Posts Tagged ‘evictions’

Most Tenants Leaving Condemned Huntington Hills Find New Apartments

Saturday, December 24th, 2011

December 24th, 2011

What’s this story about?

Huntington Hills was said to be “unfit” for habitation after the owner failed to comply with a couple of Alberta court orders to fix safety and health concerns.

The owners had two years of warnings after Alberta Health Services informed them there were serious health concerns with the building.  One of the main concerns was asbestos.

What happened to the tenants?

This left many tenants living in Huntington Hills to scramble to find new places to live, even a day before they were to be evicted.

Many of the ninety tenants scrambling to find new housing were newcomers to Canada and seniors with low incomes.

Fortunately, before the deadline only three had found a new rental.

How did these tenants handle it?

Two tenants involved feel they are happy to home for the Christmas break.  They are Melissa and Andrew Rayburn.  Just days before being forced to move they and their two daughters managed to find a new rental within blocks of their Huntsville building.

According to Melissa: “It’s been really stressful but I guess I’m glad that we left because I don’t want to live in a place that could make my kids sick.” Melissa is six months pregnant and said  “I’m really glad we’re out of there. We don’t need the hassle.”

Why didn’t the government work closely with the Huntington Hills owners to solve this before it came to this point?

That is something only the owners and the government know.

Uh Oh! The Sheriff Is A Comin’!

Thursday, May 19th, 2011

What Can you Do If your Tenants Refuse to Leave?

It sounds a little “wild, wild, west, doesn’t it?  Your problem tenants are finally going to leave…because the Landlord and Tenant Board directed them to do so. What do you do if they are directed to move out, and don’t?   Cue the music, kick the tumbleweed. It’s time for the Sheriff. (more…)

The eviction process in Ontario

Thursday, April 28th, 2011

(COURTESY OF YOUR LIBERAL GOVERNMENT)

May 2011 – Evictions, Landlord and Tenant Board

 

This is a true story of a straight forward eviction matter, that has officially qualified for the “nightmare” status we assign to our most memorable cases. (more…)

Monday, April 18th, 2011

‘Millionaire’ tenant leaves trails of angry landlords

April 15, 2011

The Toronto Star has published a fascinating report on a tenant who claims to be a millionaire.  So why doesn’t he pay the rent?

(more…)

Lots of hearings cancelled tomorrow (Wed. Feb. 2, 2011) at LTB

Tuesday, February 1st, 2011
Due to extreme weather conditions LTB hearings scheduled for Wednesday February 2nd, 2011 at the following locations have been cancelled and will be re-scheduled:

Simcoe:
Best western Little River Inn
203 Queens Way West,Simcoe, ON,N3Y 2M9

Brantford:
Best Western Alexander Graham Bell Room
19 Holiday Drive Hwy,(403 and Gretzky Pkwy),Brantford, ON, N3T 5W5

Owen Sound:
ServiceOntario, Boardroom – Main Floor,1400 1st Avenue West, Owen Sound, ON,N4K 6Z9

Cobourg:
Best Western Inn & Convention Centre, 930 Burnham Street, Cobourg, ON, K9A 2X9

For up to date information regarding hearing cancellations please contact our Call Centre 416-645-8080 or Toll-free 1-888-332-3234

“A Landlord’s Rights & Obligations in Ontario, 2011”

Wednesday, January 5th, 2011
“A Landlord’s Rights & Obligations in Ontario, 2011”
MISSISSAUGA January 25th, 2011.

Katherine Paliwoda, tells everything you need to know, and then some in her latest seminar. “A Landlord’s Rights & Obligations in Ontario, 2011″ will give you the leading edge information that you need to properly and safely represent your client, or rent out your property.

Katherine is a “first class” facilitator who is far from new to the real estate industry. Participants in her live events find themselves spellbound and hanging on her every word. With 27 years of experience, Katherine Paliwoda comes highly recommended by The Ontario Landlord Association, and by virtually every student she has taught.

In this 6 hour course; “A Landlord’s Rights & Obligations in Ontario, 2011″, you’ll learn about the critical things you must do, and things that you definitely shouldn’t do when purchasing, renting, and managing a residential rental property in Ontario.

Do you want to protect yourself from issues that are likely to happen when you purchase, sell, or rent your property? Katherine will break it all down for you in understandable bite sized chunks. You’ll be lead through several potential scenarios and give you solutions that can only be acquired through several years of experience in dealing with landlord tenant matters in Ontario.

If you’re a real estate investor, seasoned or novice, a real estate agent in Ontario who wants to properly protect your investor clients, or you’re a landlord in Ontario, this full day seminar was designed for you.

