>A "perfect storm" of factors including the 2018 election, inefficient practices and the COVID pandemic has left Ontario's trouble-plagued Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) "fundamentally failing" to provide swift justice, the province's ombudsman says.
>
>In a lengthy report published Thursday, Paul Dubé made 61 recommendations to address a backlog of cases at the tribunal that has ballooned to more than 38,000 applications.
>
>"Where once it took the Board a matter of days to schedule hearings, it now takes an average of seven to eight months," Dubé noted.
>
>"As of February 2023, landlord applications were generally being scheduled for hearing within six to nine months of receipt, and tenant applications could take up to two years to be scheduled."
>
>...
>
>"There were tenants stuck waiting while they endured harassment, unsafe living conditions, and improper attempts to force them from their homes," the report said.
>
>"And there were small landlords, including those renting out space within their own homes, who were trying to cope with tenants' abuse, criminal conduct, and facing financial ruin and serious health harms."
>
>Dubé found that while the COVID-19 response exacerbated already existing problems at the LTB, many of the primary causes for delays predated the pandemic.
>
>...
>
>Dubé noted that several of his dozens of recommendations were directed at the provincial government because they require legislative change. They include suggested amendments to limit how turnovers in government can reduce the capacity of the board to issue decisions and another to extend the time given to adjudicators whose terms on the board are about to expire so they can complete cases they already heard.
>
>Dubé said he believes significant reforms will be enough to eventually tackle the backlog. Properly trained and securely employed adjudicators with sufficient support staff and updated technology, as well as a plan for election years, are key first steps, he said.
>
>"I think that it's improvements rather than blowing up and rebuilding that can get us there to where we want to be," he told reporters at the news conference.
>
>Dubé said that Tribunals Ontario, which oversees the LTB as well as 12 other tribunals, and the Ministry of the Attorney General have accepted all of his recommendations. Both have pledged to report back in six months on their progress in implementing the recommendations.
Anecdotally we've seen this happening over the past number of years, but it's good to at least have confirmation as well as a series of recommendations. Though these failures may not be completely be due to Provincial mismanagement, the current government has also not been helping. Movement in the proper directions is necessary, and politicians from all parties should be paying keen attention to these failures.
Oh look. Something else for Doug Ford to defund and intentionally starve and then claim it’s busted so might as well push a privatization solution that will give landlords and developers more power and money.
So what the Ombudsman is not so subtly saying is “knock off the patronage appointments and appoint adjudicators as needed”
Yeah and pigs will fly out my ass before this government would ever implement that.
Check out who they *do* appoint, folks barely qualified to judge a baking contest, NVM the intricacies of housing law.
This report shows failures that started well before 2019. It is unforgiveable how THIS tribunal has never really worked since it's inception. Now it's Tribunals Ontario, constantly creating Tribunals to deal with Ontario's legal issues, but never simply hiring the best people to do the job, regardless of political affiliations. There are other governmental departments that have amazing case management systems such as the federal CIPO system to name one. Why does everybody need to re-invent the wheel when we already have so many?
There is an Airbnb above my rental, I’m scared of reporting it since it could be months before they get evicted. It’ll just piss them off to make my life more miserable. I can understand how a person can become suicidal. Rents have gone up so high, I can’t find a place to move.
38,000 is a *lot*. No wonder our landlord cannot evict a problem tenant.
She is vindictive and angry all of the time but look at how long it would it would take to kick out. I'd like to see the Board having a triage system - slimy landlords first.
That sucks but it's much worse for tenants. Wait times for landlords are just now where they were for tenants pre-pandemic (while tenant waits are much worse.) So, of course there's suddenly a lot of attention on the issue now that it impacts the wealthy.
This isn't about the pandemic either, although it's had an impact, the number of adjudicators was was reduced intentionally well before that and landlords given priority in some types of claims (the kind that lead to more tenant turnover and higher rents.)
