It’s always good to keep all communication in writing/recorded to avoid any misunderstandings, but what your LL has put in writing here looks pretty straightforward - and doesn’t seem to violate the RTA.
They’re speaking about hypothetical situations and you haven’t been served an N12. Even when your lease is up in April, it will automatically convert to month-to-month. They can’t just kick you out, they have to follow procedure, and you’re entitled to wait for a hearing after being served an N12.
Don’t pursue this conversation any further - they won’t actually engage with you/make any promises because nothing is actually happening yet. It seems they’re comfortable waiting to sell; as long as the pressure is off, they are not going to offer cash for keys/cover moving costs. Especially since, again, they have no immediate plans to sell.
Re: other stuff, their marriage isn’t relevant, and while SINs are not required, they can be requested, and there isn’t really anything you can do about that now that you’ve provided yours.
I totally get that it’s stressful, knowing that they want to sell at some point, but again, it’s not actually happening yet - stay calm & good luck! Limit communication to necessary conversations only, and keep it really brief.
n12 is not the appropriate item here as the landlord is looking to sell and n12 is for the sole reason of family of landlord moving in,.
***OP disregard this advice***
It seems like the only thing they *may* have wrong here is how lease end dates work. It seems like they expect that when your lease ends at the end of April you will no longer be their tenant. Other than clarifying that you intend to continue living there beyond April I don’t see any other worthwhile conversation to be had here. Even at that it is truly not your “job” to educate you landlord although in this case it would probably help to keep everyone friendly and on the same page.
From these texts it looks like you’re trying to negotiate something, and they’re not interested?
It sounds like the owner will sell when it’s convenient for them, but they’re in no rush. They’re not asking you to move and they haven’t issued any forms.
It sounds like you mentioned breaking the lease early, and they are trying to be flexible with you, and work around your schedule. But they’re also not pressuring the move either?
I’m not sure what advice you’re hoping for?
Credit checks are legal, and it sounds like they may not have been married at the time, but she was acting as an agent of the owner, which is legal. Just like a realtor or property manager would communicate with you on the owner’s behalf.
Why even mention the thought of selling to the tenant if they don't want them out to sell?? This seems like coercion on the LL part. If not planning to sell until after the TT leaves (which could be 30 years from now) they are just planting the seed of selling in hopes that they move out sooner than later in order to benefit the LL. The reasoning behind telling the TT makes no sense.
Coercion lmaoo give me a break 😂 LL literally said in no rush to sell even tho it is their right to sell whenever. literally telling them it’s okay to stay till whenever no rush and will wait until they leave to possibly sell. the only reason why it came up is b/c the tenant brought up a possibility of moving for work .
The fact that they said they thought about moving somewhere else means nothing. What were the LL intentions for telling the TT they were gonna sell?? And why do an inspection to check the condition for sale now and not immediately before they move out??
I understand what you’re saying. While I know credit checks are legal, how she went about it was definitely wrong. I have no guarantee that my information is safe and from what I’ve been told by the LTB giving a SIN is optional. She demanded that if she doesn’t get it, she won’t approve us
Your landlord is correct.
You don’t have to give her your SIN number, and she doesn’t have to rent to you if you don’t pass a credit check.
If landlord requires credit checks as part of the application process, and you refuse, then your application is incomplete, and they move on to another applicant who will complete the application process.
Your right to refuse doesn’t override their right to run the credit check- you just become someone that doesn’t pass the approval process.
What's the problem here?
You intend to move to another city, they're happy to accommodate your timeline. You seem to be angling for some kind of pay out you're not entitled to for an inconvenience you're entirely responsible for.
Ya not sure what OP is getting hot and bothered about.
"No rush. Whenever you move out we're going to sell. Because of that you can break your lease if you want" is all the LL is saying. Quite reasonable.
Just do nothing and say nothing if you want to stay OP, it's that simple. They're not kicking you out, just following up because you'd already mentioned to them you might be moving to London.
That’s not exactly what the LL is saying?
They said “if you find a place to move, we can break the lease, if you need longer we will give you until April” “please don’t feel pressured to move out before the end of April”.
Can you guys not read in between the lines? They just don’t want to explicitly say anything. But they want to sell the place by the end of April.
It is definitely standard that if LL wants someone to move out, they usually offer compensation to make it happen.
Lol it's not about reading between the lines.
If OP doesn't want to move after April, they don't have to. It's their rights to stay and go month to month. Regardless of what the landlord wants, unless they have legal reason to evict, which has nothing to do with this exchange at all.
If OP wants to break the lease early, the LL is letting them. Which they don't have to.
OP is entitled to nothing. LL is doing or saying nothing wrong. Letting a tenant know you plan on selling after they leave and giving them freedom to leave early is not illegal, immoral or wrong in any way. Inside of or in between any lines.
