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

1. Periodic Information Certificate

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.

2. Information Certificate Update

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.

3. New Owner Information Certificate

This notice contains the most recent Periodic Information Certificate and Information Certificate Update.

4. Notice of Online Posting of Information Certificate

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)

Proxies

1. Proxy Form

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.

Notices

1. Preliminary Notice of 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.

2. Notice of Meeting of Owners

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

1. Request for Records

This form must be used when an owner, mortgagee or purchaser requests records.

2. Board’s Response to Request for 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.

3. Waiver by Requester of Records

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.

2. Submission to Include Material in the Notice of Meeting of Owners

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 

CRA Revenue Canada serves Condo Developer for customer list

There it is

YUP

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.  https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/court-orders-developer-to-reveal-condo-flipper-info/article36528239

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

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.  http://condoadviser.ca/2017/08/condo-pool-dress-code-the-debate-over-whats-too-much-and-whats-not-enough/condo-law-blog-Ontario

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. https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/4204/advising-landlords-on-traps-in-ontario-s-new-rental-fairness-act

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

David Pylyp

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 

What causes Builders NOT to build Rental Housing

ONTARIO CANADA

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?
http://www.BuyingInToronto.ca
http://AgentLocatorToronto.com

Its time to talk

New Improved Land Transfer Tax

Great they reduced land transfer tax exemption for First Time Buyers from $2,000 to $4,000. 

For every dollar over and above that, the rate will rise from 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent. But the tax on the portion of the purchase price between $400,000 and $2 million will remain at 2 per cent. 
\
Big House buyers pay more!  

http://DavidPylyp.com https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/11/14/first-time-home-buyers-to-get-4000-land-transfer-rebate.html


Are you ready to buy?

Call me 

647 218 2414

What is a Condominium?

Condominium was created in the 60's to describe that space that could be legally titled for mortgage and owner ship purposes.

Well that's my explanation.

But condo's have evolved to be business space, shared recreation facilities and even detached homes with a common element land ownership.

 The definition of “condominium” is no longer limited to the commonly held perception of a stand-alone residential apartment building. In Ontario, for example, the Condominium Act, 1998 created several new ways of structuring condominium projects such as Common Element, Vacant Land (known “Bare Land” in Alberta), and Phased condominiums.

The legal construct of the condominium is being stretched to new and creative uses in many markets, including urban, retail/industrial, suburban and recreational properties. Regardless of the type or structure, however, the essence of a condominium is that purchasers are buying one or more units, together with an interest in an active corporation, sharing both the benefits and the liabilities of that corporation.

In urban centres, a premium on downtown space and an abundance of developers’ creativity has led to such entities as mixed use “live/work” units and residential properties with an investment component, such as hotel condominiums, often with rental management agreements. In addition to the normal residential concerns, the purchaser may have to take into account business and tax considerations of their investment. The purchaser must also be aware of the exact nature of the condominium corporation’s business, and of the fact that not all investments turn out to be profitable  http://avoidaclaim.com/2013/titleplus-tips-keeping-up-with-the-changing-nature-of-condominiums

Yet Condo Ownership by design, affordability and preference seems to be in excess of 50% of the Toronto Real Estate Market.

Let's talk 

David Pylyp

Condo Reform in Ontario

NDP government wants changes to the Condominium Act to better protect consumers.  To recap;

• An independent  Condo  office  to hear  disputes quickly  & cheaply  instead  forcing  condo  owners  into the courts  
• Mandatory  licensing of condo  managers
• No  more "weasel clauses"  buried  in condo purchase  agreements: condo  buyers  should  be able  to know exactly  what  they  are  buying  and  how  much  it will cost,  and  they  should get  what  they  were promised
• Standard plain-English  language  for condo  Declarations  and purchase  agreement  
• No  more  rogue  boards: greater  transparency,  financial accountability, better governance, education and support for condo  boards.  
• No more falling glass, leaky  windows or paper-thin  walls: update  Building  Code  and  reform  TARION  to  protect condo residents along  with  all  new  home  buyers

That all sounds good!    Good for the consumers!   Great for Buyers!