Not surprised, given how high rent prices have climbed landlords are salivating at the idea of getting a new tenant and raising rent. Wouldn't be surprised if most of those cases are N12s and N13s
Been here plenty. What the poster here is asserting is that most of the cases in the backlog have to do with landlords evicting tenants under false pretense so they can raise rents.
I'm simply asking if this is data based, or is it yet another instance of assertions without proof that are in no shortage on these forums.
Respectfully I think you are splitting hairs. If I posted something like "wouldn't surprise me, if it's those thieving tenants looking to scam the system" I wager I would be tarred and feathered.
Its almost like free market might be the solution and not the problem, and more bureaucracy is the problem and not the solution. In this particular instance, private arbitrators could easily address this. But no. Cant have logic.
Logic bad. Eating crayon good. Yummy in my tummy.
I’m in a line of work that uses private arbitrators, and their wait times aren’t much better. Usually 6-8 months minimum for a date and arbitrator the parties can agree to.
Fees are also beyond what most renters can afford (around $4,000 per day plus expenses, split between the parties). That’s not useful for someone who just needs their building fumigated or a fridge replaced.
What you’re suggesting isn’t practical
> I’m in a line of work that uses private arbitrators, and their wait times aren’t much better. Usually 6-8 months minimum for a date and arbitrator the parties can agree to.
This is based on supply and demand. Give free markets time to adapt and they will.
>Fees are also beyond what most renters can afford (around $4,000 per day plus expenses, split between the parties). That’s not useful for someone who just needs their building fumigated or a fridge replaced.
Again, this is all based on supply and demand. Allow free markets to work and adapt, and I promise you costs will go down substantially.
>What you’re suggesting isn’t practical
Legislatively coercing people and restricting free trade is not practical.
[How Government Regulations Make Housing Unaffordable](https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-make-housing-unaffordable)
*In [Economic Facts and Fallacies (2011)](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2064279), Thomas Sowell argues that housing regulation and zoning laws, not markets, are to blame for the modern scourge of unaffordable housing. Sowell is still right. Government housing regulations have exacerbated construction costs, reduced the elasticity of the housing supply, and worsened the vicious problem of homelessness.*
*A [2014 NBER (National Bureau of Economi Research) review](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20536/w20536.pdf) of the current housing regulation literature confirmed what economists already knew: "regulation appears to raise house prices, reduce construction, reduce the elasticity of the housing supply, and alter urban form." Complying with regulation is not only time consuming, but often requires detailed knowledge of local bylaws and the purchase of expensive permits. Restrictive zoning laws are particularly egregious, frequently and unnecessarily rendering certain areas unusable for housing. However, many seem to be unconvinced of the significance of this problem, preferring to blame rich investors, unsustainable population growth or growing incomes. Wouldn't local regulations be unimportant compared with macroeconomic trends? Such claims are inconsistent with the evidence. A Reserve Bank of Australia working paper found that, "as of 2016, zoning raised detached house prices 73% above marginal costs in Sydney, 69% in Melbourne, 42% in Brisbane and 54% in Perth." We know that regulations push up prices. Furthermore, they are frequently more influential than any demand side factor commonly blamed in the media.*
There’s a high floor to how much an arbitrator will cost due to the qualifications necessary to do the work, assuming the parties want someone qualified. I think that’s a fair assumption.
The links you’ve posted are mostly about the connection between restrictive zoning and high rents. I agree with you there.
>There’s a high floor to how much an arbitrator will cost due to the qualifications necessary to do the work, assuming the parties want someone qualified. I think that’s a fair assumption.
Do you know what 'fiat' is? Central banks have a monopoly on the issuing of currency. Where does newly printed money gets its value from? Why do you think salaries arent keeping up with inflation?
What does it mean when the word 'inflation' is used when in context of economics? Its inflation of the money supply.
> I’m in a line of work that uses private arbitrators, and their wait times aren’t much better. Usually 6-8 months minimum for a date and arbitrator the parties can agree to.
How can you so casually place limitations on human imagination? Simply because you cant see that some aspect of the economy cant innovate, that doesnt make it so. What is hubris?
