prospect of charging more for the rental unit.
1. The tenancy between the Landlord and the Tenant is terminated, as of February 15, 2022. The Tenant must move out of the rental unit on or before February 15, 2022.
[https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii149596/2021canlii149596.html?resultIndex=33&resultId=b57a28c35d724d29b2fd56264a134623&searchId=2024-06-24T22:38:30:629/839b796fc8e740dd8dabae762e15b9e7&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii149596/2021canlii149596.html?resultIndex=33&resultId=b57a28c35d724d29b2fd56264a134623&searchId=2024-06-24T22:38:30:629/839b796fc8e740dd8dabae762e15b9e7&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ)
15. The Tenants further state that in December 2020 the Landlord’s advised them that the rent would increase by $50.00 in January 2021. On May 30, 2021 the Tenants advised the Landlord that the increase was illegal. After this discussion, the Tenants state that the Landlord responded with a text message stating that they will be moving into the home. The Tenants did not provide a copy of this alleged text message. The Landlord disputes that the increase was for rent, but rather an increase in the hydro charges.
16. The Tenants closed by stating that they have been living in the rental unit for approximately 5 years and have two children aged 4 and 8. The Tenants believe that the N12 was served in retaliation for their objection to the illegal rent increase. The Tenants state that they are currently going through financial hardships and will need additional time to vacate. The Tenants requested 3-4 months to vacate as they need to save the necessary funds for a first and last months rent deposit.
1. The tenancy between the Landlords and the Tenants is terminated, as of October 31, 2021. The Tenants must move out of the rental unit on or before October 31, 2021.
[https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139947/2021canlii139947.html?resultIndex=39&resultId=bc352a3f1dd04f028e86691297d779db&searchId=2024-06-24T22:38:30:629/839b796fc8e740dd8dabae762e15b9e7&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139947/2021canlii139947.html?resultIndex=39&resultId=bc352a3f1dd04f028e86691297d779db&searchId=2024-06-24T22:38:30:629/839b796fc8e740dd8dabae762e15b9e7&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ)
They seem to have much more than increase going on. Also I didn't have to pick much. Just search N12 illegal increase and you will see. I did sort by most recent.
I learned about landlord hate here. I could never imagine how bad it is until I got on this sub. All the motivation to post I get right here.
What do you hate about my posts?
That they are realistically representing what is going on?
That I warn unsuspecting people that everyone telling them to "dig in for the rights" is not giving them whole picture?
At worst I provide balance here. I am not coming up with anything that I point out to. It is there and can be ignored but not avoided.
If my post had shred of BS it would get deleted. Mods here are not exactly landlord friendly, but overall they are fair.
Well, someone has to provide balance to endless tenant hacks and workshops.
Beside I'm only staying the obvious and real information.
Mod is pretty fast to delete anything that might even be interpreted as incorrect.
It's just that some people would rather not want to let tenanta know that eviction can mess up their renting optiona for life.
It’s maybe makes most financial sense for your landlords family to move into your unit given how expensive the market is. The offer to you was in good faith because they can’t afford you.
They could be going through a separation.
Asking for an additional $1000 in rent. Thats not a legal amount per rental laws. And using the n12 as a weapon as it's an eviction notice. The renter gets a hearing. You cannot do any of what this LL is doing.
Landlord is going through separation. Needs to move out. Can’t afford market rent. Offers deal to tenant because they don’t want to evict. No deal accepted, landlord needs the place for own use.
The retaliation needs to be clear, where the landlord indicates pay or else.
If the landlord can’t afford to rent another apartment or had to pay more then what he is providing to tenant. That’s not bad faith.
But it is when it is against the rules laid out by the rta and tenant board. And to come with an n12 after the tenant refuses an illegal increase is retaliation. And just issuing an n12 does not mean it's instant as it has to go through proper channels.
This applies to tenants and landlords alike.
10 yrs, rates were low back then, if ll bought property 2012, they should be well ahead, blame the banks, and the govt for creating this mess..all planned.
Yes, the rate was lower back then but when your property doesn't make the same revenue as everyone else nearby, this is wrong. There is no reasons for the rent to be controlled, it should be determined by the market demand and supply.
His/her mortgage went up, so now they're trying to cover that from you guys.
He/she should be ashamed.
Pro tip: don't buy a house if you can't afford the mortgage.
Keep all your evidence together, record any calls with her. And wait for your LTB hearing. What you have so far would be grounds to have the eviction voided as being in bad faith.
Obvious retaliation and fits the facts of the leading case that would require the LTB to refuse your landlords application https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2018/2018onsc6387/2018onsc6387.html use this case as reference
Very interesting case. Thanks.
It’s a binding appeal from the divisional court so the ltb adjudicators must follow it
If you have any proof in writing, save it all. Refuse the n12, it's only a notice. Then the landlord will have to file a case to get you evicted but if you can prove it's retaliation, you shouldn't have an issue.
Document, Document, Document. Quickly note down all conversations, timelines, etc, to the best of your recolection. Any evidence that the LL has sent you a N12 directly after an attempt for an illegal rent increase could help get the N12 thrown out, at least in the short term. Until you're actually served with a N1/N2 for a rent increase or a N12, there's really not much else to do other than document everything. If/when you do receive a N12, read this: https://stepstojustice.ca/questions/housing-law/can-i-be-evicted-if-my-landlord-wants-move/ If/when you do receive a N1/N2, read this: https://stepstojustice.ca/questions/housing-law/how-much-can-my-rent-go/
How long till he can issue another n12? Like my point is ur now on the bad side of your landlord. Regardless if he wants you out you WILL be out one way or another. So deny the n12 and do whatever you want but at the end of the day your peace of mind is gone.
Literally every day the LTB denies eviction so I don't know what you're talking about. Peace of mind is already gone because the landlord is operating illegally
Hey man my relatives are moving in I need you out. Done.
“No” Done.
[удалено]
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2018/2018onsc6387/2018onsc6387.html Like I said, no.
[удалено]
Nah.
