Monday, December 11, 2017

DID you agree to receive Notices via Electronic Transmission

We all agree E Mail is convenient

But sometimes a written letter; weighty in its importance will make you observe and deal with the contents.

If you agree to receive notice by email the importance may be missed or the JUNK folder filled.

RE:          New Lien Instruction Form  We attach here our new Notice of Lien/Lien Instruction Form. As you know, there have been some recent changes to the Condominium Act, 1998. One particular change which may affect the way lien notices are communicated to owners is the section governing Service on an Owner, Section 47(4). We will require you to complete the "Consent to Electronic Delivery" section of the instruction form, in the following cases:
  • where a unit owner has indicated, in writing, that they agree to receive service electronically; and/or
  • where the corporation has, on record, a duly completed "Agreement to Electronic Delivery".  (Must comply with Section 47(4), 47(6) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and 12.7 of O. Reg. 48/01.)
... office will send all notices by both mail and email, where an email address is provided.

 It is more convenient, but have you ever missed something important?  

What do you think? 

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Court refuses to Amend Declaration of Condo Corporation

Do you have a unit at Toronto Standard Condo Corp 1556 Also Known As Skymark Center at Avondale - West Structure. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation #1556. Address 78 Harrison Garden Boulevard?

Do you have a unit at Toronto Standard Condo Corporation 1600 Also known as  SKYMARK AT AVONDALE II, 80 HARRISON GARDEN BLVD, Toronto, Ontario?

Should you have known about this before your purchase? 

In a recent case, (TSCC No. 1556 and No. 1600 v. Owners of TSCC No. 1556, et al), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to grant a court order to amend the declarations of two corporations to eliminate provisions in their declarations which specifically permitted transient, short-term rentals in the condominiums.
The two corporations were developed by the same builder and contained identical provisions in their declarations dealing with short-term rentals. The declarations specifically stated that transient short-term rentals were permitted in accordance with the applicable zoning by-laws. In addition, there were also numerous provisions in the declarations that any restrictions in the declarations were not to be construed to prohibit or restrict short-term rentals.
The condominium corporations took the position that the short-term rental provisions:
§ were inconsistent with the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) because they impermissibly granted rights relating to occupancy and use (when the Act only allows declarations to contain conditions or restrictions with respect to occupancy and use), and because they interfered with the ability of the board of directors to make rules;
§ were inconsistent with the City zoning by-laws; and
§ were inconsistent with a restrictive covenant registered against the condominium properties which prohibited the construction of commercial space.
All three of these arguments failed on the following basis:
§ The declarations did not grant any rights as the right to lease property is a right of ownership. The declarations merely confirmed that any provisions in the declarations which restricted uses, did not restrict the right to lease, and thus there was no inconsistency with the Act.
§ As section 58(2) of the Act specifically states that rules must be consistent with the declaration, the condominium boards clearly could not make any rules prohibiting or restricting short-term rentals, as this would be inconsistent with the declarations.
§ The wording in the declarations specifically stated that short-term rentals must be in compliance with the applicable City zoning by-laws in effect from time to time.
§ While short-term rentals of residential units may be a commercial use, this was not contrary to the restrictive covenant, as there was no construction of commercial space in the condominiums and the restrictive covenant did not prohibit leasing residential units for a commercial purpose.
§ The disclosure documents delivered to purchasers when they entered into their agreements of purchase and sale specifically stated that short-term rentals were permitted and some purchasers relied on the ability to lease their unit on a short-term basis when making their purchase decision.
As the court application failed, the only avenue to amend the declarations would be to obtain the written consent of the owners of 80% of the units in accordance with section 107 of the Act. Eighty per cent consent is a high threshold and often difficult to obtain. In this case, as the disclosure documents and the declarations clearly stated that there were no restrictions on the leasing of units, many of the owners may have relied on this when making their purchase decision, and thus would not consent to amending the declarations to prohibit or restrict short-term rentals. 

So these BUYERS who acted in good faith to purchase a suite for occupancy or investment;

a) Did they take the condo status documents to a lawyer to have it things explained?
     ....... 80 % do not  assuming that all condo documents are the same
b) Are you content to remain in your purchase?
c) Has your investment been soured by this experience?