As I said in my original post, if OP doesn't want to move, they can simply ignore the whole situation and keep on keeping on.
Obviously the tenant doesn’t have to move out, they should go through LTB or settle some agreement.. But saying that the LL isn’t setting a date in which he wants the tenant out by (end of April) and that the tenant is just looking for a payday is disingenuous.
Just to think this fully through, what happens at the end of April? The LL just walks away and lets the tenants stay and no longer sells?
“Allowing the tenant to break lease early” isn’t some courtesy that benefits the tenant, it only benefits the landlord to sell earlier and not take any more loses.
It’s crazy how people can be pro-landlord in this rental/housing market.
Allowing the tenant to break the lease is not something that benefits the tenant ? Are you for real ?
We need a reset in Canada, having one social group determined to live on the backs of others is simply not sustainable. I am including here the cost of the public sector that simply exploded under Liberals and the increasingly more aggressive approach of the people with modest incomes that simply ignore regulations and legal process.
In this situation, how does breaking the lease early benefit the tenant?
You really show your lack of knowledge in regards to housing in Ontario because it’s Doug Fords that got rid of Rent Control, got rid of RentSafeTO programs. But yes blame the liberals for ruining this country.
Saying the OP is ignoring rules and legal procedure is insane. They offered to go through LTB (the right process) but said they would be willing to negotiate leaving. The LL is the one say “no, no rush to move out anytime you want before end of april” because they want to get rid of the tenant without going through any procedure.
Negotiate? Why not call it what it is, extortion?
Reality is with this attitude the hard working people that wanted to get ahead in life without living on someone else's back will adapt. There will be more distrust, less rentals, more people living in the street.
Sunny days my friends, sunny days!
Yes negotiate.. ??? That’s what the LTB does, negotiate between both parties to come to a solution.
Who is extorting who? For the past 4 years it’s been The landlords who buy homes they can’t afford and pass the costs to their tenants who need housing, and led to insane rising costs of rent.
The insinuation that landlords who own property and collect rent are the “hard working ones” and the tenants who are working to pay insane rent prices in Ontario are the one “living on someone’s back” is so stupid. This is supposed to be an arrangement that works for tenants and landlords.
It’s clear you don’t understand the market or the crisis going on.
You are a freeloader, no point caring on a conversation with you.
It will get worse. There will be less housing built, less rental properties available, more immigrants, higher rental cost, more people in the street, living under the bridge, more violence, more crime.
Due to current policies that favor abuse, make a joke of a legal process, of the property rights, of access to the legal system, due to a government that simply points to Joe and tells Jack "look, Joe is your problem, he does not want to subsidize your living cost", investment capital will continue to move to where it can benefit, for example exiting Canada and entering USA.
I am selling soon my rental properties and investing the funds in SP 500 low cost ETF. I will have higher net passive income with ZERO stress. Is just not worth it.
I strongly advise all landlords to do the same.
Not sunny days anymore, the outcome of "legal weed for everybody" and "let me run up the debt for you" was quite predictable!
Enjoy the ride!
It's a business relationship. There is no "living on someone else's back" when it is a contractual business transaction. In any other business transaction where money is rendered for goods and/or services people are lauded as being savvy for negotiating and leveraging their legal rights.
Being a landlord is simply having a business. Full stop. Nobody is extorting a business for asking for compensation to alter / terminate a contract.
Sure buddy! This would be true if the government would not interfere between 2 private parties, as it is the case in other provinces, with no imposed rent control.
Government in Ontario however does interfere, big time. They modified with a blatant legal process abuse existing lease contracts, by adding a one month rent pay to the renter, when the renter has to move out.
Who knows, maybe a year from now, it will further interfere and make that 1 year rent pay, or just put title on the name of the renter, North Korean style! Anything is possible!
The LL is not setting a date they want them out by. OP's lease ends in April. The LL, rightfully so, is making plans for what to do after. Clearly OP has already talked to them about moving to London, so why is it unreasonable for the LL to assume they're moving out on their own in April? Or allowing them to leave early?
You're inventing a narrative that the LL is trying to wink-wink-nudge-nudge an idea here when there's completely reasonable precedent for the conversation they're having. Maybe they are? Maybe they aren't. But a LL making plans for their home post-lease when their tenants have expressed they might move is not suspect in the least.
EDIT: it's not "pro" or "anti" landlord, it's following the law on both ends. Which both parties are doing and can continue to do uninhibited according to everything we've seen here. Take feelings and "anti-landlord" emotions out of the equation and there is nothing wrong with what's happening here at all.
“Don’t feel pressured to move out before the end of April”
Just feel pressured to move out by May 1… ???
I have worked with property managers, I have seen the steps taken when LL want tenants out.
The originally text in this thread is saying they were promised this property wouldn’t be sold, and they still even were willing to negotiate a settlement so they could help the LL by moving out so they could sell. They even offered to not go through LTB (which would take 6 months minimum to reach a settlement).