You will leave with a clear understanding of your rights and obligations as a landlord, which will help you to avoid unnecessary and costly legal issues. You’ll understand the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), and how it effects you as a landlord in Ontario.

This is a full day course jam packed with money saving information and tips for anyone who is a landlord in the Province of Ontario.

Katherine is offering a 15% attendance discount to members of the Ontario Landlord Association. If you are not already a member of OLA, join today!

For other dates location & registration information please visit us at

http://www.landlordtenantmatters.ca 1-866-548-6358


Please note that this course does NOT qualify for CEU’s.

Landlord Tenant Matters respects the industry guidelines and governance of RECO’s educational mandate.

Our mission is to educate and coach Ontario landlords so they may have peace of mind when navigating and understanding the rules of tenancy in Ontario. Due to the nature of this training, the program has been fortunate to attract landlords who are also real estate practitioners and real estate practitioners that serve and work for the best interests of landlord investment clients.

Our program requires timely, up-to-date information and access (if needed) to the instructors during and after the educational programs we provide.

It is in our opinion that we are better served by offering our program exclusively of RECO and their CE Credit guidelines.

The Landlord Tenant Matters Team
“Peace Of Mind For Todays Landlord”
http://www.LandlordTenantMatters.ca

I could have never imagined how hard it is to evict someone.

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010

To anyone interested in the services of Landlord legal –

I could have never imagined how hard it is to evict someone until I was faced with having to do it myself. It wasn’t until I started the process that I realized that it is impossible to do on your own without proper legal counsel. There are so many “t’s” and “i’s” that need to be crossed and dotted and if you miss one, you could lose a lot of time and money. That is when I contacted Landlord Legal.

The best part about April Stewart and her team at Landlord Legal is that they’re specialists. Evicting “bad” tenants for “good” landlords is all they do! I could have NEVER evicted my bad tenant on my own. He was a professional con who played the legal system with expertise. But what my bad tenant didn’t know was that April is more diligent and a lot smarter than he was. April’s a hard working, super persistent woman who is at the top of what she does and gets the job done, period.

I hope I never have to use April’s services again but should I ever need to, you better believe that the only person I will call before anyone else is “The Terminator!”
– Nick S, Toronto

Landlords get a bad deal when it comes to bad tenants

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010

By Hugh Adami, Ottawa Citizen December 19, 2010

Why would anyone want to be a small landlord when there is little protection in Ontario from bad tenants?

Take Mike and Cathy Clarmo, who live in the Osgoode community of Edwards. The only way they could get a tenant to leave their rental property was with a cash payout of $3,000. And that was after 4½ years of watching the house’s resale value plummet because of their tenants’ neglect.

Their problems all started because the Clarmos couldn’t say no to an acquaintance who wanted to rent the three-bedroom bungalow they purchased in 2004. The Clarmos had just finished renovating the house when the man — a childhood friend of one of their sons — showed up at their doorstep in the spring of 2005. The couple had been planning to sell the property, which was just down the street from their home, and hoping for a $20,000-to-$25,000 profit to put toward retirement. Mike explained their plans, but the man persisted. He needed a place for his wife and children.

Mike said OK, figuring he would make some of the investment back in rent, and sell later, when the house was sure to be worth more.

Instead, cracks started appearing in their nest egg soon after the family moved in. “It broke our hearts to see the condition of the house deteriorate as it did,” says Cathy.

Probably the worst thing was that the house constantly reeked of animal urine.

The family had a dog, cat and rabbit. Drywall and floors were damaged. The garage was so cluttered that the couple was sure there was a fire risk.

Photos they took also show the front yard of the home littered with junk, including car parts such as engines and tires. The woman, who drove a school bus, damaged the eavestroughing after backing the vehicle into the house, Mike says. Rent was often late.

The Clarmos decided to sell the property after a business deal went sour. In April 2009, they gave the tenants more than two months of notice to vacate.

The tenants offered to buy the house “as is” for a reduced price. The Clarmos agreed. But the tenants couldn’t get a mortgage. The Clarmos abandoned their plan to sell after the husband approached Mike and tearfully told him he couldn’t find another house to rent.

A year later, they planned again to sell the house. But the husband, whose wife was no longer living with him, told Mike he was now well versed in tenants’ rights. He wasn’t going to move, and if Mike wanted to terminate the tenancy, he would have to go before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Mike did so twice. He says he came away convinced that as the landlord, he was considered the bad guy.

At the first hearing, Mike spoke with a mediator, who suggested he allow his tenant to stay at the house rent-free for five months with the condition that he move by the end of this month. The man’s lawyer suggested that Mike could get him out by the end of October if he gave him a few thousand dollars on top of free rent for three months. Mike refused. He recalls the lawyer telling him that he would regret his decision as he was bound to lose the case.