Add your comments below 

Friday, November 3, 2017

A Guide to the New Condominium Act Forms

Nov 1,  2017
As of yesterday, many changes to the Condominium Act came into effect that affect the day-to-day responsibilities of condo corporations.
Some of the changes require corporations to use Ministry forms where they weren’t previously required.
The Ministry released the new forms corporations will have to use for: proxies, to provide notice of meeting, and the three types of information certificates, among others. Here is a list of the new forms:

Information Certificates
This “mini status certificate” provides owners with updates on finances, insurance, reserve fund, board, and other matters throughout the year.
Tip: This must be sent out twice per year – within 60 days after the last day of the first and third fiscal quarter.
This certificate is triggered on certain events, such as a change in the directors, or change of the corporation’s address for service.
Tip: There are different time periods for sending out the Information Certificate Update depending on the type of triggering event. For example, if the board loses quorum, this must be sent out within 5 days of losing quorum, whereas a corporation has 30 days to send out the notice for a mere change in the number of directors.
This notice contains the most recent Periodic Information Certificate and Information Certificate Update.
A corporation must send this notice to owners if it decides to post any of the information certificates online (such as through property management’s web portal)

This form must be used by owners or mortgagees voting by proxy at a meeting of owners.
Tip: Proxy forms can be used at an adjournment of a meeting of owners. If, for example, there weren’t sufficient owners present at an AGM to pass a by-law, proxies submitted for the purpose of passing a by-law at that AGM can be used at a subsequent meeting of owners.
This notice is meant to give owners an advance notice of the purpose of the meeting of owners.
Tip: This must be sent out at least 35 days before the meeting date.
This form is required for sending owners notice of an upcoming meeting of owners.
Tip: This must be sent out 15-20 days before the meeting date.
Record Requests
This form must be used when an owner, mortgagee or purchaser requests records.
This form must be used by the board of directors when responding to a record request from an owner, mortgagee or purchaser.
Tip: The board must respond to the request within 30 days.
This is an agreement between the requester and the corporation that allows the requester to waive certain rights with respect to the corporation’s response to the record request.

Other Forms for Owners
1. Notice of Meeting of Owners under s.34(5) of the                                   Condominium Act
This must be used by owners who wish to call a meeting to fill vacancies on the board if the board loses quorum and the remaining directors do not call within 15 days of losing quorum, or if there are no directors in office.
This form must be used by owners if they wish to submit material to the board to be included in the upcoming Notice of Meeting of Owners
Tip: Although owners can request material to be included in the notice of meeting, the board is not obligated to include this material unless the submission is made on behalf of owners of 15% of the units (or more), and the submission would not add anything that is contrary to the Condominium Act or the regulations.

C/O Lash Condo Law 

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Tax on Flipping 50%

David Rotfleisch, a tax lawyer with, said there are two ways in which a condo transaction could be taxable, either as capital gains or income.

“If you buy a condo and you live in it and you subsequently sell it, there is an argument that it is a capital transaction. You bought something and sold something,” he said. “But if you are buying paper and selling paper, there is no other argument than it is a debenture in the nature of trade and therefore fully taxable as income and therefore has to be fully reported. So anybody who has been involved in flipping condos or paper and who has not reported the transaction, is technically committing tax evasion.”

Denise Lash of Lash Condo Law noted the practice is common in the condominium industry.

Denise Lash, Lash Condo Law
Denise Lash, Lash Condo Law
“A lot of real estate agents or developers hold preliminary open houses for family and friends,” she said. “They get special pricing, hold on to it for three years and that’s when the assignment flip occurs. People will continue to assign, but the question is if they declaring that income.”

Lash said the CRA’s probe “makes sense” because of the issues in the marketplace.

“I would think no developer would take the position that anybody who’s making a profit on any resale shouldn’t pay tax. It should be handled the same way anybody else pays tax,” she said. “From the point of view of an investor who wants to assign, this shouldn’t discourage them — they should be disclosing and filing their taxes anyway.”