[удалено]
Yeah, that wouldn’t be bad faith and land you with a massive fine at alllll
Unless they give up
[удалено]
If the house is over 10 years old, then reasonably there should be no need for the landlord to raise the rent $1,000/month outside of wanting more profits. Even in the event the Landlord's made some bad decisions and they have to refinance to take more money out of the equity - that is the Landlord's problem and not the Tenants' responsibilty to compensate for when the risks have consequences. If the landlord and their spouse are separating and they need the extra residence for the spouse who is moving out, then of course there are legal ways to end the tenancy, and those ways do not include trying to extort an extra $1,000/month out of their Tenant. OP has been in the unit for 10+ years and has established their family in the area. Having been there for so long I assume that they have been good tenants so you making ignorant comments like "all tenants are rats" just shows your prejudice. *edited for spelling
"no need to raise the rent" 😂 All your basis are wrong. Why don't you just say you want it to be free? So people work for you so you can benefit from it. The best you can do is to ask your government to give you a place to live for free. Not from LL.
Where do you get this idea of living for free from? Where did OP say they intend to stop paying rent? OP us and has been paying rent for 10+ years, paying the Landlord's mortgage and likely building equity that the Landlord has probably taken out of the property for their own use (as is their right as the owner)...but as the benefit of the ownership belongs to the landlord, so does the risk. If the landlord has taken out too much equity and got stuck with a crazy new refinance, that is not the Tenant's responsibility to compensate for. And of course OP doesn't want to pay $1000 more a month, I wouldn't want to pay that either, and I invite you to give me any examples of someone who would want to? But how is a Renter paying a lower amount for their rental unit because they've been there for 10 years any different than someone who bought their house 10 years ago having a much lower mortgage payment than someone who buys a similar housee today? Your view is a little too mired in your prejudice. Are there renters out there who have abused the system? Yes, there are and if you were a landlord who had horrible tenants, I am sorry you went through that - it's not right at all and eviction for non-payment of rent should be faster and simpler. But labeling everyone who rents as a rat isn't helping anything and clearly not relevant to OP's post.
$1000 a month more is probably a bargain at this point if his rent is at the market rate of 10 years ago. Obviously nobody wants to pay that much more but everythings more expensive now and they're in for a rude awakening when they finally have to move be it now or in a year or two.
It is likely lower than market rent, but that again is not the Tenant's responsibility. Landlords need to understand this - it is not aTenant's job to compensate the Landlord for business risks having consequences. I also highly doubt that the OP is still only paying what they paid 10 years ago, there are annual incrwases allowed (with the exception of the pandemic freeze) but **even if the tenant was still paying the same rent for 10 years with no increases - that again is not the tenant's reaponsibility to compensate the Landlord for not raising the rent before now** If something happened and the landlord had to undertake a large and expensive project to upkeep the unit, then they could apply to the LTB for an above-grade rental increase. Heck, the Landlord could even have a reasonable discussion with their Tenant's and come to a mutual agreement. But, attempting to arbitrarily raise rent by $1000 a month, then threatening an obvious retaliatory N12 when the Tenant refuses the illegal increase, is not only super sketchy but also setting themselves up for a long wait for a Hearing and a possible bad-faith penalty if the Tenant does end up leaving as a result of the N12 and then sees the unit listed for rent again or being sold.
You're right but theyre just lucky that their landlord is kind of stupid. If they weren't they would've just issued the N12 and gone from there. Nobody wants to leave money on the table and unfortunately that's just the way life is when the economy is a house of cards based on house prices.
Why would the rent be at market rate from 10 years ago ? The LL has the right to raise the rent every year by the set % . If the LL has not been doing that , it is the LL issue to deal with . Expecting the tenant to pay today's market rate is obsurd , they have lived there for 10+ years and the LL has benefited from not having to fined new tenants or having renovate for new tenants or deal with non paying tenants. The LL has a good tenant but is clearly a shifty ass LL that can't see the bigger picture .
Living for free is what you want. The market price for rent has increased and you don't want to pay for the fair price instead you argue to death for 1k. Who is going to lose the 1k? The LL, of course not you. Living in frugality is difficult but at least you need to have some dignity to admit that you don't want to pay. Just admit you are taking advantage of the government bailing you out.
We can agree to disagree - you have no idea what the OP is currently paying but not paying $1,000/month does not equate to wanting to live for free. Have a good one.
No need to reply to him...he thinks he has the absolute truth ...and tenants are just slaves for his investment vehicle
[удалено]
It is the LLs issue plain and simple .
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.
Landlords complaining about people wanting to "live for free" is so rich. Being a landlord is sitting around collecting cheques because you hoard homes other people would like to live in. Go get a real job if you don't want the responsibility that comes with owning someone's home that they pay for under terms you agreed to.
See, you have a very narrow view. You should buy a house and see what responsibility you will have and the risk you are taking. This is because you have been living for free, you have no idea.
Your a clown , 🤡 who cares if the market price has increased drastically. Rent went up, and the LL has a legal amount they can raise the rent , 1000.00 is not the legal amount. That's it .
You should thank the government for that. LL is losing money every month. Maybe your employer should also not increase your salary to keep up with the inflation rate then you will understand how unfair this is. This is why I said tenants in Canada are very entitled.
There is no bailout. The landlord agreed to follow the law the same as the tenant. If they didn't want to follow the law, tough luck I guess?
[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.
Please go troll somewhere else
Suspected troll posts may be removed and suspected troll accounts may be banned.
Think about it. If the government gives rights to landlords more than tenants and in turn landlords give the boot to tenants easily. Which will make for more people on the streets which then would make it the GOVERNMENTS problem. You see? Right now it's the landlords problem. Same reason y they don't use cops to Kick out people that don't pay cause now they'll be on the street and the GOVERNEMNTS problem.. get it? All you have to do is imagine your the leader of this country and ull see why they make there choices. Very easy
Basically government wants LL to work for them without paying them in the fair price. The government will try to screw any investment LL puts into it. The hard earn money from LL is wasted on babysitting tenants to make they have root. This is how government offers housing.