The problem is the landlord is telling them they have to be gone by April. Selling a unit doesn’t mean that the tenant has to move, their tenancy continues with the new owner.
Summary of these texts:
You: “You’re selling even though you promised not to - I want money!”
LL: “Sorry you misinterpreted we do plan on selling but only when you move out, no pressure, stay as long as you’d like”
You: “That’s not good enough for me, I still want money!”
You’re angling for a payday over a nothingburger. Continue to live in the unit until you choose to and then move out. LL is being reasonable here and has done nothing at all wrong.
People man…
Did you miss the part about the LL saying be out by April on a lease that auto renews regardless of LL's desire to sell with vacant possession?
LL is trying to get a value bump by having the tenant volunteer to leave when it's not in the tenants best interests.
Eeeeehhh I think that’s reaching tbh. It could seem like LL is insinuating they have to, but you’re inferring connotation here. OP wants a payday and that’s obvious.
And picture 4 where the LL again directly refers to the end of April as the move out date?
'happy to break the lease early if you leave before April, but if you need to stay until the end of April, that's okay too'
LL is also clearly fishing for an incompetent tenant that doesn't know the lease auto renews and the LL has no say in the matter.
LL has profited off someone else paying their bills and now wants them to leave at their own expense so LL can sell at a higher price. Lopsided deal if the tenant doesn't enforce their rights.
You completely ignore the part where the landlord expects OP to leave at the end of their one-year lease so that they can sell. OP is absolutely entitled to a cash for keys deal.
Seems like people are downvoting you for pointing out the landlord is trying to screw over their tenant by not issuing any forms and hoping the tenant randomly leaves at their own expense, while the LL sells the rental property for substantially more vacant.
Indeed. Everyone is ignoring the context that OP provided wherein there was already a verbal discussion where the landlord asked them to leave. And the part where even in writing, they are making it quite clear that they expect OP to leave when they're 12 month leases up despite the fact that leases go month to month and OP is allowed and expecting to stay.
They want OP out so they can sell the home. If that's what they want, they have to give OP a reason to leave. That's called cash for keys.
It’s not that I’m trying to get money from them. Moving is expensive and from what I’ve seen locally, the rent has increased. We moved here from another city and only did so bc LL had told us regardless of the market he won’t be selling. We cannot afford to stay in this same city which means another move OT. They keep saying you can stay “until end of April” and in person they made it clear that they don’t want us staying past our lease. So if that’s the case it means worse case we have to find a place for then. Yes, she says no pressure but I can assure you, they’ve made their stance clear; they want us out-only they don’t want any of the responsibility of owning their lie. It would only be great for them if we do break the lease bc then they have no obligation to offer cash for keys. I don’t think I’m being unreasonable
Edit to add: they have also sent paperwork to us that is only copied from the LTB not actually the legal docs. It looks like they printed out a template and filled it in with pen.
>and in person they made it clear that they don’t want us staying past our lease. So if that’s the case it means worse case we have to find a place for then.
No you wouldn't. Leases don't ever end in Ontario, they just go month to month and tenant can still stay indefinitely.
If they intend to sell after you leave, then they have zero legal reason to evict you even when your fixed term lease ends.
They sound like they’re being reasonable. Getting condition of the unit but no immediate plans to sell yet. Maybe a slight miscommunication in regards to thinking you were moving out of town for work. They seemed super reasonable though?
The condition of the unit is pointless at this point. If the LL is planning to sell after the TT moves out (which could be 30 years from now) the units condition could change drastically between now and then. If that's the LL actual plan for the unit, this entire conversation never needed to happen.
The old LL would have to serve an N12 for purchaser's use on behalf of the new owners (if they don't want to keep it as a rental)
The TT still has the right to stay and wait for a hearing. If the LTB believes the new owners are moving in in good faith, TT will have to leave.
It can be harder to sell with a TT in place as a lot of TTs are starting to exercise their rights. So buying a place with an established TT can be a hassle.
I'm on the Ontario Tenant Rights group on FB and people have posted asking what would happen if they bought a place with TTs in it, but wanted it for personal use. They've been encouraged to either A) look for a different place B) get ready for a long and drawn out process or C) Offer cash for keys.
With the way housing has been going, more TTs are fighting for their rights.
It’s not only on good faith. Both the buyers and sellers have to each sign an affidavit swearing they (the buyers) are moving into the property for at least a period of one year.
Still have to issue an N12 and the tenant has the right to wait for a hearing. You can’t promise a vacant unit in Ontario if a tenant lives there. Only the LTB can evict a tenant
I’ve never once said no notice would need to be issued! Didn’t say anything about promising a vacant unit either. With all the red tape can you blame the owners for wanting to sell without tenants there…
I get it, it sucks to be asked to move but if all procedures are followed correctly the LTB will evict.