Mike produced photos that he had taken of the house at the first hearing. The adjudicator joked about the one of the cluttered garage. “‘It looks like my garage,'” Mike recalls him saying. In his written decision, adjudicator Greg Joy dismisses or challenges every complaint made by the landlord.

The Clarmos found a prospective buyer for the home soon after and again applied to have the tenancy agreement terminated by Nov. 1, which was also the closing date of the sale.

The adjudicator in the second hearing reserved his decision, which allowed the tenant to stay put for at least the time being.

Mike’s lawyer suggested they give the tenant $2,000 to get out of the house. The tenant’s lawyer then came back with another figure — $3,000 — plus the demand that his client be allowed to stay until Nov. 15. Worried the board could rule in favour of the tenant and that the prospective buyers of the house would pull out of the deal, Mike agreed.

The former tenant would not return my calls.

The $3,000, which the couple feels was extortion, plus $1,400 in legal fees and $1,000 to refill the home’s oil tank are the smaller losses. The Clarmos did sell the house for $240,000 — about $25,000 more than what it cost them to buy and renovate the property in 2004. But the selling price was still a far cry from the $290,000 to $300,000 a real estate broker had told them the house would have been worth.

The Clarmos don’t know if they should be angrier with their tenants or the board.

They realize the board exists primarily to protect tenants, and with children, their tenant was bound to get even more sympathy. But, they say, their case illustrates the need for rules to protect the good landlords.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Landlords+deal+when+comes+tenants/4000351/story.html#ixzz18dUrkiwP

Landlords Burned by Internet Scammers

Monday, July 19th, 2010

Recently a Newfoundland landlord found himself in a controversy regarding a rental ad he posted on Kijiji.ca.

After advertising his condo rental, the landlord was contacted by a potential tenant who referred to an ad for the same                                                                    

property on another Internet classified site, Craigslist.

Suspicious, the landlord researched Craigslist and indeed found his property advertised by an impostor.

The fake landlord was asking half the rent, and allowing both smoking and pets on the property, which the actual landlord had restricted.

The local police found there was nothing they could do to stop the fraud.  Craigslist also failed to pull the ad or warn potential victims of the fraud, so the landlord took matters into his own hands.  He contacted the fraudsters directly, and posed as a tenant to gain more information.

He was told to send a deposit, and upon receipt of the funds, the “landlord” would ship the keys.  He was invited to view the apartment on his own.  Eventually, the scammers became suspicious of the real landlord’s probing inquiry, and pulled the ad.

In a related incident, a RCMP officer went undercover to bust an Internet rental scam in Kelowna, B.C.  In this case, a teenager and her 21-year old friend posted an ad for a rental on Castanet. The 17-year old posed as the landlord’s daughter.  A victim deposited some money in the “landlord’s” bank account without becoming suspicious of the scam. The victim believed that the property could not be shown at that time because it was currently occupied. A few days later, another victim posted a warning on the Internet regarding that ad.  That prompted a call to the police.

The fraudsters made the mistake of continuing to communicate with their victim and demanded the rest of the agreed-upon payment. But instead of meeting with the victim, the cons met an undercover officer.  Both were arrested and charged with fraud.

In the U.S., landlords have been warned by the F.B.I. of a rash on similar Internet scams.  Perhaps the most notorious was a couple who moved across country to an Arizona home offered for rent in Craigslist.  The family of nine could not believe the luck of finding a large house with a swimming pool for such low rent and immediately sent a deposit to hold the property.  In this case, the tenants were given access, and actually started moving into the property before the real owner returned from vacation to find the  family in her home.

In an act of great kindness, the owner allowed the victimized tenants to remain for some time until they could find another place to live.

While some of these frauds may seen obvious to landlords, who understand the normal rental process, they are not so obvious to renters.  It is estimated that scammers often net thousands of dollars from each of these fake ads.

Some landlords are becoming skeptical of posting Internet ads, and relying instead upon rental signs, or newspaper classifieds. Others post warning within their own ads, for instance, advising that all applicants must meet with the landlord personally, and the approved applicant will undergo a credit check before they will be asked to pay a deposit.

This post is provided by Tenant Verification Services, Inc., helping landlords reduce the risks of renting with fraud prevention tools that include Tenant Screening, Tenant Background Checks, (U.S. and Canada), as well as Criminal Background Checks, and Eviction Reports (U.S. only).


“Ontario may just have the strictest legal requirements for landlords in North America.”