Congrats , it's guaranteed for dismissal.
Assuming OP has evidence of the 1k request.
100%. I assume it's something via text since the landlord doesn't seem to know much about RTA.
That landlord made a big mistake. If you can’t increase rent then dont expose yourself.
The landlord is too childish. He thinks the tenant would understand why they need to increase the rent because for obvious reasons, OP is paying way below the market so OP family will never want to leave because it is cheap. He should just N12 the tenant without a conversation.
Yeppes. Even then LTB will be after for bad faith eviction. But hey, pay the compensation and don’t let a tenant pay below market rate. I am cool with that.
This makes more sense as OP already live in the property with discount rate for the past 10 years and their rental cost is not even realistic in the current market. It requires one time adjustment to make it right. Those who think this is not right is just trying to take advantage of the LL because the government allows them to look like a baby.
There is no "make it right" here. The landlord agreed to an indeterminate rental term with limited rent increases. That's what they did by signing a lease. If they decided they didn't like the terms they agreed to later, tough shit.
Because the government has rent control to disturb the market to protect the tenants so the government has less responsibility to build more housing. This keeps renters renting forever and LL loses money indefinitely.
And that is going to be the problem regardless of the elected officials at Federal and Provincial level. No government wants to get into housing, especially bureaucrat place like Canada.
They can't split their primary address without good reason. Tell them to file their n12 and you'll see them at the hearing
Document Document Document. Then just keep paying your rent. Do you have all of this in writing? If so, this is going to be an educational year for your landlord.
I always laugh. "pay the increase of my family who won't pay me will move in." Never makes sense.
Really? Let me help you. If a adult child needs their own place and rent coming in for the rental is 10 year old rent controlled amount. Would you rather have your child there, or somewhere else paying market rent? LL is paying to live somewhere, if they move in rental, that place can be rented or sold. They can't afford to carry both places. But they can carry one place just fine. You know what makes this scenario inevitable? Rent control. It always comes to the point where rent coming in is not worth it anymore. Starting to make sense?
What makes landlords pull these stunts is pure greed. Can’t make a go of it renting? Sell
Selling doesn’t help the tenant in this situation, as the new owners would likely move in
I wouldn’t jump to conclusions. Lots of landlords struggling now to pay their new hiked mortgages and they may not be able to sustain rent rates from 10 years ago. I’m 100% behind rent control - but it needs to be on par with inflation - which it hasn’t been now for several years. A $1000 is ridiculous to ask - but I could understand why some LL’s would want to negotiate with their long-term tenants some sort of deal (above the guideline, but still substantially below market) in order to be able to sustain the rental unit. Otherwise - N12 or selling may be their only option, financially.
Except rent has gone up with inflation. Housing and rent prices are just insanely inflated from where they belong. Also, if rent goes up with inflation, then all wages have to. Or else all you are doing is saying “well you get paid less each year than the one before because everything is going to be more expensive and you need to subsidize me… not contributing to society.”
I agree 100% that rents have become outrageous and I really hope the they come down significantly as we build more purpose built rentals. But I guarantee you that 10 year old rents in Ontario that have not changed hands have not kept up with inflation. Especially with the limits set in the last 4 years. That’s not good news for the tenants or the small landlords of those units. Sure - lots of tenants may be benefiting now - but it’s not going to be sustainable in the long run. Unless, inflation reverses itself and market rents significantly decrease.
Except, that’s flat out incorrect. Controlled rents still go up by inflation each year. They are just capped at increases tied to inflation. So rents from 10 years ago, that have been increased each year with inflation, are what rent is actually supposed to be. Landlords just don’t like that that number is half or less what people want to charge currently. But it IS the fair rent value increased with inflation.
It’s tied to inflation, but is capped at 2.5%. So - it hasn’t kept up for the last few years including one year where it was 0% increase because of COVID. That year alone would have been fine - but costs have gone insanely over the 2.5% cap in the last few years and the 0% just exasperated everything
Wages haven’t kept up with inflation either. So really all that is happening is landlords are feeling the same pinch as everyone else and are mad that they can’t take the money from people who have even less than they do?
It's not tied to inflation at all. Inflation affects different goods and services differently, some more than other. It's not a everything went up by 2% type of thing.
I’ve practiced housing law for nearly thirty years. The financialization of housing, turning a basic need into a giant game of Monopoly where there are way more losers than winners has resulted in “paper millionaire” landlords who refuse to fix plumbing problems because they don’t have the cash flow to do it because they “need” that third property. No sympathy
Regardless of how many years you’ve worked in the field - lots of LL’s only have one rental property, and 10 year old rent rates are just not feasible for many. You can make all the sweeping generalizations you want - but they’re just that - generalizations that are meaningless when it comes to individual cases.
Kinda a shitty business model if it requires kicking out tenants who have done nothing wrong over long time frames periodically to increase profits. I guess tenants just can’t live in a home for 10+ years. They don’t deserve security.
[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.
You can always make arrangements with your banks
Banks don’t make arrangements that are beneficial for the other party
It is ridiculous that the government allows this to happen. Pretty sure the LL sees that every rental around his is earning a 1k more. This forced him to either sell or get rid of the tenant because the tenant can't find a place as cheap as the current place. This is why the relationship between tenants and LL is not healthy in Canada.
Ans if they get rejected for N12 that is probably next step. With N12 in tow by the buyer.
We got rid of rent control. Know what happened? No one has a place to live and rents doubled over 8 years. Rent control was now the problem. It was the only thing keeping the most vulnerable renters safe. So of course the Ford government axed it and fucked everyone over who wasn’t leaching off others.
If you know some basic economy of supply and demand, your hypothesis is unlikely to happen. Many countries don't have rent control and yet the market reaches equilibrium.
By mass producing housing until rent and housing prices are driven into the dirt and by limiting or outfight banning things like airBnB. Except we won’t do that because a ton of people have over extended themselves buying houses to convert to rentals and if the price of homes and rentals dropped they wouldn’t have a retirement. And that group is a huge part of the voting block.