Both the Ontario and B.C. governments have given preliminary thoughts to creating some sort of registry system to track assignments in their provinces. But Rotfleisch said assignment sales have been a significant issue for years and feels any oversight should be done at a federal level due to the number of tax transaction reporting requirements involved.

“It is grossly overdue,” he said. “It is almost negligible on the part of CRA because it’s a well-known problem, it’s been a problem for years and it’s an easy fix.”

Csepregi said if there is reason to believe that a taxpayer has been noncompliant, their file will be referred for audit and may be reassessed based on the result.

“The CRA will apply a penalty equal to 50 per cent of the additional tax payable if a taxpayer knowingly makes a false statement when filing a return,” he said.


Do you have a condo you want to sell? 

Saturday, October 28, 2017

CRA chases flippers

“The profits from flipping real estate are generally considered to be fully taxable as business income,” CRA spokesperson Zoltan Csepregi told The Canadian Press via email. “The facts of each case determine whether such profits should be reported as business income or as a capital gain.” Real estate deals in the Greater Toronto Area and Vancouver have been the subject of greater scrutiny....

Didn't declare that flip?  

Time for a voluntary disclosure.

The Canada Revenue Agency is analyzing 2,810 transactions involving cases of pre-construction condominium flipping in Toronto to determine whether audits need to be carried out to find tax evaders.

In the Toronto area, audit work has picked up accelerated on what are called “assignment sales” or “shadow flipping”, in which a condo is purchased from a developer and sold to another buyer before the unit is completed.

Fair or Foul? 

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Implementing Bill 160 Condominium Authority of Ontario (COA)

Laura McKeen %>
Laura McKeen
The condominium industry will be undergoing significant changes in the next few weeks. On Dec. 3, 2015, the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, also known as Bill 106, received royal assent by the Ontario Legislature. Bill 106 is important because it marked the first overhaul of the province’s condominium law in over 16 years. When it comes into force It will:

  • amend significant parts of the Condominium Act,1998 (the Condo Act);  
  • enact the Condominium Management Services Act (the CMSA);
  • make amendments to other relevant acts, including the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Many important aspects of the reforms are being implemented through regulations, some of which have been released. Many of the changes to the Condo Act will come into force on Nov. 1, 2017. This includes those provisions dealing with the new dispute resolution tribunal, but will also likely include any provision addressed by the regulations released so far. The licensing provisions of the CMSA will also come into force. Importantly, Bill 106 also creates two new administrative authorities: the Condominium Authority of Ontario (CAO) and the Condominium Management Regulatory Authority of Ontario (CMRAO).

The CAO 

The CAO was designated on Sept. 1, 2017, and is responsible for the administration of certain parts of the Condo Act.  

Currently, there are no educational requirements to become a director of a condominium board. This is changing. The CAO will implement mandatory training for condo directors to ensure smoother operation of condo corporations. The CAO’s website provides information and training about: rights and responsibilities of condo owners; the roles and responsibilities of the board of directors and condo management; and changes to the Condo Act. Information is also available about common issues and disputes that arise in the condominium communities to assist owners and corporations in proactively resolving issues.

The CAO provides services and resources for condo corporations and condo owners. These include:

  • information to help owners and residents understand their rights and responsibilities;
  • mandatory training for condo directors;
  • resources to help condo owners and residents resolve common issues; and
  • dispute resolution services through the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT).

Starting on Nov. 1, 2017, the CAT will offer a new, online dispute resolution process. The CAT can only adjudicate the types of disputes identified in the regulations. Currently the only types of disputes identified are disputes about records (Section 55 of the Condo Act), but the CAT’s scope is expected to expand in the near future. Certain disputes are excluded from the jurisdiction of the CAT, including: disputes involving Part III of the Condo Act (ownership); liens; and the determination of title to real property. Where the CAT does have jurisdiction, it will have exclusive jurisdiction to exercise its powers. Appeals on questions of law will go to the Divisional Court.

It is expected that in early 2018 the CAO will also provide a publicly available, searchable, online registry of all condominium corporations in the province. In order to fund its services, the CAO will charge user fees and monthly fees to condo owners (currently $1 per voting unit). This fee will be payable through the condo corporation. All condominium corporations in Ontario are required to register with the CAO and pay their initial assessment fees by Dec. 31, 2017. The initial assessment fees will cover the period from Sept. 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018.  