Di Novo Condo Reform by David Pylyp

I wrote about this previously in a Condominium Investors forum
https://plus.google.com/+DavidPylypToronto/posts/4RC8EihvpgX

The questions to clarify first are;


We will be creating a QUASI judicial board staffed by WHOM? Judges, Lawyers? Political Appointees?    We will need to build Government Offices house all the Hearing Rooms and Dispute Mediation Councillors .  DO we need to be licensed and insured to appear in front of these committees?

How will this be paid for?   Ahhhhhh ...  a small surcharge of $5 - $10 per month, in the beginning and then....  application fees per program applied for.  

I agree with Licensing Standards and a complaint process for Condo Boards and the Management Companies that provide onsite management.  That is a Small Claims Court function where claims of injustice are heard by Lawyers and Judges.

There is a reference to Building Standards, Tarion and Falling Glass.  All these things are governed by the EXISTING Condominium Act, Tarion Warranty and Building Codes that exist in each City.  Does this mean that Toronto has poor building codes?  I think not. The Ontario government and Tarion already have a relationship. Buildings pay for Performance Audits for Engineers to examine drawings and determine if what was purchased as delivered.  Committees of Developers, Builders, Tarion and the COndo Board plus their lawyers MEET in person to discuss Audits and inspections.

Rogue Boards and Transparency;  The biggest problem is that Purchasers of condominium suites want to bend the Rules and Regulations to suit their needs after they move in, instead of investigating the BY LAWS with the ir lawyer. prior to purchase.

The BIGGER QUESTION to ask is "Do we want another level of Government [ like the Landlord Tribunal ] to hear dispute resolution matters between condo boards and the owners at the expense of those very same condo owners?"

Whatever is created in haste is difficult to unravel.

"Once Done.  Cannot be undone.... "    Captain Jack Sparrow  

Ontario Condominium Review

Condominium Owners and Investors just want responsible leadership and management. You want to be informed, and uninvolved yet be a transparent process. So you elect a Board of Directors.

You don't want to hear about WorkPlace Health and Safety Issues, Insurance Claims being chrged back to specific units or Requisition Meetings.  Just Keep maintenance Fees [low] stable.  

Me:  Do you attend your annual Condo Board Meetings?   Why is there so much FIGHTING?   Is it lack of understanding or lack of explanations?
Resp: You presume people want to know. The reality is most people don't want to know. They want someone else to deal with it all.
Me:   How can we help to better understand condo rules and budgets?
Resp: They have a problem when they hear conflicting opinions because they don't want there to be potential issues raised.
Resp: If there are real, legitimate issues, people want to ignore it.
Resp: I went through the ringer when I purchased my Condo & dealt with incompetence. 

Owners want responsible leadership and management.  They want to be informed, and uninvolved yet be able to see a transparent process.  They want a guaranteed return on their investment.

The Provincial Gov't has finished its 3 stage review of the Condominium Act that was being worked on since Fall 2012 and are now drafting the new Act. Some vast improvements in the works...

http://zh.scribd.com/doc/211968856/Executive-Summary-En

New IMPROVED Condo Act coming

Adding a layer of Government that is similar to a Tribunal will create additional government red tape and bureaucracy.  Court Rooms, Paralegals, defenders. Hearing Rooms, Benches, Judges, recordings, DARP where we already have arbitration and mediation available.

All because Buyers refuse to read and understand condo Declarations and want to appeal BY LAWS after they move in.  Yes, I understand that there is opportunity for abuse of the Rules process.

09/24/2013

Residents, stakeholders and experts representing Ontario’s booming condo industry have shared their proposed solutions for updating the province’s Condominium Act. Released on September 24, 2013, the stage two solutions report is the result of extensive public engagement efforts undertaken by Canada’s Public Policy Forum and Ontario’s Ministry of Consumer Services (MCS).

Key recommendations include:

• Creation of a Condo Office, an arm’s length umbrella organization that could provide functions such as education and awareness, dispute settlement, condo manager licensing, and a condo registry.
• Improved consumer education and protection
• Updated financial management rules and dispute resolution mechanisms
• Stronger qualification requirements for condo boards, including mandatory training for first-time members
• A new licensing program, managed by the condo office, to ensure that condo managers are properly trained and qualified.

To produce this report, people with expertise in various condominium issues reviewed the Stage One Findings Report and the public comments it generated.