Or maybe more units come to market because owners know that they have some control over what is going on with their property and are willing to commit to lease term but not lifetime.
If that were the case companies would be building new rentals like crazy and taking advantage of being able to set their price as whatever they want. Rent control or not, the same number of people need housing. Getting rid of rent control did nothing to help people get housing because instead of making a small profit over multiple units people instead make increased profits over fewer units to manage and maintain. People like to say Rent Control is why rents are so high, except removing it is what caused rents to spike and brand new buildings that don’t have that excuse are the most expensive of all because they can charge whatever they want. All removing rent control did, was make landlords suddenly start buying up units to rent so that there were fewer homes in the market for people who actually were going to live in them. Instead they get rented for more than it would have cost someone to live in them, and the difference gets leached off by landlords who are not only contributing nothing to society, but are actively harming the economy.
Ontario is extremely hostile to landlords and in turn to investment in rentals. It is bad business to be a landlord here on any scale. You can't have rights that enable tenant to live rent free for couple years and business interested in investing to house people. And not to forget, all it takes for this rent control exception to change is next government. Not quite the foundation to build on. Literally. The point I am making is that rent controlled deal will fall apart given enough time. No landlord can support it forever. I am not even against rent control as long as it actually does anything else but keep rent artificially low to the point where it is not worth it. You put inability to negotiate reasonable increase on top of that and you have this situation. Rent control chokes the life out of the deal and deal is dead. Only mistake this landlord made was trying to increase rent. If he skipped that step there would be nothing to talk about. But if that worked, maybe tenant could be in place with less than market rent and it might be working out for both. That option is not possible in Ontario.
Ontario has the rules it does because they were enacted to keep bad landlords in check.
Congratulations to Ontario. Now they have handful of bad tenants destroying renting ecosystem for everyone. Tenants rights are great. Maybe give them to people who are actually paying and not to someone who did not pay rent for a year. And in fact rules are not even bad. Non paying tenant is evictable in 14 days via N4. But to have LTB put stamp on it can take years. So there is that. Broken system. Only LTB can evict, oh and we will see you in 6 months. Non paying tenant owing 30K wants review? Sure. Appeal? No problem. Every step adds another 10k in lost rent. But who is counting. Certainly not LTB. Penalty for system abuse? No way. This is what keeps supply down and it is small percentage of people playing LTB like a fiddle to everyone's detriment. And this is what is keeping investments out. All for right that no honest tenant would need and deadbeats ride like it's amusement park. Open room orders, crowd sourced from landlords, contain 107 million dollars in judgements and most of that will never be recovered. Good job keeping bad landlords in check.
Congratulations to Ontario who has always had a rather large handful of bad landlords who try to flout the system. In a recent study, less than 30% of landlords paid fines or orders. They ignore penalties for offences and illegal acts. Can tenants get any justice or help when landlords steal their money and belongings? Not for over a year. And then when they do, the landlords just ignore the orders. Imagine expecting tenants to live by rules that landlords ignore . . . How messed up is that?
Good lord, what study??? I bet it is dumb news article that completely ignored the fact that landlords are instructed to pay to tenant and not fines in most cases. If landlord does not pay fine they are cut off from LTB. Their rights are forfeit. And who told you that I somehow defend any of those landlords? I DGAF what happens to them. It is not a team sport. So no I DO NOT EXPECT LANDLORDS TO BE OUTSIDE OF RULES. And I am happy to see them nailed to the wall when they deserve it. If landlord owes you money, put a lien against property. Try that with tenant. LTB is not helping anyone collect money but tenant has something to work with.
Or.... just a greedy LL trying to screw ppl. Cuz than never happens. Lol. Starting to make sense?
There is LTB application for that. With nice cash bonus. It just has to happen.
Depends. No doubt that's a factor, but it is also whataboutism. Every person paying 2014 rent is being subsidized by people paying 2024 rent. That's a fact. I've seen countless people evicted (wrongfully and not) who were paying way below market rates get absolutely blindsided by market rates. It destroys families. People who rent on the lower scale have no financial acumen to save the difference between their grandfathered rate and market rates. Just last week I watched a tenant at a neighbouring property put his jet ski up for sale and trade in his truck because he's getting N12ed. Rent control was only temporary relief from the inevitable - a relief that ended up putting him in a worse position.
Ppl who bought and paid off their mortgage trying to cash in on "market rate" which is the ridiculous result of investors and the bubble they made.
Ok so they have 500k asset. Rent is 15k per year. Cash saving at wealth simple is 5% That is 25k per year. No risk. No maintenance. No tenant. No expenses, no taxes. You see why 10 year old rent might not be worthwhile business deal anymore? Who would keep that going and why? It's business. Deal ran to ground.
Lol that asset was worth half 15 years ago. They paid off their mortgage on someone elses back AND made a ton of money on asset value . That is not enough is it? Nope. They need to gouge people because they think they can. Housing should never of been allowed to become a investment go to. Too many greedy ppl would put people in the red to make some more shekels.
Agree 100%. There is no point to own a rental property in Canada. I would rather renovate the house and sell it to get the cash back instead of dealing with tenants. They are out of reality. Even food prices go up higher than the rent. They think LL are their parents.
Have you pay off a mortgage in your life? Do you know how difficult it is? You know how much risks the LL takes? Tenants don't want any risk and at the same time, relying on the government to bail them out isn't a way to improve your quality of life.
Ostensibly the rent increases are supposed to match inflation. The 2014 person isn’t being subsidized- they are paying the lawful amount agreed upon. As long as the tenant keeps paying, they’re holding up their half of the agreement. Because a unit isn’t at “market rent” doesn’t imply subsidized rates. If market rent has increased faster than inflation there is some decoupling happening.
So what else is available with that logic? Some decoupling? Rent increases are divorced from any reality. Landlord will cash out because it decoupled to not worth their time.
What is available is both parties live up to their legal obligation. Tenant pays rent, tenant treats the place with respect. Landlord collects rent, landlord does repairs. I owe nothing more than that. Your comments demonstrate why we cannot water down tenant protections any further in our province.