Sunday, July 18th, 2010

Being a Landlord in Ontario

I received in the mail yesterday my real estate broker’s regular newsletter.  In it there is an article entitled “Becoming a Landlord – Do Your Homework”.  The first sentence of the article is “Ontario may just have the strictest legal requirements for landlords in North America.”

In my opinion, the article ought to be re-titled “Becoming a Landlord – Have Your Head Examined.”  I don’t know if it’s fair to say that Ontario has the strictest landlord laws, but I think it is very fair to say that the Landlord and Tenant Act is extremely tenant-friendly.  My criticism is NOT with the existence of the LTA’s terms, rather it is with the inflexibility of the system.  I will be the first to recognize that the legislation was put in place in response to actual examples of what slum-lords have done to tenants.  I will also be the first to recognized that even with this legislation in place there are still slum-lords operating in Toronto and throughout the province (thankfully, none of them are my clients).  I should also say that in the past I have represented both landlords and tenants in various matters and I do not have a bias in favour of one or the other.  The difficulty is that the legislation which was enacted to avoid the abuses by landlords years ago swung the pendulum way over to the other side and now permits abuses by tenants.  There is no fair balance.  Some will say, “yes, that’s true, but it’s a policy decision made by the legislature that it is entitled to make.”  I agree.  But that doesn’t make it right and it is ultimately, then, a choice between two evils.

I should also point out that I am dealing with residential tenancies here, not commercial tenancies.  So, this will affect small businesses, for example, where they purchase a building that has a main floor store front or office space and then an apartment or apartments in the floor(s) above.

The Ontario legislature’s desire to protect tenants from slum-lords the legislation has turned into a nightmare for decent landlords to get rid of problem tenants.  Let’s give a few examples.  The first area is rent.  If the tenant fails to pay rent on January 1, the landlord must give a notice, if the notice is ignored, the landlord can bring an application to the Landlord and Tenant Board to have the tenancy terminated for non-payment of rent.  The Board hearing might not be scheduled until April 1.  At any point up until the start of the hearing, the tenant can pay the rent – and remember, we are only talking about January’s rent.  If the tenant has failed to pay February and March rent by that time, a new application (or applications) must be filed.  So, if a tenant wanted to be perpetually late, the landlord has to bring a series of applications and if the tenant pays at the last second, the landlord is precluded from kicking the tenant out.  The legislation was put in place to avoid slum-lords from using the slightest delay in rental payment as an excuse to kick out a rent-controlled tenant and replace him or her with a higher paying tenant.  The problem is that it is now open to abuse by tenants.

Another example, I have a client who is a superintendant at an apartment building.  The client has a dispute with one of the tenants.  One day, my client alleges and I personally believe him but it has never been fully decided at the LTB or in court, the tenant decided to throw a 4 litre bottle of oil off the tenant’s balcony and narrowly missed my client working many stories below.  This type of conduct is completely reprehensible and ought to be a justification for immediate eviction of the tenant.  An application for this relief was brought to the tribunal.  The application was dismissed.  Why?  Because it was not a “continuing” event.  The provision in the legislation was clearly aimed at situations such as tenants who play their music loudly or have parties all the time.  The result is that the tenant would have to keep doing acts which endangered my client’s health or amounted to a nuisance for an uninterrupted period of seven days before the tenant could be evicted.  Perversely enough, if the tenant does whatever the problem is for six days in a row, then takes a day off, and then goes another six days, then takes another day off, etc., etc. there is little that a landlord can do.  Again, a provision in the legislation that is open for abuse by tenants.

A third example, in the most recent round of legislative reform landlords were precluded from being able to request that tenants permit the landlords to directly debit the tenants’ bank accounts for the rental payments.  This is joined with the existing provision that landlords cannot ask for post-dated cheques.  The only guaranteed obligation of a tenant, regardless of the nature of the tenancy, is that the tenant pays rent.  Direct debits permit the landlord to more cost-effectively get paid.  The argument against direct debits is that sometimes the tenant doesn’t have the money on the first.  If that’s the case then (a) the tenant is in breach of the lease and that’s the tenant’s problem; and (b) if the tenant writes a cheque on January 1 hoping that it will be deposited on January 2 at the landlord’s bank and that by the time it makes it over to the tenant’s bank on January 3 there will be money to cover the cheque, the tenant is engaged in “cheque kiting” which is illegal – and something the law should not be encouraging.

I could go on.  Suffice it to say, over the years I have had opportunities with friends and otherwise to invest in real estate which would make me a landlord, either directly or indirectly.  In light of Ontario’s legislation, I have steadfastly refused.  Those who are landlords are either braver souls than I, or maybe they should have their heads examined.

courtesy of Christoper A.L. Caruana