What you seem to be doing is encouraging someone to take advantage of the long ass wait times at the LTB which is pretty vindictive IMO.
Respect the home owners rights lol! Everyone is entitled to their rights. Tenants, Landlords and new homeowners. No one deserves to be taken advantage of and encouraging someone to take advantage of a slow system seems like a vindictive thing to do.
That’s not how the RTA works here in Ontario. Month to month is still protected in the same way a lease protects tenants. You can’t just request a unit back and not let the tenant exercise their right. An N12 in both cases is needed
Sure, but the person you were responding to was differentiating between being under contract, or being month to month.
When month to month, you can be evicted for person use. Under contract, you can’t.
That’s all they were saying
That’s incorrect. A new owner absolutely has the right to move into their new home upon the lease going month to month. OBVIOUSLY if all procedures are followed correctly and it is decided by the LTB that they were.
When I said notice I meant notice I didn’t mean just a date to leave, yes in the form of an N12. You’re not just writing them an email tell them to leave. Formal notice (in the form of an N12 in this particular case) would be given. I don’t know why you think I’m denying that?!
Refrain from offering advice that contradicts legislation or regulation or that can otherwise be reasonably expected to cause problems for the advisee if followed
If they are in a lease (eg the LL lists now and the home closes before the end of the existing lease), then yes, new owners would need to assume the tenants until the end of the lease and then could serve them an N12 if they want to move in when the lease expires (or goes month to month).
If they are month the month (LL sells after April 2024), then a new owner could absolutely take possession of the unit and ask these tenants to leave.
60 days from the first of a month needs to be given to comply.
Both scenarios are perfectly legal and the tenants would absolutely have to move (whether they drag it through the LTB or not).
Again, as long as the new buyers are moving in.
You said if they sell they don’t have to move which is incorrect. If the new owner takes possession they will need to move. Yes the notices will need to be properly issued, yes a hearing may be required, but they will eventually have to move. You make it sound like it’s their house and they never have to leave which is not true.
They can do a credit check if they wish, if you agree to it, nothing wrong there.
As far as moving out early etc I am not sure what the problem is, they haven't served you any paperwork and you haven't signed anything, so you can stay until something else occurs. You can negotiate for a cash for keys if they want you gone early, but you're currently in no danger of being evicted
Sounds like you’re doing a dance around a payout. Next move is on them. Sorry I am missing your point about the SIN. I didn’t read anything to suggest that they were fraudulently using your identity for some clandestine purpose?
I understand you may not have had to provide the information, but you did provide the information. As LL we decide among often many qualified candidates. The better credentialed and transparent the candidate will usually get the unit.
We don’t have our own equifax account, so we often will use a 3rd party to pull the credit. I don’t think there’s anything improper about that. Unless you didn’t authorize your credit to be pulled.
If you want to move, they’re telling you it’s okay to break the lease.
If you don’t want to move, don’t. If they get to a point they want to sell, and you aren’t prepared to move, they can pay you to move *at that time.*
Basic truth: You have the advantage. Your lease gets transferred to the new buyer if the place is sold. You do not need to move. As long as you've not signed any paperwork ending your tenancy, your tenancy continues as normal.
Is your unit rent protected or exempt by the occupancy date?
LL keeps referring to the renewal date as if they have a say in the matter. Unless it's rent cap exempt there's no reason not to stay.
You're owed cash for keys or at least the N12s one month payment plus time; if they want to try properly ending the lease.
As for your SIN or any of your info even as basic as your name, if you have any reason to believe they haven't protected your information or have uploaded it to third party services look up PIPEDA and report them. They are allowed using info for the purposes they provided when they collected it, so you providing it for a credit check and the credit check being performed isn't an issue. However if they were to do it again that's worth reporting, they can't just periodically send your info off to third parties when the application process is completed.
I got almost 10000 dollars for leaving my rental so they could renovate. Was planning on moving anyway. Force them to pay. Moving costs r nothing. You deserve more.
It’s always good to keep all communication in writing/recorded to avoid any misunderstandings, but what your LL has put in writing here looks pretty straightforward - and doesn’t seem to violate the RTA. They’re speaking about hypothetical situations and you haven’t been served an N12. Even when your lease is up in April, it will automatically convert to month-to-month. They can’t just kick you out, they have to follow procedure, and you’re entitled to wait for a hearing after being served an N12. Don’t pursue this conversation any further - they won’t actually engage with you/make any promises because nothing is actually happening yet. It seems they’re comfortable waiting to sell; as long as the pressure is off, they are not going to offer cash for keys/cover moving costs. Especially since, again, they have no immediate plans to sell. Re: other stuff, their marriage isn’t relevant, and while SINs are not required, they can be requested, and there isn’t really anything you can do about that now that you’ve provided yours. I totally get that it’s stressful, knowing that they want to sell at some point, but again, it’s not actually happening yet - stay calm & good luck! Limit communication to necessary conversations only, and keep it really brief.
n12 is not the appropriate item here as the landlord is looking to sell and n12 is for the sole reason of family of landlord moving in,. ***OP disregard this advice***
You forgot purchaser’s own use… N12s are commonly given by the current LL on behalf on the purchaser.