On Nov. 1, 2017, the CMRAO will be designated as the condo management authority. The CMRAO will be responsible for administering the CMSA, including regulating and licensing managers.  

The CMRAO will be responsible for administering the CMSA, including:

  • a compulsory licensing system for condominium managers and condominium management providers; training, education and other requirements for condominium management licences;
  • a code of ethics;
  • regulation of the conduct of licensees; and
  • the handling of complaints about condominium management services.

Currently, Ontario has no minimum requirements for condominium property management companies or property managers. This will change on Nov. 1, 2017. Individuals and companies who provide condominium management services on or after that date will need to apply for a licence. As of Jan. 30, 2018, it will be illegal for any person or firm to provide condominium management services unless they have applied for or hold a condominium management licence. Illegal condominium management practice may jeopardize future licence applications.

Over the next few weeks, the condo industry will be adjusting to the new regulatory regime, including mandatory training, licensing and new dispute resolution systems. Even when these changes are made, Bill 106 will not be fully implemented. More changes will be coming as new regulations, guides and forms are released.

Laura McKeen is a partner with Cohen Highley LLP in London, Ont. Cohen Highley has offices in London, Kitchener, Chatham and Sarnia. She provides risk management and regulatory compliance advice to housing providers and property management companies. She can be reached at or 519-672-9330 x 427.

Laura McKeen

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

CRA Revenue Canada serves Condo Developer for customer list

There it is


Who purchased that Condo and then flipped it?

Developers have records and are now required to hand them over.

And several similar applications are under way, reflecting the federal government's efforts to crack down on potential tax cheating in the presale market.A July 25 Federal Court order requires the developers of the Residences at West, a Vancouver condo project at 1738 Manitoba St., to provide the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) with documents related to presale flips, also known as assignments, in the building, including proof of payments and correspondence between the developers and people who buy the assignments.That order followed a June 29 application from the federal government.In September, the Minister of National Revenue applied for court orders related to One Pacific, a Concord Pacific project, and Telus Gardens, a downtown project developed by Westbank Corp.Both developers said they would comply with the request for documents."Customer information is protected by privacy laws and is not at the developer's liberty to disclose unless ordered by the Court," Matt Meehan, senior vice-president of planning at Concord Pacific Developments Inc., said in an e-mail.

Where will you make extra money without tax? 
No where

Plan and manage your investments

Call David Pylyp
RE/MAX realty specialists inc.,
647 218 2414

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Michael Power Place

Now completed

Port Royal Place

Michael Power Place, DavidPylyp.com11-15-17 Michael Power  2003
7 - 9 Michael Power    2006
5 Michael Power    2009
1- 3 Michael Power   2012 and 2015

Port Royal Place is located in the historical Village of Islington between Dundas and Bloor St. Steps from the Islington or Kipling subway stations. Close to gourmet shops, small family restaurants euro-style shopping at the delicates stores, pubs and specialty stores and the Islington golf club. Easy access to Hwy 427,401,QEW. Hot draw is for the proximety to the Islington Subway station and the access to public transit. 

Michael Power, Park Royal Place,, Etobicoke Condos
There is no permission for BBQ's on the balconies but some feel they are allowed. This is a fire safety issue and not a restrictive covenant. 

Entertainment lounge with kitchen and walk out to a gazebo and gas barbeque. Exercise room Virtual golf and theatre Billiards and cards room 24 hour gate house and with video monitoring Beautifully landscaped park UNIT FEATURES: 6 appliances Ceramic tile backsplash Virtual golf and theatre. Cultured marble vanity and basin .Vertical blinds One parking One locker Individual seasonally controlled heating and air conditioning Individual suite alarm system

Photo Array for 1 - 3 Michael Power Place  SITE PLAN 

Google Street View,-79.529566,1.95h,10.51p,1z

I like this complex   It is walking distance to the shops and community along the Dundas.  Walking distance to a few different pubs.  Near the ICONIC Apache Burger of Six Points plaza.

BUT more importantly walk to the ISLINGTON Subway station. 