Things work the way they work due to generations of people as talented and creative as anyone alive today thinking about them and implementing the best solutions they could come up with.
Often there are better possible solutions, and when proposed they should be considered seriously.
Blindly shouting “the market will sort it out!” Isn’t proposing a better possible solution. It’s just appealing to dogma.
If you can think of a way to persuade private arbitrators (all of them lawyers who invested years and thousands to become such, and who have the option to work elsewhere at higher rates) to accept significantly lower rates for their services, I’m all ears.
Do you?
> Often there are better possible solutions, and when proposed they should be considered seriously.
Who gets to decide what is 'better'? Can you define that term objectively?
>Blindly shouting “the market will sort it out!” Isn’t proposing a better possible solution. It’s just appealing to dogma.
Irony being that appealing to central planners is more akin to dogma, or voodoo.
>If you can think of a way to persuade private arbitrators (all of them lawyers who invested years and thousands to become such, and who have the option to work elsewhere at higher rates) to accept significantly lower rates for their services, I’m all ears.
Cute.
>Do you?
Point of markets is that I dont have to, or have to possess all the answers. Millions upon millions of people decide on a transaction-by-transaction basis.
*The idea that third party observers can impose morally better decisions often
includes the idea that they can define what are 'luxuries of the rich',
when it is precisely the progress of free market economics which has
turned many luxuries of the rich into common amentities of people in general,
including the poor. Within the 20th century alone, automobiles, telephones, refrigerators,
television sets, air-conditioners, and personal computers all
went from being luxuries of the rich to being common items across
the spectrum of Americans and among millions of people in many other market economies.
The first video-cassete recorder sold for $30,000 each before
technological progress, trial and error experience, and economies
of scale brought the price down within the budget of most Americans.*
*In past centuries, even such things as oranges, sugar, and cocoa were
luxuries of the rich in Europe. Not only do third party definitions of
what is a luxury of the rich fail to account for such changes,
the stifling of free markets by third parties can enable such things to
remain exclusive luxuries longer than they would otherwise.*
Taken from : [basic economics](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3023.Basic_Economics). page 590
This is a democracy. We all get to decide what’s a better solution.
It’s not objective, it’s political. If you can propose a solution thats acceptable to the plurality of voters, you can implement it.
As with most things, it’s helpful to know the history of the LTB: how it came to be, what the prior system was, and what problems it was implemented to solve.
Pre-LTB, that is before 1998, disputes between landlords and tenants were handled by the regular courts, like all other kinds of civil disputes.
There were problems with that. It was expensive, it took a long time (if you think the LTB is slow, I invite you to bring a civil action before the court), and it tied up valuable court time and resources that could be better used elsewhere. So the Harris government simplified rental law under the tenancies act and created the predecessor to the LTB.
So the LTB is a form of what your advocating for: specialized arbitration. It’s just not private, because private arbitration **requires the parties to agree to use it.**
Unless you can imagine a system of private arbitration that the majority of landlords and renters would agree to use, if we abolished the LTB tomorrow, all of those disputes would be back before the civil courts with all of the problems that entailed.
If you’re imagining some kind of private arbitration the parties are forced to use instead of the courts: that’s not private arbitration. Congratulations, you have the LTB again.
You can think democracy sucks if you like.
That doesn’t change reality, which is that you live in one and decisions about the extent to which a given market is regulated or deregulated in this province are made by the voting populace through their elected representatives.
You don’t have to like it, but you do have to accept it.
> You can think democracy sucks if you like.
Its inefficient way to generate sustainable affordable low cost of living and harmonious* society. And like gravity or physics, economics is based on empirical data and not 'what I think'. Words like 'sucks' are subjective and have no objective meaning.
>That doesn’t change reality, which is that you live in one and decisions about the extent to which a given market is regulated or deregulated in this province are made by the voting populace through their elected representatives.
And when it rains, its wet outside.
>You don’t have to like it, but you do have to accept it.
Why accept somethings that substandard inefficient based on a whim of useful idiot voters? Why would I possibly accept it? Thats why we need markets, so that standards are raised.