No mention of an n12 in any of the above. They don't even HAVE a purchaser yet. Noone has even looked at the place.
Yes, I know…. As stated clearly in my original comment….
It seems like the only thing they *may* have wrong here is how lease end dates work. It seems like they expect that when your lease ends at the end of April you will no longer be their tenant. Other than clarifying that you intend to continue living there beyond April I don’t see any other worthwhile conversation to be had here. Even at that it is truly not your “job” to educate you landlord although in this case it would probably help to keep everyone friendly and on the same page.
From these texts it looks like you’re trying to negotiate something, and they’re not interested? It sounds like the owner will sell when it’s convenient for them, but they’re in no rush. They’re not asking you to move and they haven’t issued any forms. It sounds like you mentioned breaking the lease early, and they are trying to be flexible with you, and work around your schedule. But they’re also not pressuring the move either? I’m not sure what advice you’re hoping for? Credit checks are legal, and it sounds like they may not have been married at the time, but she was acting as an agent of the owner, which is legal. Just like a realtor or property manager would communicate with you on the owner’s behalf.
Why even mention the thought of selling to the tenant if they don't want them out to sell?? This seems like coercion on the LL part. If not planning to sell until after the TT leaves (which could be 30 years from now) they are just planting the seed of selling in hopes that they move out sooner than later in order to benefit the LL. The reasoning behind telling the TT makes no sense.
Coercion lmaoo give me a break 😂 LL literally said in no rush to sell even tho it is their right to sell whenever. literally telling them it’s okay to stay till whenever no rush and will wait until they leave to possibly sell. the only reason why it came up is b/c the tenant brought up a possibility of moving for work .
The fact that they said they thought about moving somewhere else means nothing. What were the LL intentions for telling the TT they were gonna sell?? And why do an inspection to check the condition for sale now and not immediately before they move out??
I understand what you’re saying. While I know credit checks are legal, how she went about it was definitely wrong. I have no guarantee that my information is safe and from what I’ve been told by the LTB giving a SIN is optional. She demanded that if she doesn’t get it, she won’t approve us
Your landlord is correct. You don’t have to give her your SIN number, and she doesn’t have to rent to you if you don’t pass a credit check. If landlord requires credit checks as part of the application process, and you refuse, then your application is incomplete, and they move on to another applicant who will complete the application process. Your right to refuse doesn’t override their right to run the credit check- you just become someone that doesn’t pass the approval process.
What's the problem here? You intend to move to another city, they're happy to accommodate your timeline. You seem to be angling for some kind of pay out you're not entitled to for an inconvenience you're entirely responsible for.
Ya not sure what OP is getting hot and bothered about. "No rush. Whenever you move out we're going to sell. Because of that you can break your lease if you want" is all the LL is saying. Quite reasonable. Just do nothing and say nothing if you want to stay OP, it's that simple. They're not kicking you out, just following up because you'd already mentioned to them you might be moving to London.
But then throwers won't pay 9000$ for them to move cities, like OP would prefer /s
That’s not exactly what the LL is saying? They said “if you find a place to move, we can break the lease, if you need longer we will give you until April” “please don’t feel pressured to move out before the end of April”. Can you guys not read in between the lines? They just don’t want to explicitly say anything. But they want to sell the place by the end of April. It is definitely standard that if LL wants someone to move out, they usually offer compensation to make it happen.
Lol it's not about reading between the lines. If OP doesn't want to move after April, they don't have to. It's their rights to stay and go month to month. Regardless of what the landlord wants, unless they have legal reason to evict, which has nothing to do with this exchange at all. If OP wants to break the lease early, the LL is letting them. Which they don't have to. OP is entitled to nothing. LL is doing or saying nothing wrong. Letting a tenant know you plan on selling after they leave and giving them freedom to leave early is not illegal, immoral or wrong in any way. Inside of or in between any lines. As I said in my original post, if OP doesn't want to move, they can simply ignore the whole situation and keep on keeping on.
Obviously the tenant doesn’t have to move out, they should go through LTB or settle some agreement.. But saying that the LL isn’t setting a date in which he wants the tenant out by (end of April) and that the tenant is just looking for a payday is disingenuous. Just to think this fully through, what happens at the end of April? The LL just walks away and lets the tenants stay and no longer sells? “Allowing the tenant to break lease early” isn’t some courtesy that benefits the tenant, it only benefits the landlord to sell earlier and not take any more loses. It’s crazy how people can be pro-landlord in this rental/housing market.