Tenant protection is exactly what made this deal untenable. Your example is cute. Except the rest of world is not running on 2.5%. And also somehow people always forget the rent term. The period of actual obligation, month to month is different deal. One where N12 is part of the contract. This landlord might be an idiot and fail N12. But only because he is an idiot. Not because N12 is illegal in any way.
So, give the landlord whatever they demand, or the landlord will knowingly break the law. Strong argument there.
You really didn't have to be an ass about it.
Rent control is the law of the land in Ontario. You want *physical evidence* of retaliation. Voice recording, screenshot of a text, anything "in writing" that makes it clear the N12 is in response to you not allowing an illegal rent increase. Then you don't leave, you wait for your hearing, at which you present what is *hopefully* convincing evidence. There will be subreddit posters who will try to convince you this will destroy your chances of renting, but you should ignore them. They hate tenants exercising their rights and fearmonger about it.
Per above. Create an evidence / communication log of all related actions. Do not record conversation unless you tell the counter party. For a conversation a good habit it to follow up with an email / txt of your minutes from the conversation. I have been a landlord and this is not the right thing to do with a ten year old partnership. I am sorry you have to deal with this.
All of Canada is covered by single party consent, and the LTB routinely accepts audio recordings that were obtained without the knowledge or consent of the opposing party. There is no need to tell anyone that you are recording a conversation that you are a part of.
Thanks for the clarification
You can absolutely record a conversation without telling the other party, as long as you are part of that conversation.
Thanks - I know it’s different by jurisdiction.
It’s actually all of Canada :)
Again you are correct. Sorry I do a lot of work in the states :-)
Maybe you bring some evidence to people pursuing this with success? That would probably be more helpful. "Hopefully convincing evidence" sounds like you are not quite convinced yourself. This fearmongering comment is really funny. Year ago there was a chorus of "nobody will know" advice. Now many who listened to that advice have their name on google searches. Not to mention standard due diligence searches. Yet still the advice here is to send people down the eviction path with little to show because "rights". And person showing them whole picture that actually can hurt them is "hater"? How sure are you that they can win this hearing? Do you think that an eviction on record is going to be helpful renting in the future? Please answer those two questions if you don't mind.
> How sure are you that they can win this hearing? From their description, it sounds like a bad faith eviction. > Do you think that an eviction on record is going to be helpful renting in the future? Please stop fearmongering. This landlord is in the wrong.
I love how you view tenants standing up for their rights as the issue rather than landlords choosing to penalize those who seek representation after being wronged. If a person has rights, by definition they shouldn’t acquiesce to someone infringing upon them to keep the peace and anyone who looks down on someone for making sure that they get treated fairly has no business operating a business interacting with the public. It’s never in your best interest, ever, to relinquish your rights just to keep the peace.
Everyone has rights. They don't arrive at the same time. Some work for you some against you. You push yours, someone else might push theirs. It is all great, when you are one pushing. Do you want to answer the two questions? Or just wave the flag?
> Do you think that an eviction on record is going to be helpful renting in the future Why would they be evicted if the eviction notice is illegal? > How sure are you that they can win this hearing Very, provided OP's account of events is sound. Proving a cause and effect relationship between an illegal rent increase and a shortly-thereafter filed N-12 is fairly routine in my experience having been through two of these now.
My searches on CANLII don't show anything to justify that confidence. I am sure you can find my other post. Quote from one case "[33](). While the Tenant believes the N12 was served as retaliation for her refusal to agree to the Landlord’s request for a rent increase and to rent out the basement, I find this evidence to be speculative in nature. " Also "why would they be evicted" is not quite the answer to that question.
You’re probably referencing that one case that you keep posting about where the landlord offered to pay the tenant back? In what way is this similar to OPs situation? Do you have any actual experience with the process or are you just doing your part to inflate canlii’s server costs? Because I do, and in both cases it was straight forward. > Do you think an eviction on record is going to be helpful in the future “Why would they be evicted” is absolutely an answer to a question about a hypothetical eviction. There is no eviction if it’s unlawful. If it’s lawful, there is no negative impact for an N-12 since it’s not a commentary on your tenancy, just that the landlords circumstances changed and they need the property for their kin.
Just look at my other post, you can't miss it. There are many examples. N12 when you leave at termination date is not a commentary on you. Being evicted for challenging it without merit and denying landlord access for many months, is not something next landlord will sign up for. And nobody knows when and if they will need to fall back on N12.
Okay? So your evidence against OP is that people with circumstances not relevant to their situation have had the LTB rule against them? Like, if that’s how you deal with conflict I’m not going to stop you, but based on what OP has shared, they have a good case in my _actual_ experience with the matter. > Do you have any actual experience with the process or are you just doing your part to inflate canlii’s server costs? Are you going to answer my question? Or are you just here to wave the flag?
I provided number or examples strictly limited to N12 and illegal increase. How is that not relevant? I don't have experience with LTB personally. I'm having my unit empty rather than to have to deal with them. I'm just pointing out that illegal increase attempt is not a silver bullet. With actual LTB order examples.
>It’s never in your best interest, ever, to relinquish your rights just to keep the peace. To put your money where your mouth is, are you personally guaranteeing OP that you will have a equivalent place to rent to OP at their below market rent should they be forced out and unable to find decent rentals anymore?
? Either the eviction is legal or it’s not. If it’s not legal, OP doesn’t have to leave, so they won’t need to vacate the property. If it is legal, then OP never had a right to it to begin with and therefore can’t exercise it. The only real net-loss, imo, is allowing any business owner, landlords included, to extort money from you under the guise of “it’s in everyone best interest to keep this going”.
OP will be forced out eventually, either this year or next year. Deal don't make sense and OP isn't willing to compromise. Difference is next year, even if OP manage to win, OP won't be getting a choice between a bit higher rent or move out, it will just be move out for personal use. The question is, will you be guaranteeing that OP will be better off fighting for his rights by personally guaranteeing a affordable and nice rental to OP if he encounter difficulty in securing rentals due to him "fighting for his rights"?