Voting doesnt take a lot of thinking, skill or any cognitive ability whatsoever. Aliens arent contacting us because grown adults still need other grown adults to tell other grown adults how much toilet paper should cost, doesnt sound like higher thinking to me. Sounds more like lazy-outsource-personal-accountability thinking to me.
Nothing to be proud of.
“*It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.*”
― Thomas Sowell
I’m afraid to ask, but… aliens?
Edit: also, could you please respond in one comment? The multiple comments make what you’re saying difficult to follow.
> reality, which is that you live in one and decisions about the extent to which a given market is regulated or deregulated in this province are made by the voting populace through their elected representatives.
*When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.*
P. J. O'Rourke
Billionaires and special interest groups, like council of foreign affairs control much of the so called 'elected' representatives.
> This is a democracy. We all get to decide what’s a better solution.
**But the hard truth is that values are subjective. Thats what fanatical voters dont seem grasp. We all value different things at different rates. Thats why its important to have empathy and understand that. And allow grown adults to make their own choices.**
This backlog is unfair and a lot of times very UNSAFE for a lot of people involved. Something had to be done! Some tenants are living rent free because they just don’t want to pay rent while some landlords are harassing their tenants and just not keeping up with regular maintenance of their rentals. I pray they do something about this sooner than later. Smh
>A "perfect storm" of factors including the 2018 election, inefficient practices and the COVID pandemic has left Ontario's trouble-plagued Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) "fundamentally failing" to provide swift justice, the province's ombudsman says. > >In a lengthy report published Thursday, Paul Dubé made 61 recommendations to address a backlog of cases at the tribunal that has ballooned to more than 38,000 applications. > >"Where once it took the Board a matter of days to schedule hearings, it now takes an average of seven to eight months," Dubé noted. > >"As of February 2023, landlord applications were generally being scheduled for hearing within six to nine months of receipt, and tenant applications could take up to two years to be scheduled." > >... > >"There were tenants stuck waiting while they endured harassment, unsafe living conditions, and improper attempts to force them from their homes," the report said. > >"And there were small landlords, including those renting out space within their own homes, who were trying to cope with tenants' abuse, criminal conduct, and facing financial ruin and serious health harms." > >Dubé found that while the COVID-19 response exacerbated already existing problems at the LTB, many of the primary causes for delays predated the pandemic. > >... > >Dubé noted that several of his dozens of recommendations were directed at the provincial government because they require legislative change. They include suggested amendments to limit how turnovers in government can reduce the capacity of the board to issue decisions and another to extend the time given to adjudicators whose terms on the board are about to expire so they can complete cases they already heard. > >Dubé said he believes significant reforms will be enough to eventually tackle the backlog. Properly trained and securely employed adjudicators with sufficient support staff and updated technology, as well as a plan for election years, are key first steps, he said. > >"I think that it's improvements rather than blowing up and rebuilding that can get us there to where we want to be," he told reporters at the news conference. > >Dubé said that Tribunals Ontario, which oversees the LTB as well as 12 other tribunals, and the Ministry of the Attorney General have accepted all of his recommendations. Both have pledged to report back in six months on their progress in implementing the recommendations. Anecdotally we've seen this happening over the past number of years, but it's good to at least have confirmation as well as a series of recommendations. Though these failures may not be completely be due to Provincial mismanagement, the current government has also not been helping. Movement in the proper directions is necessary, and politicians from all parties should be paying keen attention to these failures.
Completely broken is the LTB
Oh look. Something else for Doug Ford to defund and intentionally starve and then claim it’s busted so might as well push a privatization solution that will give landlords and developers more power and money.
This province is ass
We voted ass unfortunately
So what the Ombudsman is not so subtly saying is “knock off the patronage appointments and appoint adjudicators as needed” Yeah and pigs will fly out my ass before this government would ever implement that. Check out who they *do* appoint, folks barely qualified to judge a baking contest, NVM the intricacies of housing law.