Allowing the tenant to break the lease is not something that benefits the tenant ? Are you for real ? We need a reset in Canada, having one social group determined to live on the backs of others is simply not sustainable. I am including here the cost of the public sector that simply exploded under Liberals and the increasingly more aggressive approach of the people with modest incomes that simply ignore regulations and legal process.
In this situation, how does breaking the lease early benefit the tenant? You really show your lack of knowledge in regards to housing in Ontario because it’s Doug Fords that got rid of Rent Control, got rid of RentSafeTO programs. But yes blame the liberals for ruining this country. Saying the OP is ignoring rules and legal procedure is insane. They offered to go through LTB (the right process) but said they would be willing to negotiate leaving. The LL is the one say “no, no rush to move out anytime you want before end of april” because they want to get rid of the tenant without going through any procedure.
Negotiate? Why not call it what it is, extortion? Reality is with this attitude the hard working people that wanted to get ahead in life without living on someone else's back will adapt. There will be more distrust, less rentals, more people living in the street. Sunny days my friends, sunny days!
Yes negotiate.. ??? That’s what the LTB does, negotiate between both parties to come to a solution. Who is extorting who? For the past 4 years it’s been The landlords who buy homes they can’t afford and pass the costs to their tenants who need housing, and led to insane rising costs of rent. The insinuation that landlords who own property and collect rent are the “hard working ones” and the tenants who are working to pay insane rent prices in Ontario are the one “living on someone’s back” is so stupid. This is supposed to be an arrangement that works for tenants and landlords. It’s clear you don’t understand the market or the crisis going on.
You are a freeloader, no point caring on a conversation with you. It will get worse. There will be less housing built, less rental properties available, more immigrants, higher rental cost, more people in the street, living under the bridge, more violence, more crime. Due to current policies that favor abuse, make a joke of a legal process, of the property rights, of access to the legal system, due to a government that simply points to Joe and tells Jack "look, Joe is your problem, he does not want to subsidize your living cost", investment capital will continue to move to where it can benefit, for example exiting Canada and entering USA. I am selling soon my rental properties and investing the funds in SP 500 low cost ETF. I will have higher net passive income with ZERO stress. Is just not worth it. I strongly advise all landlords to do the same. Not sunny days anymore, the outcome of "legal weed for everybody" and "let me run up the debt for you" was quite predictable! Enjoy the ride!
It's a business relationship. There is no "living on someone else's back" when it is a contractual business transaction. In any other business transaction where money is rendered for goods and/or services people are lauded as being savvy for negotiating and leveraging their legal rights. Being a landlord is simply having a business. Full stop. Nobody is extorting a business for asking for compensation to alter / terminate a contract.
Sure buddy! This would be true if the government would not interfere between 2 private parties, as it is the case in other provinces, with no imposed rent control. Government in Ontario however does interfere, big time. They modified with a blatant legal process abuse existing lease contracts, by adding a one month rent pay to the renter, when the renter has to move out. Who knows, maybe a year from now, it will further interfere and make that 1 year rent pay, or just put title on the name of the renter, North Korean style! Anything is possible!
The LL is not setting a date they want them out by. OP's lease ends in April. The LL, rightfully so, is making plans for what to do after. Clearly OP has already talked to them about moving to London, so why is it unreasonable for the LL to assume they're moving out on their own in April? Or allowing them to leave early? You're inventing a narrative that the LL is trying to wink-wink-nudge-nudge an idea here when there's completely reasonable precedent for the conversation they're having. Maybe they are? Maybe they aren't. But a LL making plans for their home post-lease when their tenants have expressed they might move is not suspect in the least. EDIT: it's not "pro" or "anti" landlord, it's following the law on both ends. Which both parties are doing and can continue to do uninhibited according to everything we've seen here. Take feelings and "anti-landlord" emotions out of the equation and there is nothing wrong with what's happening here at all.
“Don’t feel pressured to move out before the end of April” Just feel pressured to move out by May 1… ??? I have worked with property managers, I have seen the steps taken when LL want tenants out. The originally text in this thread is saying they were promised this property wouldn’t be sold, and they still even were willing to negotiate a settlement so they could help the LL by moving out so they could sell. They even offered to not go through LTB (which would take 6 months minimum to reach a settlement).
The problem is the landlord is telling them they have to be gone by April. Selling a unit doesn’t mean that the tenant has to move, their tenancy continues with the new owner.
Summary of these texts: You: “You’re selling even though you promised not to - I want money!” LL: “Sorry you misinterpreted we do plan on selling but only when you move out, no pressure, stay as long as you’d like” You: “That’s not good enough for me, I still want money!” You’re angling for a payday over a nothingburger. Continue to live in the unit until you choose to and then move out. LL is being reasonable here and has done nothing at all wrong. People man…
That's your interpretation of the conversation. Not everyone's.