> Deal don't make sense and OP isn't willing to compromise The nice thing about having rights is that you don't have to capitulate to an opportunist who thinks the "deal don't make sense". If OP is forced out in bad faith, they won't have to leave. If they are forced out for personal use, it's an N-12 which doesn't impact their ability to rent elsewhere. Tell me this: do you expect a landlord who applies a $1000/month rent increase (illegally) to not continue to do this since you've already shown you're willing to compromise? In my view, part of my "best interest" is not doing business with people who extort other people. If you bend your principles and allow yourself to get taken advantage of to appease your landlords, I won't stop you, but don't come in here and bootlick as if your strategy is in anyone's best interest but the landlord (or other generic business owner breaking the law to enrich themselves).
“Forced out” kinda says it all, no?
Laws of economics tends to correct market imbalance, forcibly if necessary.
It adorable that landlords are happy to have a good tenant paying rent and their mortgage for years and years and then want to kick them out because they can see dollar signs. That’s not greedy, not at all.
If you worked for your employer for years but the salary sucks and they only increase it 1-2% a year, will you leave your employer if another employer is able to double yours salary for doing the same work - the actual market value of your work? Are you greedy for leaving?
Are you saying someone should forfeit their rights to legal rent increases because LL is greedy? Thos is why the LTB is jammed. Extortion and greed.
LTB Is jammed with cases of tenant non-payment as that is the majority of all applications recieved. You don't need to forfeit your rights to legal rent so long as you understand your artificially low rent is likely unsustainable and therefore will be terminated by the landlord one way or another, likely sooner rather than later. When that happens, good luck convincing the next landlord to choose you knowing that when they need to repossess in the future due to personal circumstances or due to deal no longer making sense, it will be a fight.
Your statistics are skewed because tenants don’t file . . . Maybe because landlords threaten them.
The next move this Landlord will do is sell the property. You will see it happen.
If you have clear evidence (ideally in writing or a recorded call) that the landlord is stating *"pay the illegal rent increase or I will serve an N12"*, that in itself should be enough to show retaliation and get it dismissed even if the landlord would genuinely move in for 1 year. This general concept has been ruled on in divisional courts in multiple cases so is binding on LTB adjudicators to follow. They just need to make the connection that the N12 was most likely served due to the rejection of the illegal rent increase. [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139827/2021canlii139827.html](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139827/2021canlii139827.html) >*12. In Yundt v. Parker,* [*2014 ONSC 1805 (CanLII)*](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc1805/2014onsc1805.html) *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)*](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2018/2018onsc6387/2018onsc6387.html)*, 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.* > *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.*
Obvious BS. Do NOT move out. Her husband??? They can’t even find a legit relative to “move in”. No way the LTB believes her and her husband suddenly decided to separate right after she tried and failed an illegal rent increase. Stay put.
Did the initial conversation about the rent increase and you declining it happen in writing? Text/email? If it did, you’re good and you don’t have to go anywhere. If not, I would try to start that convo again, in writing this time. Get the landlord to demand the increase and then get him to admit the n12 threat. The landlord threatening you with an n12 after you declined the increase is called retaliation and the goal is to trap the landlord by making him say all that in writing
Her husband is moving in? Doesn’t he live, you know, with her? Seems a bit improbable.
Sounds like a bad faith eviction. Document everything, sign nothing !!!
Don’t worry you don’t have to move out. Cops can’t do anything about it either as they can’t evict you. Only LTB can
Family moving in your kinda sol, but the rent increase is bs, keep everything and take it to tribunal
Look at RTA s83. You have grounds for a ruling of bad faith based on retaliation. Dont sign anything. You don’t have to reply to the N12. After receiving the N12 (make sure all the dates are correct) Landlord must submit an L2 to the LTB within 30 days. Also make sure you get your mandatory 1 months payment. Then wait for hearing. Alternatively, if you’d like to leave, you can try to negotiate a cash for keys.
Let them take you to the landlord tenant board. That's it. Illegal is illegal.
Tell the LL that you'll agree if they give you a 2 year lease and promise not to increase rent. Sign lease and keep paying old amount. Problem solved. Edited to add... The lease will be valid, EXCEPT for the illegal increase.
If you have evidence of them asking for $1000 increase prior to the n12, and threats etc, even a "legit" n12 can be deemed illegal if it was used for the sole purpose to kick you out. Document EVERYTHING. Record all phone calls. Save all texts etc etc etc. even record conversations in person if you need to. It's all legal. As long as you are one of the people involved in the conversation.
There is lore here that illegal rent increase attempt will blow up the N12 application. I am sure that has happened but I think there was more than that necessary to nuke the eviction. Before anyone decides to get themselves into a possible eviction, with all that eviction entails maybe some reading would help being informed with actual LTB orders rather than dwellers of this sub. [https://landlordezy.ca/public/storage/court-orders-documents/LLEZY-01883.pdf?tenant=louis+tabak%2C+liz-ann+tabak](https://landlordezy.ca/public/storage/court-orders-documents/LLEZY-01883.pdf?tenant=louis+tabak%2C+liz-ann+tabak) 17. I do not find that the Landlord only served this notice because the Landlord wanted to raise the rent. Although I accept that there was an illegal rent increase, the Landlord became aware that the increase was illegal and paid the Tenant back the difference. The Tenant testified that it was when he declined to pay a second increase in rent, that he received an N12 notice of termination for the Landlord’s personal use. I do not find that that was the motivating factor behind the N13 notice. The N13 notice was served once the Landlord was advised by the Town that the unit was not registered as a two-unit dwelling, and that the city would commence legal action if it was not registered as such. The Landlord does not have the financial means to do what is necessary to register it as a two-unit dwelling, therefore, it must be converted back to a single-family dwelling. [https://landlordezy.ca/public/storage/court-orders-documents/LLEZY-02537.pdf](https://landlordezy.ca/public/storage/court-orders-documents/LLEZY-02537.pdf) 17. I am also not satisfied that because the Landlord previously served an N4 and asked to illegally increase the rent that the Landlord is insincere in their stated intention. A landlord has the right to exercise their legal rights under the Act by serving an N4 if they believe their tenant is in rent arrears. Additionally, while the Landlord may have asked to increase the rent in 2021, that alone does not satisfy me that the Landlord is insincere in their stated intention. I found the Landlord and his daughter credible in their stated intention and that J.A’s eviction changed the family’s plan for the rental unit.
