Residential Landlord and Tenant Law (Ontario)
(15 August 2015)
A. Statutes and Regulations
Note 1: For amendment (legislative) history, click the link and search on the Regulation number in quotes eg: "516/06".
Note 2: Last law update completed 15 August 2015. Other Statutes and Regulations referred to in this Guide may not be regularly updated. Did a dead link check (with updating) of the entire Guide on 01 January 2017 (only a link check).
Note 3: Relevant provisions of the Condominium Act, 1998 are ss.4(2,3), 80(7,10) and 165(7).
Note 4: Amendments brought about by SO 2013, c.3 relate primarily to the integration of termination and eviction proceedings for non-profit co-op housing members into the RTA regime. This subject is not included in this legal guide but may in future be the subject of a separate legal guide of it's own. Residual provisions of SO 2013, c.3 unrelated to non-profit co-op housing are integrated in this legal guide.
B. Court Cases (Canlii-searched on "Residential Tenancies Act")
C. Proof-Reading (Text, External Links, Form Links and Miscellaneous)
|Chapter||Date of Last Edit|
|1||15 August 2015|
|2||15 August 2015|
|3||15 August 2015|
|4||15 August 2015|
|5||15 August 2015|
|6||15 August 2015|
|7||15 August 2015|
|8||15 August 2015|
|9||15 August 2015|
|10||15 August 2015|
|11||15 August 2015|
|12||15 August 2015|
|13||15 August 2015|
|14||15 August 2015|
|15||15 August 2015|
|16||15 August 2015|
|17||15 August 2015|
|18||15 August 2015|
WORKING LINKS AND NOTES
- "accomodation" that is exempt from the RTA seems likely to come under at least partial CPA coverage [see CPA reg 4, and my main CPA guide at Ch.2, s.3(a) as a consumer service; if so integrate this into the tenancy guide]
- in 2011 the Social Housing Reform Act was repealed and replaced by the Housing Services Act, 2011: see SO 2011, c.6
- is the HRC's 'LL business practices reg' and HRC accomodation discrimination adequately integrated?
- check re integration of SPPA 4.1 re over the counter orders on consent,
referenced in Board Rule 14 preamble
- the RTA limitation periods are (though double-check) very obscurely located in Ch.16 re Civil Remedies; they need to be locally located next to each Application procedure
*** re-assess effect of RTA 106(4) in non-mortgage cases of LL change (on LMR deposit)
- wrt to those awkward rent review exemptions, consider this 20 July 2011
Toronto Star article by Mark Weisleder:
Nov. 1, 1991, is a very important date for rental properties in Ontario.
If your home, condo or apartment was built after that date, rent review
does not apply. So, instead of the maximum increase of 0.7 per cent
permitted in 2011 for most rental units, there is no limit on how much a
landlord can increase the rent after the first 12 months of your tenancy.
Let’s say you rent an apartment in a building constructed before Nov. 1,
1991, and your rent is $1,000. The maximum your landlord can raise the rent
this year is $7, to $1,007.
However, if your unit was built after that date, your landlord can raise
the rent as much as he or she wants — to $1,500 for example.
In all cases, the landlord has to use the proper forms under the
Residential Tenancies Act and must give the tenant at least 90 days’ notice
of any increase. If the required notice is not given, the entire rent
increase will be declared void later.
There are now thousands of condominium units in Ontario built after Nov. 1,
1991, that are being rented to tenants. If you are thinking of renting one,
consider a clause in your lease that puts a maximum on how much the
landlord can hike your rent each year.
For landlords, this right to increase arbitrarily should not be abused. It
should be limited to what the fair market rent for a similar type of unit
would be. For example, let’s say you rent a two-bedroom unit in Toronto for
$2,000. After one year, similar two-bedroom units in the area rent for
$2,200. You are having problems with the tenant. Can you raise the rent to
$3,000 in order to effectively terminate the tenancy?
In my opinion, if the landlord tries to just get rid of a problem tenant by
unreasonably increasing the rent well above fair market value, they may
have difficulty terminating this tenancy for non-payment of rent later. A
judge may look at the entire process as acting in bad faith.
I am fairly certain this Nov. 1, 1991, exception to rent review will become
an issue in the October provincial election. I wouldn’t be surprised if
rent review is extended to cover these units as well.
We have a real problem in Ontario in that few new apartment buildings are
being constructed. Builders make more money building condominiums. There
needs to be creative thinking by our politicians to encourage and provide
incentives to building more rental units in Ontario. This will benefit both
landlords and tenants in the long term.
Until this happens, tenants must be careful to protect themselves when
renting units built after Nov. 1, 1991. Landlords must always make sure to
use the proper forms and give 90 days’ notice before any rent increase.
and: see the cases resulting from a search on "no part of
the building" in Canlii (Ontario only), esp:
. SWL-13073 (L&T Board) (holding that the 1991
exemption applies to NEW construction since that
time); not significant statutory interpretation
argument and self-represented tenant
. Minto Gardens v Municipal Property Assessment
Corporation (Ont SC, 2011) which discusses that
phrase as it occurs in the definition of vacant land
used in s.1(1) of an Assessment Act Regulation;
suggests that building must be pre-existing
- basically, to explore these rent review exemptions, assume something legislative happened on those dates and find out what it was; that will provide insight into their interpretation (and when done add this to website as enrichment)
- Note that the Consumer Protection Act s.109(2) governs real
estate transactions, despite CPA 2(2)(f). Query application
to all residential L&T as well and puts residential
tenancies under the "False Advertising Stop Order
Provisions". See the CPA Guide, Ch.8, s.8.
- must integrate Social Justice Tribunal material (see material on LTB website)
- Cowie v Bindlish stands for the broader proposition that when circumstances of a tenancy change during the tenancy so as to seemingly legally re-categorize it, then it is the original status of the tenancy that determines RTA jurisdiction over it - maybe make this it's own section somewhere ....