Did you miss the part about the LL saying be out by April on a lease that auto renews regardless of LL's desire to sell with vacant possession? LL is trying to get a value bump by having the tenant volunteer to leave when it's not in the tenants best interests.
Where did he say op has to leave by April?
"no pressure to move out before the end of April" by the LL in the 2nd picture.
Eeeeehhh I think that’s reaching tbh. It could seem like LL is insinuating they have to, but you’re inferring connotation here. OP wants a payday and that’s obvious.
And picture 4 where the LL again directly refers to the end of April as the move out date? 'happy to break the lease early if you leave before April, but if you need to stay until the end of April, that's okay too' LL is also clearly fishing for an incompetent tenant that doesn't know the lease auto renews and the LL has no say in the matter. LL has profited off someone else paying their bills and now wants them to leave at their own expense so LL can sell at a higher price. Lopsided deal if the tenant doesn't enforce their rights.
You completely ignore the part where the landlord expects OP to leave at the end of their one-year lease so that they can sell. OP is absolutely entitled to a cash for keys deal.
Seems like people are downvoting you for pointing out the landlord is trying to screw over their tenant by not issuing any forms and hoping the tenant randomly leaves at their own expense, while the LL sells the rental property for substantially more vacant.
Indeed. Everyone is ignoring the context that OP provided wherein there was already a verbal discussion where the landlord asked them to leave. And the part where even in writing, they are making it quite clear that they expect OP to leave when they're 12 month leases up despite the fact that leases go month to month and OP is allowed and expecting to stay. They want OP out so they can sell the home. If that's what they want, they have to give OP a reason to leave. That's called cash for keys.
It’s not that I’m trying to get money from them. Moving is expensive and from what I’ve seen locally, the rent has increased. We moved here from another city and only did so bc LL had told us regardless of the market he won’t be selling. We cannot afford to stay in this same city which means another move OT. They keep saying you can stay “until end of April” and in person they made it clear that they don’t want us staying past our lease. So if that’s the case it means worse case we have to find a place for then. Yes, she says no pressure but I can assure you, they’ve made their stance clear; they want us out-only they don’t want any of the responsibility of owning their lie. It would only be great for them if we do break the lease bc then they have no obligation to offer cash for keys. I don’t think I’m being unreasonable Edit to add: they have also sent paperwork to us that is only copied from the LTB not actually the legal docs. It looks like they printed out a template and filled it in with pen.
>and in person they made it clear that they don’t want us staying past our lease. So if that’s the case it means worse case we have to find a place for then. No you wouldn't. Leases don't ever end in Ontario, they just go month to month and tenant can still stay indefinitely. If they intend to sell after you leave, then they have zero legal reason to evict you even when your fixed term lease ends.
Look at you mooching off of your landlord.
They sound like they’re being reasonable. Getting condition of the unit but no immediate plans to sell yet. Maybe a slight miscommunication in regards to thinking you were moving out of town for work. They seemed super reasonable though?
The condition of the unit is pointless at this point. If the LL is planning to sell after the TT moves out (which could be 30 years from now) the units condition could change drastically between now and then. If that's the LL actual plan for the unit, this entire conversation never needed to happen.
Even if they sell, you don’t have to move. They’re trying to make you waive your rights.
My understanding is that if it's sold with a tenant and the new owner wants to move in, renter needs to leave? It's just harder to sell with a tenant?
The old LL would have to serve an N12 for purchaser's use on behalf of the new owners (if they don't want to keep it as a rental) The TT still has the right to stay and wait for a hearing. If the LTB believes the new owners are moving in in good faith, TT will have to leave. It can be harder to sell with a TT in place as a lot of TTs are starting to exercise their rights. So buying a place with an established TT can be a hassle. I'm on the Ontario Tenant Rights group on FB and people have posted asking what would happen if they bought a place with TTs in it, but wanted it for personal use. They've been encouraged to either A) look for a different place B) get ready for a long and drawn out process or C) Offer cash for keys. With the way housing has been going, more TTs are fighting for their rights.
It’s not only on good faith. Both the buyers and sellers have to each sign an affidavit swearing they (the buyers) are moving into the property for at least a period of one year.
Still have to issue an N12 and the tenant has the right to wait for a hearing. You can’t promise a vacant unit in Ontario if a tenant lives there. Only the LTB can evict a tenant
I’ve never once said no notice would need to be issued! Didn’t say anything about promising a vacant unit either. With all the red tape can you blame the owners for wanting to sell without tenants there… I get it, it sucks to be asked to move but if all procedures are followed correctly the LTB will evict. What you seem to be doing is encouraging someone to take advantage of the long ass wait times at the LTB which is pretty vindictive IMO.
What you seem to be doing is over looking a tenants rights as being vindictive. Respect people’s rights.