It is a touch noisy with the RUMBLE of TTC trains, but residents love the location. 

Its #TorontoCONDOLife 

How do you like living here?

Friday, August 18, 2017

5 steps in Toronto Home Purchase Program

5 Separate Steps to Buying a Home; 

Understanding the market, do your research on what you want to buy and look for comparable homes that have sold in the last 60 - 90 days, organize your mortgage financing so that you are ready to go, confirm that you have a deposit available, organize the supporting cast to your purchase.  They are the Home Inspector, Banker and  Insurance Broker. 

You then make your offer and it is accepted, declined or signed back.   Let's negotiate!

David Pylyp Toronto 647 218 2414

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Condo is a single family community housed in a community; NOT an AirBnb

A Condo Building is a combination of many Single Family residences.
NOT a hotel or Bed and Breakfast. It is not a Bnb
Its Not an AirBnb. It is a single family residence
In a recent case, Louiseize v. PCC No. 103, a condominium owner who knowingly breached the “private single-family residence” restriction in the condominium declaration for almost 14 years, was given 9 months to bring his units into compliance with the declaration.
From the time that he bought his units (which were purchased in 2001, 2003 and 2004) they were leased to multiple unrelated tenants and the owner failed to provide the condominium corporation with the names of the persons occupying the units, as required by section 83 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”). Although the condominium corporation sent the owner the occasional notice reminding him of the restriction and requesting the names of those occupying the units, the corporation did not take any steps to enforce the declaration until 2013.
This case was originally heard by an arbitrator. After noting that the unit owner had knowingly breached the declaration and that the condominium corporation had for years breached its statutory duty under section 17(3) of the Act to enforce the declaration, the arbitrator gave the unit owner 9 months to bring the units into compliance. The arbitrator found that the the existing tenancies could be terminated with 60 days’ notice and that the units could be readily rented in compliance with the declaration, although this would result in a decreased rent of about $600 per unit per month.
The unit owner appealed the arbitrator’s decision and sought to have the order varied so that he would be allowed 75 months to bring two units into compliance and 55 months to do so for the other unit. The Superior Court of Justice found that the arbitrator had not made any errors in law and that the 9-month time period given by the arbitrator was reasonable. The unit owner did not provide any evidence as to why he needed a period of approximately 5 years to wind down his existing leasing arrangements. In addition, the unit owner had benefited financially by the corporation’s failure to promptly enforce the declaration.
The declaration also contained a non-waiver clause that stated that “the failure to take action to enforce any provision contained in the Act, this declaration . . . irrespective of the number of violations or breaches . . . shall not constitute waiver of the right to do so thereafter, nor be deemed to abrogate or waive such provision.” The unit owner unsuccessfully claimed that this non-waiver clause was contrary to section 17(3) of the Act as it was unreasonable for the corporation to enforce the declaration after acquiescing to the breach for so many years.
While the condominium corporation was ultimately successful in this case, it would have been in a stronger position had there not been such a long delay before it took steps to enforce compliance. When condominium boards become aware of any non-compliance with the condominium documents or the Act they should be taking steps to enforce compliance sooner rather than later.
When you moved in you agreed to abide by the Rules and Regulations of a condominium community. Once Rules are enforced you will also pay the legal fees to comply.

Friday, August 11, 2017

Let's all go topless in the Condo Pool

Sure ...  you're alone. No problem

What if there are other people around.   What if there are kids; its a family pool and It is your condo.

The Criminal Code continues to forbid nudity without a lawful excuse on public property or on private property that is exposed to public view. Historically, municipalities have relied on this clause to prohibit female toplessness. Over the past few decades however Ontarians have successfully contested such rules on the basis of discrimination, since such prohibition only applies to females.
Perhaps the most famous case is the 1996 Jacob’s case, which once and for all, ruled that women in Ontario have the right to bear their breast in public. In this case, a Guelph woman was charged with committing an indecent act. The Court of Appeal applied the community standard of tolerance test and concluded that the act was not done for sexual gratification and did not harm the community. From this point forward, female public toplessness was understood to be authorized in Ontario.
Since the Jacob’s case, a number of Ontario municipal policies have been successfully challenged or modified on the basis of this precedent. In 1997, the city of Cambridge eliminated its toplessness policy after two women were charged with trespassing for swimming topless in protest of the city’s ban. In 2015, the city of Guelph changed its policy after an eight-year-old girl was told by city staff to cover up while she was in a wading pool wearing only a swim bottom. In 2015, there was a similar challenge out of Kitchener, after three sisters were asked to put their shirt back on while riding bikes.