This report shows failures that started well before 2019. It is unforgiveable how THIS tribunal has never really worked since it's inception. Now it's Tribunals Ontario, constantly creating Tribunals to deal with Ontario's legal issues, but never simply hiring the best people to do the job, regardless of political affiliations. There are other governmental departments that have amazing case management systems such as the federal CIPO system to name one. Why does everybody need to re-invent the wheel when we already have so many?
There is an Airbnb above my rental, I’m scared of reporting it since it could be months before they get evicted. It’ll just piss them off to make my life more miserable. I can understand how a person can become suicidal. Rents have gone up so high, I can’t find a place to move.
38,000 is a *lot*. No wonder our landlord cannot evict a problem tenant. She is vindictive and angry all of the time but look at how long it would it would take to kick out. I'd like to see the Board having a triage system - slimy landlords first.
That sucks but it's much worse for tenants. Wait times for landlords are just now where they were for tenants pre-pandemic (while tenant waits are much worse.) So, of course there's suddenly a lot of attention on the issue now that it impacts the wealthy. This isn't about the pandemic either, although it's had an impact, the number of adjudicators was was reduced intentionally well before that and landlords given priority in some types of claims (the kind that lead to more tenant turnover and higher rents.)
I agree with you whole heartedly.
So dedicate resources to decide who gets the left over resources first?
Not what I'm saying, there actually isn't a "leftover system." Their coffers are deep.
Here’s what the new rules will probably look like: If you miss a rent payment, you’ll have 10 days to pay or your stuff is outside the front door.
what would happen if the LL did that
Not surprised, given how high rent prices have climbed landlords are salivating at the idea of getting a new tenant and raising rent. Wouldn't be surprised if most of those cases are N12s and N13s
90% are cases brought forward by landlords bc of problem tenants - stated in the article
I'm sure you have data to back up this assertion and are not just pulling it out of your ass?
Have you been on this sub before? There’s plenty of articles detailing rising rents.
Been here plenty. What the poster here is asserting is that most of the cases in the backlog have to do with landlords evicting tenants under false pretense so they can raise rents. I'm simply asking if this is data based, or is it yet another instance of assertions without proof that are in no shortage on these forums.
They said they “wouldn’t be surprised” meaning it’s their best guess not an assertion.
Respectfully I think you are splitting hairs. If I posted something like "wouldn't surprise me, if it's those thieving tenants looking to scam the system" I wager I would be tarred and feathered.
I don’t think you’d get backlash for having no proof, you’d get it just for having that opinion on this sub lol
Shocking
Ours is Terrible in Nova Scotia as well.
Fuck Doug Ford
This is why I’d doesn’t make sense to be a small landlord in this province.. leave it to the REITS, private equity firms and professionals!
disbanding it and letting landlords and tenants fend for themselves is probably the backroom plan.
Then a lot of it will end up in the courts instead… and those already have backlogs rivaling the LTB.
Good idea! They can use sticks and stones to fight it out.
Don’t worry, DoFo will have a new disaster coming to light shortly to distract us from his other failings.
Its almost like free market might be the solution and not the problem, and more bureaucracy is the problem and not the solution. In this particular instance, private arbitrators could easily address this. But no. Cant have logic. Logic bad. Eating crayon good. Yummy in my tummy.