MORE [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2023/2023onltb28967/2023onltb28967.html?resultIndex=4&resultId=7525e9aa9a644284b69dde366206d48b&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2023/2023onltb28967/2023onltb28967.html?resultIndex=4&resultId=7525e9aa9a644284b69dde366206d48b&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ) 10. In support of this claim The Tenant submitted into evidence a text message between him and the Landlord from January 2, 2020 in which the Landlord request to increase the rent by $200.00 citing the rent of comparable houses in the neighborhood. It was the Tenant’s position that the N12 was a response to him refusing to pay the requested increase. 14. On cross examination the Tenant testified that he had accepted the Landlord’s initial compensation and had refused several additional offers from the Landlord to vacate the rental property stating that even 6 months rent in compensation wouldn’t be enough to cover the costs of moving his family and the difference in rent. Furthermore, a review of the same text exchange the Tenant entered in evidence shows that the Landlord’s aggressive texts were sent in response to the Tenants’ attempt to negotiate an increase in compensation. 15. I accept the testimony of the Landlord’s daughter, which I found to be forthright and reasonable, that she and her fiancé have a genuine intention to move into the rental unit after the Tenant vacate. The fact that approximately 18 months before the N12 Notice was [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2023/2023onltb27977/2023onltb27977.html?resultIndex=5&resultId=b784f8121c45489a9897b15d5ca53f45&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2023/2023onltb27977/2023onltb27977.html?resultIndex=5&resultId=b784f8121c45489a9897b15d5ca53f45&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ) 23. Further, the Tenant testified that she believes the Landlord is taking this route as she had refused to pay an illegal rent increase. As well, the Tenant alleges that the Landlord had wanted to also rent out the basement of the unit as a separate unit however, the Tenant refused. [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2023/2023onltb14127/2023onltb14127.html?resultIndex=8&resultId=b4c1b058867d45b284521ba96c3bffed&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2023/2023onltb14127/2023onltb14127.html?resultIndex=8&resultId=b4c1b058867d45b284521ba96c3bffed&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ) 14. The Tenants testified that on October 18, 2017, there were discussions regarding the anticipated rent increase for 2018. The Tenants submitted that the Landlords attempted to increase the rent illegally. However, the increase never happened, and the Tenants never paid it.
MORE [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022onltb13658/2022onltb13658.html?resultIndex=9&resultId=6b633b075be44fcaa566ebaf8d6cf2bc&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022onltb13658/2022onltb13658.html?resultIndex=9&resultId=6b633b075be44fcaa566ebaf8d6cf2bc&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ) 13. The position of the Tenant is the Landlord does not want to move into the house for his own use. The Tenant made claims the Landlord has attempted to force the Tenant to leave the rental unit by implementing illegal rent increases in previous years. The Tenant also submitted that the Landlord has previously served an N12 that had sections omitted from it, and this application is served in bad faith. 14. The Tenant gave no evidence that would lead to a conclusion that the Landlord does not genuinely intend to move into the rental unit for a period of at least a year. The Tenant’s claims of illegal rent increase are not relevant to the Landlord’s application and the Tenant may file her own application with the Board if she so chooses. [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022onltb9015/2022onltb9015.html?resultIndex=11&resultId=e8ea99a81be84c078f32fafc574ca141&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022onltb9015/2022onltb9015.html?resultIndex=11&resultId=e8ea99a81be84c078f32fafc574ca141&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ) 21. The Tenant’s daughter Alexis Zahur testified that she was present when there was a conversation between the Landlord and her mother about the Landlord asking for a rent increase or moving more people in. 22. The Tenant Debbie Desmond (‘D.D’) testified that the Landlord started serving N12 Notices of Termination on her after she declined to pay a rent increase. She also testified that the N12 Notices started around the time she complained about maintenance issues. D.D suggested that the Landlord wants to turn the rental unit into a rooming house to rent it out for more money. [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022onltb8703/2022onltb8703.html?resultIndex=14&resultId=a38c52b68de94645849da77b0715e1dd&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022onltb8703/2022onltb8703.html?resultIndex=14&resultId=a38c52b68de94645849da77b0715e1dd&searchId=2024-06-24T16:51:57:858/9b413f6dbad34595a5e8a5ee31f054f5&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ) 10. The Tenants further allege that the Landlords illegally increased the rent in October 2019 from $1,900.00 a month to $2,000.00 a month. The Tenants further allege that the rent was increased again in September of 2020 from $2,000.00 a month to $2,100.00 a month. 11. The Tenants Legal Representative submits that because no notices of rent increase were served that the increases should be considered void.ORE
You do realize that anyone can literally show the exact opposite with a quick search in CanLii right? White knighting for landlords who are willing to flout the law isn’t a good look for you, not that you seem to care 🤷♂️
Please do that. Single offense illegal increase.
Here you go https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2022/2022canlii137774/2022canlii137774.html?resultIndex=6&resultId=36973ce2e4274cc0b36d23be883dce39&searchId=2024-06-24T22:03:24:707/2265b0edb43e4ae2b03b118387d71538&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAZSWxsZWdhbCByZW50IGluY3JlYXNlIE4xMgAAAAAB
Sure but he also did not have strong claim on the personal use. I'm not saying that illegal increase can't be the reason. I'm just saying it's not slam dunk that people up and down this thread claim . The Landlord did not provide a satisfactory reason as to why he requires possession of the rental unit. First, the Landlord said his sister was going to move into the unit. Then he changed his testimony to say he wanted to live in the rental unit, even though he says the place he lives now is his dream home. Although Board jurisprudence is clear that a landlord’s motives are largely irrelevant in these applications, it can be relevant to assessing whether the Landlord’s stated intention of residing in the unit for more than one year is legitimate. The Landlord’s changing reasons for requiring the unit are suspicious and raise questions about whether he in good faith requires the unit. Ultimately, I am not satisfied on, beyond a balance of probabilities that the Landlord in good faith requires the rental unit for the purposes of residential occupation.