Condominium corporations cannot, in my view, adopt a policy or a rule which is discriminatory.  Any dress code would need to be reasonable, grounded in a bona fide requirement and equally applied to all.
For instance, a rule prohibiting fully-dressed swimming may be found to be reasonable on the basis that fully-clothed swimming may not be hygienic and may actually present a safety risk.  But such dress code restriction would have to be applied to all, without discrimination of age or gender. You could also demand that pool users wear a swim cap.
On the other end of the spectrum, while swimmers cannot commit an indecent act or swim in the nude, both male and female are likely allowed to swim topless at the condo pool. While some may find this conclusion to go against their values or the social norm in Canada, courts have already rejected the argument that female breasts are somehow the object of sexual attraction and desire more than the male chest.  In the Brantford case, her Honour concluded that  “the manner in which the human torso, whether male or female, is perceived from a sexual standpoint is not gender specific. It is entirely dependant on the individuals involved at the relevant time”. … indeed, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
What do you think is fair?

Can you throw out a bad tenant ?

It's like they are deliberately trying to dis incentivise small landlords from investing in Condo Properties?    Then who will?  Landlords are trapped by these changes.  

 The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) was recently amended by the Rental Fairness Act, 2017 to address loopholes or abuses by some “small” landlords under the current RTA. Most of the amendments will take effect on proclamation by Ontario's lieutenant-governor within the next few months. Lawyers who advise small landlords on the operation, purchase or sale of small residential rental properties should ensure their clients are aware of the legislative changes.
Owners of rental units who want to increase the value of their property will seek to raise rental income, as that will greatly enhance the value of the building for sale or financing purposes. However, the RTA prohibits substantial rent increases and termination of tenancies to allow re-rental of apartments at higher rents.
A strategy engaged in by some owners and vendors of small rental properties, including individually rented condominium units, has been to seek termination of tenancy on the grounds that the landlord intends to reside in the rental unit, thereby freeing the unit from rent control so that it can be re-rented at a higher market rent. Other landlords have used the strategy to simply get rid of an unwanted tenant.
The RTA permits termination for “landlord’s own use,” as long as it is a bona fide request and the tenancy itself is not subject to a fixed term. It is the lack of bona fides by some landlords in deploying these strategies that has prompted the legislative amendments. The RTA amendment (to s. 48) states that a minimum of one year’s residential occupancy is required for a landlord (or member of a landlord’s family) who seeks to terminate a tenancy based on use by the landlord or member of the landlord’s family; furthermore, the landlord must pay the vacating tenant compensation of one month's rent.
If, within one year of the tenant vacating the unit, the landlord advertises the unit for rent; advertises the rental unit or the building it is in for sale; enters into a lease with someone other than the former tenant; demolishes the rental unit or the building it is in; or takes any step to convert the use of the rental building or unit it is in, it will be presumed that the landlord gave the notice in bad faith, thus exposing the landlord to fines of up to $50,000 and a payment of compensation to the tenant who vacated. The amendment also prohibits a corporate landlord from giving a “landlord’s own use” notice of termination.
The RTA amendment (to s. 47) requires a landlord to use a written “prescribed” form of lease that must be signed by the landlord and the tenant. Failure to use the prescribed lease and provide a copy of the signed lease to the tenant will entitle the tenant to demand a copy of same within 21 days, failing which the tenant is entitled to withhold a maximum of one month's rent until such time as the prescribed form of lease is provided and presented for signature.
If the landlord fails to provide the prescribed lease within 30 days of the tenant withholding a month's rent, the tenant is not required to repay the sum to the landlord. Upon presentation of the prescribed lease following the demand, it is open to the tenant to reject the lease, regardless of its proposed term, and to give 60 days' notice to terminate the tenancy prior to the end of a rental period.
Another RTA amendment (to s. 134) prohibits a landlord from collecting or attempting to collect from a former tenant of a rental unit any amount of money "purporting to be rent" with respect to any period after the tenancy has terminated and the tenant has vacated the rental unit. In situations where a tenant wishes to “break” a fixed-term lease, a usual tactic is deliberate non-payment of rent or to hold a "lease-breaking party," in order to receive an eviction notice from the landlord. The eviction notice requires the tenant to vacate the unit within a matter of weeks, and if the tenant does so, the tenancy is terminated.
Prior to the RTA amendments, it was common for landlords to demand or formally claim any lost rent pending re-rental of the unit as “damages” for the tenant’s deliberate breach of contract. Now, such a claim is prohibited, and where a landlord makes demand for same, the landlord is also exposed to substantial fines.
The amendments referred to above are three components of the full range of amendments found in the Rental Fairness Act, 2017. However, they are changes that can directly affect the operations of small landlords in particular. The amendments to ss. 47 and 48 are not yet in force, but the s. 134 amendment is currently in force and will affect demands for recovery of damages made after May 30, 2017, or those outstanding in any proceeding after that date.
Joe Hoffer is a partner with Cohen Highley LLP who specializes in residential tenancies law.

