Canadian Realestate Magazine forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Landlords need protection from confiscation rules

Notify me of new replies via email
Canadian Realestate Magazine | 10 Jul 2015, 11:50 AM Agree 0
A case against a pair of landlords is raising eyebrows about confiscation rules after the duo lost their 12-unit building for being unable to regulate illegal activity in four of their units.
  • AL | 10 Jul 2015, 12:32 PM Agree 0
    It is high time Landlords got together and launched a class action law suit against the Government bodies that unashamedly side with criminal tenants!
    It is entirely unjust that law abiding tax paying landlords have little or no defense or recourse - when the Landlord Tenant rules are so unfairly one sided & stacked against them, it is a situation of pure class discrimination at its worst, and all for the sake of self serving politicians wanting to win the tenants vote at the ballot box !
  • Northey | 10 Jul 2015, 01:13 PM Agree 0
    This is height of injustice. I can't imagine there are people fighting to keep criminals and drug dealers safe and away from law enforcement, and confiscating someone else's property to house them. It might be their victory but shame on them for fighting for the bad guys.
  • Suzanne Bielak | 10 Jul 2015, 01:35 PM Agree 0
    I agree whole heartedly!
    Some tenants use their tenant status to hide from being responsible citizens, avoiding payments of rent and utilities while depreciating property value. Landlords are providing a place to live to those who chose to rent - they agree with the Tenant on matters such as rent and conduct, in writing, which is then a 'contract' between two consenting parties. I have yet to see a lease which says "pay your rent if and when you feel in the mood, " and "carry on with any illegal activities which you feel will adversely affect the quiet enjoyment of your neighbours and the neighbourhood and depreciate property value for your Landlord and others who are trying to build equity in their homes."
    Contracts are prepared and honoured for the order which terms and conditions of that contract spell out. Some tenants sign these agreements never intending to honour the terms and conditions - they have become "professional tenants" knowing how they can use the legislation to their benefit.
    If they are unwilling to respect that contract, there are supposed to be consequences, just as there are consequences if a Landlord stops paying the monthly mortgage and tax payments. Use of their status to hide from civil and criminal law is another step towards allowing tenants to be classified as "unable to be responsible" - and this is being condoned by the courts?
    Some tenants are being classified as "not responsible for their actions" when in reality they are using the law to protect their total lack of conscience toward their fellow man. When will the judges and courts recognize they are being used? Landlords do need to take this ridiculous protectionism by the courts to task and stop the lunacy. Tenants are people - Landlords are people - let's have a reality check! Laws are put in place for "individuals" to follow with respect - be they Land owners or those who chose not to own property.
  • DeceitinDrugs | 10 Jul 2015, 01:47 PM Agree 0
    I have been following problem rentals in neighborhoods for over ten years.

    The BC Tenancy at protets tenants from each other but fails to address the
    disruptions and crime caused by rental tenants within a neighborhood.

    SCAN B.C. is an effective tool to be used to help remove and evict criminal tenants.

    However, tenancy rules must change to address the drug-related crime and dysfunction
    of rental tenants.

    If there is evidence of repeat problems, a landlord should have right to evict tenants
    without the long and ardous process which is now in place.

    Ont he other land, many landlords fail to adequately screen tenants via criminal record check
    and employment records and tenancy records of previous places rented.

    This would help curb the problems sometimes encountered within days after tenants move into
    a neighborhood.

    Many landlords however only see the $$$ signs and in the end they end up spending the $$$
    to get rid of tenants,w ho have not paid rent for months, trashed the place and totally
    disrupted the living spaces of the neighborhood.
  • judy | 10 Jul 2015, 01:58 PM Agree 0
    Let me get this straight: a tenant is innocent until proven guilty and that may take many infractions and months/years to get to court, in the meantime he still needs a roof over his head and will be with fellow tenants and some poor landlord whose hands are tied, because he might violate the bad tenant's human rights. So damned if he does something and damned if he doesn't!
    Would you like to mortgage your future or risk your retirement savings as a landlord?
  • Maxy | 10 Jul 2015, 02:05 PM Agree 0
    If we read this coming out of our so called evil states, we will be shouting Dictator Regime or Rogue State. Welcome to democracy. If this is how democracy functions, the ideology needs a new dictionary. This sounds like some city governments that will not clear snow on their streets but are eager to impose fines on residents for not clearing snow on sidewalks that are actually city properties. Interesting.
  • Maxy | 10 Jul 2015, 02:12 PM Agree 0
    Remember the proposal from one of NS Municipal Mayors. "Landlords are to be fined for any misbehaviour by tenants". I propose that Mayor of any city or municipality in turn should be responsible for any misbehaviour of their residents. How is that, mayors.
  • J.A.M. | 10 Jul 2015, 02:59 PM Agree 0
    Please email me!
  • JennRLP | 11 Jul 2015, 10:16 AM Agree 0
    There are many facts missing in this story and I would be very interested to know them.
    First and foremost, it is suggested, but not stated, that the landlords did not file the appropriate documents with the LTB to have these tenants evicted. Clearly, with that kind of police activity, they were tenants-from-hell. Just as clear, there was ample justification for having them evicted. Was this avenue pursued? What actions did the landlords undertake?
    I have had two different clients have two different experiences with two different branches of the LTB and the findings in both cases were in the landlord's favour. Hardly the foundation for a meaningful scientific study, but noteworthy, regardless. Confiscating a building worth $400,000 and mortgage-free is nothing short of dramatic. What is the whole story?
  • CPthunderbay | 11 Jul 2015, 12:17 PM Agree 0
    I agree wholeheartedly with JennRLP there's always more potatoes in the hill, this story is missing crucial facts. I also find it ironic that they revised and renamed the Landlord Tenant Act to the Tenant Act which is quite appropo considering it is heavily weighted in the tenants favour. The land load must Jump through a plethora of convoluted hoops and God forbid they use the wrong form or make a mistake because it can cause the clock to reset and they start over again. When dealing with the LTB they are very often eager to help a tenant but not so much for a beleaguered landlord. The LTB processes are confusing and cumbersome in many cases, and as such it is simply another reason why many mom and pop landlords have dropped out of the equation which leaves the bigger players in the game because they can afford to hire property managers who make a living out of knowing the tenant act and which form to use and how to use them. Those big players will surely get rid of the miscreants quickly and eventually those miscreants will find some poor unsophisticated landlord or will end up in public housing because they can't find a place to live so once again Joe Q Public ends up footing the bill. The province of Ontario is the biggest landlord because of many years of a poorly constructed and executed tenant act. The small time investor gets fed up with the system or gets financially injured and the big players are happy to pick up the slack but they don't usually offer lower end rental units so the lower income tenants naturally end up on the publics doorstep. instead of increasing public housing units our government should set forth an agenda that could rezone more land to accommodate smaller unit count buildings and rejig some of the rules and make small investors come to the table in a big way and the extra supply of rental housing will relax the rental rates and remove pressure from the demand for public sponsored housing. Until our politicians actually grow a set and set out to address some core policy issues we can look funding more public housing because the little players are usually the ones that have the more affordable units for rent.
  • Racquel | 11 Jul 2015, 12:44 PM Agree 0
    We got feed up with Ontario Landlord and Tenant Laws and Left.
    Having lived through 2 Professional tenant scams we called it quits.
Post a reply