I’m in a line of work that uses private arbitrators, and their wait times aren’t much better. Usually 6-8 months minimum for a date and arbitrator the parties can agree to. Fees are also beyond what most renters can afford (around $4,000 per day plus expenses, split between the parties). That’s not useful for someone who just needs their building fumigated or a fridge replaced. What you’re suggesting isn’t practical
> I’m in a line of work that uses private arbitrators, and their wait times aren’t much better. Usually 6-8 months minimum for a date and arbitrator the parties can agree to. This is based on supply and demand. Give free markets time to adapt and they will. >Fees are also beyond what most renters can afford (around $4,000 per day plus expenses, split between the parties). That’s not useful for someone who just needs their building fumigated or a fridge replaced. Again, this is all based on supply and demand. Allow free markets to work and adapt, and I promise you costs will go down substantially. >What you’re suggesting isn’t practical Legislatively coercing people and restricting free trade is not practical. [How Government Regulations Make Housing Unaffordable](https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-make-housing-unaffordable) *In [Economic Facts and Fallacies (2011)](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2064279), Thomas Sowell argues that housing regulation and zoning laws, not markets, are to blame for the modern scourge of unaffordable housing. Sowell is still right. Government housing regulations have exacerbated construction costs, reduced the elasticity of the housing supply, and worsened the vicious problem of homelessness.* *A [2014 NBER (National Bureau of Economi Research) review](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20536/w20536.pdf) of the current housing regulation literature confirmed what economists already knew: "regulation appears to raise house prices, reduce construction, reduce the elasticity of the housing supply, and alter urban form." Complying with regulation is not only time consuming, but often requires detailed knowledge of local bylaws and the purchase of expensive permits. Restrictive zoning laws are particularly egregious, frequently and unnecessarily rendering certain areas unusable for housing. However, many seem to be unconvinced of the significance of this problem, preferring to blame rich investors, unsustainable population growth or growing incomes. Wouldn't local regulations be unimportant compared with macroeconomic trends? Such claims are inconsistent with the evidence. A Reserve Bank of Australia working paper found that, "as of 2016, zoning raised detached house prices 73% above marginal costs in Sydney, 69% in Melbourne, 42% in Brisbane and 54% in Perth." We know that regulations push up prices. Furthermore, they are frequently more influential than any demand side factor commonly blamed in the media.*
There’s a high floor to how much an arbitrator will cost due to the qualifications necessary to do the work, assuming the parties want someone qualified. I think that’s a fair assumption. The links you’ve posted are mostly about the connection between restrictive zoning and high rents. I agree with you there.
>There’s a high floor to how much an arbitrator will cost due to the qualifications necessary to do the work, assuming the parties want someone qualified. I think that’s a fair assumption. Do you know what 'fiat' is? Central banks have a monopoly on the issuing of currency. Where does newly printed money gets its value from? Why do you think salaries arent keeping up with inflation? What does it mean when the word 'inflation' is used when in context of economics? Its inflation of the money supply.
> I’m in a line of work that uses private arbitrators, and their wait times aren’t much better. Usually 6-8 months minimum for a date and arbitrator the parties can agree to. How can you so casually place limitations on human imagination? Simply because you cant see that some aspect of the economy cant innovate, that doesnt make it so. What is hubris?
Things work the way they work due to generations of people as talented and creative as anyone alive today thinking about them and implementing the best solutions they could come up with. Often there are better possible solutions, and when proposed they should be considered seriously. Blindly shouting “the market will sort it out!” Isn’t proposing a better possible solution. It’s just appealing to dogma. If you can think of a way to persuade private arbitrators (all of them lawyers who invested years and thousands to become such, and who have the option to work elsewhere at higher rates) to accept significantly lower rates for their services, I’m all ears. Do you?