Documents

Stage 2 participant list

News release

Backgrounder

Stage 2 solutions report--full report

Executive summary

Condominium Management Working Group Outcomes.pdf

Consumer Protection Working Group Outcomes.pdf

Dispute Resolution Working Group Outcomes.pdf

Finance Working Group Outcomes.pdf

Governance Working Group Outcomes.pdf

http://www.ppforum.ca/publications/ontarios-condominium-act-review-stage-two

Condo Owners Need and Boards of Directors also need to band together to get better representation, prices for services and contracts that are tendered.
 https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/107767300045256504419

Have you had condo problems?

Rent Controls will impact your Toronto Investments

A lack of affordable housing has been problematic in Toronto for decades. Metro Housing is in decay and has a huge backlog of repairs in addition to a long waiting list of applicants.   Rent geared to income housing is a small portion of the rental pool and in the last 20 years individual investors have purchased units for rental purposes and placed them in the secondary markets.

The Federal Government has introduced the Affordable Housing Act with Bill 140 passed in January or 2012 but municipalities have yet to embrace available 140K per unit in construction or remodelling assistance. 

The LTAHS provides recognition of the important role played by municipal Service Managers in long-term planning of the housing and homelessness service systems in Ontario. The Strategy also proposes a new approach for funding of housing and homelessness services that is intended to reduce administrative complexities and create greater local flexibility in identifying priorities and innovative solutions. In some areas, the new Housing Services Act is less prescriptive and gives Service Managers greater flexibility than the previous SHRA.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/cd/bgrd/backgroundfile-39040.pdf

It's not that a landlord has a tough time finding tenants;  The Residential Tenancies Act provides free legal services to Tenants in addition access to Duty Counsel at Hearings.  The Landlord must now be represented by a licensed Paralegal or Lawyer, unless they are experienced in the process.

The Human Rights Tribunal has decided that Credit Bureau's and Beacon Scores can not be used to determine the applicants ( tenants ) worthiness for an apartment or rental unit. (I would like to try that at my Bank with a Mortgage Application)  http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/about-commission

But the governing Liberals are unlikely to see the rent control question the same way. Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Linda Jeffrey said this in a statement at the end of April:
The post-1991 rent exemption was originally introduced – and has been maintained over time – as an incentive for private landlords to build new rental accommodation. This incentive not only helps to renew the rental housing stock but also creates jobs in the construction sector. As such, any changes to this incentive could have an adverse effect on the rental housing sector, the economy and job creation.The NDP are hoping for a change of heart, especially as the provincial opposition have the Liberals survival — with a crucial budget vote yet to come — in their hands. They’re also arguing that the construction boom intended by the rent control changes haven’t been successful.
Forster notes that most of the new construction have been condos, sold to investors and then rented out second-hand, and not rental buildings.
“This misguided rule has not accomplished what it was meant to, and very little new rental housing has been built,” said Forster. “For tenants living in these newer buildings, it has been 20 years of uncertainty and unfairness.”http://o.canada.com/2013/06/04/ontario-ndp-wants-to-close-rent-control-loophole-open-since-1991/

Backgrounder - Rent Increase Loophole by William Wolfe-Wylie

Governments control increases to HST/GST that have increased maintenance fees; The Ontario Government controls the Hydro Billing Rates (because they need approval)   Cities and Municipalites control Tax rates, water and sewage pick up fees billed directly to Condo Buildings.  NONE can be lawfully passed to a tenant in a Rent controlled building.

Vacancy Factors in Toronto are current near 1%.

If there is no available social housing, and Independent Condominium Investors have stepped up to invest in their properties and the Government then CAPS the rental increases [while clearly charging more for different services] there will be a sharpened increase in the number of TENANTS looking for units as landlords EXIT the rental pool as their profit margin is impacted.

If the NDP are successful in capping the Rent will you keep your rental unit or sell?

I personally think there are too many PLAYERS  tinkering with the real estate market; from Double Land Transfer taxes in Toronto to increasing Lot Levies, Shortened Amortization Periods, multiple providers of tenant counselling services and well meaning but hazzardous legislation setting profits and ROI.

When did it become embarrassing to make money? What's your opinion?

Keeping It?  or Selling it?  Call me!

https://plus.google.com/109283965469179719942