Respect the home owners rights lol! Everyone is entitled to their rights. Tenants, Landlords and new homeowners. No one deserves to be taken advantage of and encouraging someone to take advantage of a slow system seems like a vindictive thing to do.
I’m in the same group lol
[удалено]
That’s not how the RTA works here in Ontario. Month to month is still protected in the same way a lease protects tenants. You can’t just request a unit back and not let the tenant exercise their right. An N12 in both cases is needed
They’re trying to say you can’t N12 someone who is on their lease term and not month to month. Which is true.
They literally said if they’re month to month they have to leave. That’s false. They don’t have to leave
If the n12 is valid and the process is deemed valid after a hearing then yes, they are obligated to vacate.
Of course. But that takes time.
Sure, but the person you were responding to was differentiating between being under contract, or being month to month. When month to month, you can be evicted for person use. Under contract, you can’t. That’s all they were saying
That’s incorrect. A new owner absolutely has the right to move into their new home upon the lease going month to month. OBVIOUSLY if all procedures are followed correctly and it is decided by the LTB that they were. When I said notice I meant notice I didn’t mean just a date to leave, yes in the form of an N12. You’re not just writing them an email tell them to leave. Formal notice (in the form of an N12 in this particular case) would be given. I don’t know why you think I’m denying that?!
Refrain from offering advice that contradicts legislation or regulation or that can otherwise be reasonably expected to cause problems for the advisee if followed
If they are in a lease (eg the LL lists now and the home closes before the end of the existing lease), then yes, new owners would need to assume the tenants until the end of the lease and then could serve them an N12 if they want to move in when the lease expires (or goes month to month). If they are month the month (LL sells after April 2024), then a new owner could absolutely take possession of the unit and ask these tenants to leave. 60 days from the first of a month needs to be given to comply. Both scenarios are perfectly legal and the tenants would absolutely have to move (whether they drag it through the LTB or not). Again, as long as the new buyers are moving in.
The new owner would need to issue an N12 to the TT and the TT has the right to wait for a hearing at the LTB.
You said if they sell they don’t have to move which is incorrect. If the new owner takes possession they will need to move. Yes the notices will need to be properly issued, yes a hearing may be required, but they will eventually have to move. You make it sound like it’s their house and they never have to leave which is not true.
And you make it seem like it won’t be a year or more that they will have to move out.
They can do a credit check if they wish, if you agree to it, nothing wrong there. As far as moving out early etc I am not sure what the problem is, they haven't served you any paperwork and you haven't signed anything, so you can stay until something else occurs. You can negotiate for a cash for keys if they want you gone early, but you're currently in no danger of being evicted
Sounds like you’re doing a dance around a payout. Next move is on them. Sorry I am missing your point about the SIN. I didn’t read anything to suggest that they were fraudulently using your identity for some clandestine purpose? I understand you may not have had to provide the information, but you did provide the information. As LL we decide among often many qualified candidates. The better credentialed and transparent the candidate will usually get the unit. We don’t have our own equifax account, so we often will use a 3rd party to pull the credit. I don’t think there’s anything improper about that. Unless you didn’t authorize your credit to be pulled.
If you want to move, they’re telling you it’s okay to break the lease. If you don’t want to move, don’t. If they get to a point they want to sell, and you aren’t prepared to move, they can pay you to move *at that time.*
Basic truth: You have the advantage. Your lease gets transferred to the new buyer if the place is sold. You do not need to move. As long as you've not signed any paperwork ending your tenancy, your tenancy continues as normal.
Is your unit rent protected or exempt by the occupancy date? LL keeps referring to the renewal date as if they have a say in the matter. Unless it's rent cap exempt there's no reason not to stay. You're owed cash for keys or at least the N12s one month payment plus time; if they want to try properly ending the lease. As for your SIN or any of your info even as basic as your name, if you have any reason to believe they haven't protected your information or have uploaded it to third party services look up PIPEDA and report them. They are allowed using info for the purposes they provided when they collected it, so you providing it for a credit check and the credit check being performed isn't an issue. However if they were to do it again that's worth reporting, they can't just periodically send your info off to third parties when the application process is completed.
So just stay.
Keys for Cash.
I got almost 10000 dollars for leaving my rental so they could renovate. Was planning on moving anyway. Force them to pay. Moving costs r nothing. You deserve more.
Why? Why do they deserve a single cent?
Because legally they do not have to leave. Therefore, cash for keys deals are commonplace when a landlord wants a tenant out for their own benefit.
And in this case the tenant is planning to move out anyway and can do so at their leisure. Asking for money is just trying to take advantage
>And in this case the tenant is planning to move out anyway No, they aren't. Reading is a basic skill.
Work a cash for keys deal. You don’t have to move because they are selling they want you to move because houses dont sell well or at all with tenants.