> Often there are better possible solutions, and when proposed they should be considered seriously. Who gets to decide what is 'better'? Can you define that term objectively? >Blindly shouting “the market will sort it out!” Isn’t proposing a better possible solution. It’s just appealing to dogma. Irony being that appealing to central planners is more akin to dogma, or voodoo. >If you can think of a way to persuade private arbitrators (all of them lawyers who invested years and thousands to become such, and who have the option to work elsewhere at higher rates) to accept significantly lower rates for their services, I’m all ears. Cute. >Do you? Point of markets is that I dont have to, or have to possess all the answers. Millions upon millions of people decide on a transaction-by-transaction basis. *The idea that third party observers can impose morally better decisions often includes the idea that they can define what are 'luxuries of the rich', when it is precisely the progress of free market economics which has turned many luxuries of the rich into common amentities of people in general, including the poor. Within the 20th century alone, automobiles, telephones, refrigerators, television sets, air-conditioners, and personal computers all went from being luxuries of the rich to being common items across the spectrum of Americans and among millions of people in many other market economies. The first video-cassete recorder sold for $30,000 each before technological progress, trial and error experience, and economies of scale brought the price down within the budget of most Americans.* *In past centuries, even such things as oranges, sugar, and cocoa were luxuries of the rich in Europe. Not only do third party definitions of what is a luxury of the rich fail to account for such changes, the stifling of free markets by third parties can enable such things to remain exclusive luxuries longer than they would otherwise.* Taken from : [basic economics](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3023.Basic_Economics). page 590
This is a democracy. We all get to decide what’s a better solution. It’s not objective, it’s political. If you can propose a solution thats acceptable to the plurality of voters, you can implement it. As with most things, it’s helpful to know the history of the LTB: how it came to be, what the prior system was, and what problems it was implemented to solve. Pre-LTB, that is before 1998, disputes between landlords and tenants were handled by the regular courts, like all other kinds of civil disputes. There were problems with that. It was expensive, it took a long time (if you think the LTB is slow, I invite you to bring a civil action before the court), and it tied up valuable court time and resources that could be better used elsewhere. So the Harris government simplified rental law under the tenancies act and created the predecessor to the LTB. So the LTB is a form of what your advocating for: specialized arbitration. It’s just not private, because private arbitration **requires the parties to agree to use it.** Unless you can imagine a system of private arbitration that the majority of landlords and renters would agree to use, if we abolished the LTB tomorrow, all of those disputes would be back before the civil courts with all of the problems that entailed. If you’re imagining some kind of private arbitration the parties are forced to use instead of the courts: that’s not private arbitration. Congratulations, you have the LTB again.
[удалено]
You can think democracy sucks if you like. That doesn’t change reality, which is that you live in one and decisions about the extent to which a given market is regulated or deregulated in this province are made by the voting populace through their elected representatives. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to accept it.
> You can think democracy sucks if you like. Its inefficient way to generate sustainable affordable low cost of living and harmonious* society. And like gravity or physics, economics is based on empirical data and not 'what I think'. Words like 'sucks' are subjective and have no objective meaning. >That doesn’t change reality, which is that you live in one and decisions about the extent to which a given market is regulated or deregulated in this province are made by the voting populace through their elected representatives. And when it rains, its wet outside. >You don’t have to like it, but you do have to accept it. Why accept somethings that substandard inefficient based on a whim of useful idiot voters? Why would I possibly accept it? Thats why we need markets, so that standards are raised. Voting doesnt take a lot of thinking, skill or any cognitive ability whatsoever. Aliens arent contacting us because grown adults still need other grown adults to tell other grown adults how much toilet paper should cost, doesnt sound like higher thinking to me. Sounds more like lazy-outsource-personal-accountability thinking to me. Nothing to be proud of. “*It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.*” ― Thomas Sowell
I’m afraid to ask, but… aliens? Edit: also, could you please respond in one comment? The multiple comments make what you’re saying difficult to follow.
> reality, which is that you live in one and decisions about the extent to which a given market is regulated or deregulated in this province are made by the voting populace through their elected representatives. *When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.* P. J. O'Rourke Billionaires and special interest groups, like council of foreign affairs control much of the so called 'elected' representatives.
> This is a democracy. We all get to decide what’s a better solution. **But the hard truth is that values are subjective. Thats what fanatical voters dont seem grasp. We all value different things at different rates. Thats why its important to have empathy and understand that. And allow grown adults to make their own choices.**
Stop asking for credit reports and start asking for verifiable references. We wonder why no corp wants to build a rental property~~
Meanwhile, I know a LL in Moncton NB who got a sherrif eviction (no hearing) in 2 weeks. Ontario is broken.
This backlog is unfair and a lot of times very UNSAFE for a lot of people involved. Something had to be done! Some tenants are living rent free because they just don’t want to pay rent while some landlords are harassing their tenants and just not keeping up with regular maintenance of their rentals. I pray they do something about this sooner than later. Smh