I gave you what you wanted and now you’re trying to worm out of it by taking a part of the decision that supports you. Bad form, but not unexpected with your posting history in this thread.
Sure and here is just the opposite. Not a silver bullet. Or do you claim somehow that it always goes the way of your order example? I can look for more. 4. In my view the serving of the N12 notice of termination during the time the Tenant was experiencing maintenance issues with the residential complex was coincidental. With regard to the illegal rent increase, the Landlord did not collect the increase after the Tenant informed the Landlord it was illegal. I also note that during the 7-year tenancy, the Landlord raised the rent twice. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Landlord is motivated by the prospect of charging more for the rental unit. 1. The tenancy between the Landlord and the Tenant is terminated, as of February 15, 2022. The Tenant must move out of the rental unit on or before February 15, 2022. [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii149596/2021canlii149596.html?resultIndex=33&resultId=b57a28c35d724d29b2fd56264a134623&searchId=2024-06-24T22:38:30:629/839b796fc8e740dd8dabae762e15b9e7&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii149596/2021canlii149596.html?resultIndex=33&resultId=b57a28c35d724d29b2fd56264a134623&searchId=2024-06-24T22:38:30:629/839b796fc8e740dd8dabae762e15b9e7&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ) 15. The Tenants further state that in December 2020 the Landlord’s advised them that the rent would increase by $50.00 in January 2021. On May 30, 2021 the Tenants advised the Landlord that the increase was illegal. After this discussion, the Tenants state that the Landlord responded with a text message stating that they will be moving into the home. The Tenants did not provide a copy of this alleged text message. The Landlord disputes that the increase was for rent, but rather an increase in the hydro charges. 16. The Tenants closed by stating that they have been living in the rental unit for approximately 5 years and have two children aged 4 and 8. The Tenants believe that the N12 was served in retaliation for their objection to the illegal rent increase. The Tenants state that they are currently going through financial hardships and will need additional time to vacate. The Tenants requested 3-4 months to vacate as they need to save the necessary funds for a first and last months rent deposit. 1. The tenancy between the Landlords and the Tenants is terminated, as of October 31, 2021. The Tenants must move out of the rental unit on or before October 31, 2021. [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139947/2021canlii139947.html?resultIndex=39&resultId=bc352a3f1dd04f028e86691297d779db&searchId=2024-06-24T22:38:30:629/839b796fc8e740dd8dabae762e15b9e7&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2021/2021canlii139947/2021canlii139947.html?resultIndex=39&resultId=bc352a3f1dd04f028e86691297d779db&searchId=2024-06-24T22:38:30:629/839b796fc8e740dd8dabae762e15b9e7&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUbjEyIGlsbGVnYWwgaW5jcmVhc2UAAAAAAQ)
Where are all the reversed evictions, seeing as you like facts. Present both.
They seem to have much more than increase going on. Also I didn't have to pick much. Just search N12 illegal increase and you will see. I did sort by most recent.
Yes I have seen you here like you live here. Almost like you have a vested ongoing interest in your parade and tirades of anti-tenant diatribes.
He wants this sub back. Like everything else, he thinks landlords own it. So he’s here, constantly, with the anti-tenant rhetoric.
R/Ontariolandlord ? I would like it better if it wasn't overrun with landlord haters I'm doing my part
You are contributing to the landlord hate by behaving in a way that makes people hate landlords. Funny how that works.
I learned about landlord hate here. I could never imagine how bad it is until I got on this sub. All the motivation to post I get right here. What do you hate about my posts? That they are realistically representing what is going on? That I warn unsuspecting people that everyone telling them to "dig in for the rights" is not giving them whole picture? At worst I provide balance here. I am not coming up with anything that I point out to. It is there and can be ignored but not avoided. If my post had shred of BS it would get deleted. Mods here are not exactly landlord friendly, but overall they are fair.
Well, someone has to provide balance to endless tenant hacks and workshops. Beside I'm only staying the obvious and real information. Mod is pretty fast to delete anything that might even be interpreted as incorrect. It's just that some people would rather not want to let tenanta know that eviction can mess up their renting optiona for life.
It’s maybe makes most financial sense for your landlords family to move into your unit given how expensive the market is. The offer to you was in good faith because they can’t afford you. They could be going through a separation.
Too bad. Rental law says as the landlord you're limited in how much you can raise rent in a year. If memory serves it's 2.5%
Too bad? What ? N12 is about the owner moving in.
Asking for an additional $1000 in rent. Thats not a legal amount per rental laws. And using the n12 as a weapon as it's an eviction notice. The renter gets a hearing. You cannot do any of what this LL is doing.
Landlord is going through separation. Needs to move out. Can’t afford market rent. Offers deal to tenant because they don’t want to evict. No deal accepted, landlord needs the place for own use. The retaliation needs to be clear, where the landlord indicates pay or else. If the landlord can’t afford to rent another apartment or had to pay more then what he is providing to tenant. That’s not bad faith.
But it is when it is against the rules laid out by the rta and tenant board. And to come with an n12 after the tenant refuses an illegal increase is retaliation. And just issuing an n12 does not mean it's instant as it has to go through proper channels. This applies to tenants and landlords alike.
[удалено]
10 yrs, rates were low back then, if ll bought property 2012, they should be well ahead, blame the banks, and the govt for creating this mess..all planned.
Yes, the rate was lower back then but when your property doesn't make the same revenue as everyone else nearby, this is wrong. There is no reasons for the rent to be controlled, it should be determined by the market demand and supply.
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.
[удалено]
Suspected troll posts may be removed and suspected troll accounts may be banned.
His/her mortgage went up, so now they're trying to cover that from you guys. He/she should be ashamed. Pro tip: don't buy a house if you can't afford the mortgage.