Dishonest landlords can be fined $50,000 with Bill 184

BY JAY BRIJPAUL

Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing brought out Bill 184, Protecting Tenants and Strengthening Community Housing Act, on March 12^th 2020. The bill gained Royal Assent on July 21^st and became law. Under the new law, landlords who give a tenant notice to end the tenancy on behalf of a purchaser must reimburse the tenant one month’s rent or offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant. This only applies for rental properties with four or less units. Landlords who act in bad faith and evict a tenant under false pretense can be fined up to $50,000 and ordered to pay a specific sum, not exceeding the equivalent of 12 months of the last rent charged, to the former tenant. Let’s take a look at a typical scenario.

Tenant Trudy has rented a condo from landlord Larry for the past ten years. She currently pays $1,400 per month. Larry knows that with the current rental increase his condo can fetch $2,500 per month. He can only increase Trudy’s rent by $50.00 – the rental allowance allotted for that year. Larry filed an application to evict Trudy under the grounds that his son, Larry Junior, wants to live in the condo. Under the new bill, he must reimburse $1,400 to Trudy as an incentive to move. The application to end the tenancy was filed by Larry for a hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

With the new bill, Larry must file an affidavit along with the application which needs to state that he requires the rental unit for his son. Along with the application and affidavit, Larry should state whether he had given any other notice to Trudy or to any other tenants in a different rental unit. If a notice was given, the Landlord and Tenant Board would need the date it was given, the address of the rental unit and the identity of the individual it was given to. The board can refuse to accept an application if these requirements are not met. With this information and any evidence provided by Trudy, the board will make a determination as to whether or not Larry is acting in bad faith.

Trudy needs to submit in advance, within the allowed time frame, any objections she may have in writing. If this is not done as prescribed by the board, Trudy’s objection becomes invalid. The intent is to streamline the process and allow quicker resolution between landlords and tenants. Let’s assume that at the hearing, the board agrees to terminate the lease. Trudy will have a set date when she must vacate the rental unit. Larry, in bad faith, rented the unit for $2,500 to a new tenant Melody. Trudy found out about this through her former neighbour and informed the board.

Trudy needs to inform the board within a one-year window. The board can order Larry to compensate Trudy the equivalent of one-year rental payments and also to pay a fine, not to exceed $50,000. For a corporation, the fine cannot exceed $250,000.

Let’s assume that Larry approached Trudy and negotiated a new rent for $2,500. Under the old rules, the board can deem this invalid if Trudy was not informed 90 days before the new rent kicks in and if it does not confirm to the rental guidelines. With the new rules, the increase cannot be voided if Trudy paid the new rent for 12 consecutive months. Had Trudy filed an application objecting to the rental increase during the 12-month period, then, the increase can be voided.

Many tenants are unable to pay their rent because of the pandemic. Landlords who applied to terminate the lease must first endeavour to work out an arrangement with their tenants to pay the arrears. The board may not grant eviction if this was not done.

With Bill 184, landlords can file an application for compensation within one year after the formal tenant vacates for any rental arrears, unpaid utility bills and damage done to the rental unit.  The landlord must give the tenant or former tenant a copy of the application and a copy of any notice of hearing issued by the board and must, in specified circumstances, file with the board a certificate of service on the tenant or former tenant.

The revamped bill is designed to offer a quicker resolution to conflicts and give the board more flexibility. The GTA is evolving into a mega city and with it we need a system that can expedite conflicts and encourage quicker settlement between landlords and tenants.