Are you interested to buy or NOW sell off your rental properties?

David Pylyp

Friday, July 28, 2017

New Canadian Mortgage Stress Test

New rules aimed at making it harder to get a mortgage take effect today, a move that is bound to have an impact on demand for homes in Canada.  Earlier this month, Ottawa announced the moves, which boil down to a stress test for all mortgage applications WHERE buyer putting down less than 20 per cent.

It consists of testing to determine if a borrower could afford to pay back a loan if interest rates go higher, so they judge the borrower against the five-year posted rate rate of 5% for a five-year loan — even though many lenders are currently offering mortgages at far less than that. (currently below 3%)  The Responses are;
  • ·         45% would Buy less house
  • ·         45% said Buy in different community/ city
  • ·         39% would delay their purchase
  • ·         5% would do something else
  • ·         7% didn't know what to do

The new mortgage rules are to reduce debt loads, which will likely to cool prices, too. By making it harder to get a mortgage, demand for housing becomes limited as buyers are sidelined, which will cause prices to drop further.

I think the new rules will have a big impact on certain segments of the market, especially first-time buyers with small down payments. Second and third time sellers will not have qualified buyers to buy their houses delaying their move. It will be a significant adjustment: were looking at 20 to 30 per cent reduction in the mortgage value that people take on.

If you are selling to retire and exit it doesn't really matter.

If you are buying; its a better time with lower price than competing for homes

Call me at 647 218 2414 Let's talk 

Sunday, July 16, 2017

What causes Builders NOT to build Rental Housing


Tenants may think the government is looking out for tenant interests, but if that was true there would be no pandemic housing shortage, multiple offers, outrageous selling prices, extremely low vacancy rates, high rental tenant property taxes and eight-year affordable housing wait lists.

Ontario’s recent “Rent Fairness Act” continues the brutal, gratuitous, dystopian, anti-landlord legislation meted out by short-sighted, vote-pandering politicians who have literally (not metaphorically) persecuted landlords for decades; all of it resulting in the national pandemic critical housing shortage. Examples:
  • Of 46 offenses in the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), 34 solely benefit tenants, 10 reciprocate with landlords, one benefits the landlord and one prevents landlords from kicking vote-canvassing politicians off their property.
  • RTA and the Human Rights Code (HRC) have unintended discriminatory consequences, including:
    1. The broken Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and RTA make all people with no credit, work or rental history (single moms, foreign students and refugees) extremely high-risk tenants for landlords.
    2. Hoarders’ rights override the rights of all other tenants. Vermin, fire hazards and more ruin the lifestyle of neighbours and significantly negatively impact property value. Firefighters can refuse to enter a burning unit if they cannot turn 360 degrees with full respirator gear on. Landlords must accommodate challenged tenants to the point of a landlord’s undue hardship, which is not defined in legislation.
    3. The tenant qualification process of public agencies is not aligned with the needs of the landlord.
  • Landlords submit 91 per cent of LTB applications. Seventy-five per cent are for tenants not paying their rent. The average LTB eviction is five months (versus 25 days in some other provinces), costing an average $5,200 that is rarely collected. LTB offers free, taxpayer-funded duty counsel service to tenants but offers nothing to landlords.
  • A tenant can pay the sheriff full rent arrears on the day of their eviction and start the whole process again.
  • Ontario spent billions on solar power programs. Result: average $217.33/kWhr in Ontario versus $67.89/kWhr in Quebec. Government then punished landlords by preventing landlords from passing on utility costs to the actual consumers (tenants) of that energy.
  • The LTB won’t evict tenants who sign and then breach a no-smoking clause in their rental agreement. The whole health industry pushed for this change and the provincial government still denied it. Eleven per cent of Canadians smoke daily and 64 per cent don’t smoke.
  • The HRC denies requests to teach landlords about landlord responsibilities but hosts free full-day seminars for tenants.
  • The RTA and municipal bylaws require landlords to remediate mould caused by a tenant’s actions, even though it’s not caused by the building’s envelope.
  • The rent of a tenant switching from a single bulk meter to an individual meter must be reduced by the cost of energy consumed over the previous 12 months. Therefore, the most energy-abusive tenants receive the greatest rent decreases while energy-conscious tenants are penalized.
  • The RTA sets the practical limit on building repairs and maintenance: three per cent of property income for three years. The 270,000 Ontario social housing units have a $1.2 billion capital shortfall. Toronto faces $2.6 billion in building repairs and will close 400 homes in 2017 and 1,000 by 2018.
  • Some municipalities charge tenants up to 2.5 times the property tax rate of condo and single- family homeowners.
  • Rent control doesn’t benefit low-income tenants. Tenants who can afford to pay market rents receive the benefit of lower rents and successfully beat low-income tenants competing for tenancies in the government-created housing shortage.  Shrinking housing inventory forces buyers to stay in rental housing longer. There are 171,360 Ontario families waiting for affordable housing (2015), some for as long as eight years.
  • The federal budget gave a $209.4 million bailout for social housing repairs but nothing to the private sector faced with the same issues.
  • A tenant’s unpaid utility bill is added to the property owner’s property tax bill, even if the landlord proves that their tenant signed an agreement to pay their own utilities. This is like holding police responsible for all the crimes committed by the criminals they didn’t catch.
  • Municipal bedbug and garbage bylaws hold landlords responsible for cost of cleanup even if the tenant caused the infestation or doesn’t sort their garbage.
  • Housing shortages lead some tenants to illegally rent out a rental unit or portion at a higher rent.
  • The LTB won’t hear cases where tenants who damaged a property moved out. Small Claims Court won’t hear any case involving a landlord-tenant dispute.
Society can’t exist without housing. Private sector landlords built homes for more than nine million Canadians, and relatively affordable housing to a subset of more than three million. Canada’s total social housing sector accommodates about 1.5 million Canadians.
Private sector landlords willingly accept extraordinary financial and legal risks to provide safe and healthy housing. Landlords are not social workers, financiers or otherwise an extension of government social housing programs, policies and other political agendas.
About 39,000 rental units were built in 1972 alone versus a net of about 22,500 units in the 25 years following. Look at the success of the housing programs of the 1960s and early 1970s and replicate that success.
Footnote: An anagram of “LandlordTenantBoard” is ‘Abandon Rent, Add Troll’.
Chris Seepe   Chris Seepe is a published writer and author, ‘landlording’ course instructor, president of the Landlords Association of Durham, and a commercial real estate broker of record at Aztech Realty in Toronto, specializing in income-generating and multi-residential investment properties. Call (416) 525-1558, send him an email, or visit his website.

This was published in a REM article July 2017 
I was disappointed to see such a litany of Landlord Rights Abuses I just published this in its entirety.

Peel and Toronto are both considering $1,000 annual licensing fees for Landlords.

Why do we keep the Living the dream of being debt free in our retirement?

Its time to talk