News   Mar 01, 2024
 1.3K     2 
News   Mar 01, 2024
 2.5K     0 
News   Mar 01, 2024
 752     0 

Ontario couple says house sale at risk due to tenants that refuse to leave

Admiral Beez

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
12,027
Reaction score
6,107
To my mind, the legislation is faulty. Unless the tenant claimed a breach of the Act while they were still a tenant, such as no notice, faulty notice, etc., once the lease expired the Act should lose jurisdiction. They cease to be a tenant and become trespasser.
 

This sounds awful. Just how can it be allowed that former tenants, now squatters who refuse to pay rent cannot be quickly removed? Perhaps this home owner shouldn’t have sold the house on condition of removal of all tenants and left that for the buyer? But that’s just passing the unresolved issue to someone else.
The laws in our province are backwards, i know of many cases of the tenant refusing to move and wrecking the homeowners lives financially. It's sad when you own a property and you follow all of the rules and the renter has more rights than you have, the system is totally broken.
 
To my mind, the legislation is faulty. Unless the tenant claimed a breach of the Act while they were still a tenant, such as no notice, faulty notice, etc., once the lease expired the Act should lose jurisdiction. They cease to be a tenant and become trespasser.
Indeed. I wonder if you called 911 to report this as a trespasser what the police would do or say? As the property owner can’t you just unlock the door and push them out?
 
Indeed. I wonder if you called 911 to report this as a trespasser what the police would do or say? As the property owner can’t you just unlock the door and push them out?

Police don't do a damn thing. We have a crack head renting an apartment down the street from me, her junkie friends squat there. The poor woman who owns the house has been trying to kick them out for months. The apartment is so badly damaged.
They prowl through the night stealing what ever they can find in people's yards and cars. Again calling the cops does nothing. Last time i called the cops to report some guy snooping in my backyard trying to break into my garden shed at 5 am, it took the cops 2 hours to show up. By then the guy was long gone.
 
I have zero sympathy for someone who owns multiple homes trying to evict tenants for a profit.
If people did not have houses that they rent where would all renters live? Are people and companies that own multiple buildings that rent apartments for profit evil? Just because someone worked their arses off and have invested in real estate that provides housing for people should they be subjected to some professional tenants that know how to abuse the system and not have many options to get them out?
 
I have zero sympathy for someone who owns multiple homes trying to evict tenants for a profit.
Who’s doing that? This couple is selling up but we don’t know if they’re doing it for profit. Maybe they’ve over extended their credit and need to bail. Must property owners pass a means test?
 
If people did not have houses that they rent where would all renters live?
They would continue to rent somewhere else, such as purpose built rentals, rentals where the owner is also a resident, or they could themselves buy housing that isn't being hoarded by the rich.

Just because someone worked their arses off and have invested in real estate that provides housing for people
They are making passive income with this house, not working their arses off. They are not doing this to be altruistic, they are doing so to profit off people's need for housing.

Who’s doing that? This couple is selling up but we don’t know if they’re doing it for profit. Maybe they’ve over extended their credit and need to bail. Must property owners pass a means test?
They make it clear it is an investment property, and not their primary residence. I similarly don't feel bad for people who lose money in the stock market when investing beyond their capabilities. They sold a house as vacant without any guarantee of that being true, it's 100% on them to eat the loss IMO.
 
They would continue to rent somewhere else, such as purpose built rentals, rentals where the owner is also a resident, or they could themselves buy housing that isn't being hoarded by the rich.


They are making passive income with this house, not working their arses off. They are not doing this to be altruistic, they are doing so to profit off people's need for housing.


They make it clear it is an investment property, and not their primary residence. I similarly don't feel bad for people who lose money in the stock market when investing beyond their capabilities. They sold a house as vacant without any guarantee of that being true, it's 100% on them to eat the loss IMO.
People can make passive income as they wish, if they made the money legally and want to invest in real estate that's their choice, it sounds like you have an issue with people that can do things that you can't. My parents immigrated to this country in 1971 and purchased their first house 2 years later, they rented the 3 bedrooms on the second floor to 3 different boarders, 4 of us lived in 1 bedroom and my parents lived in the other, 1 bathroom for the boarders and the 6 of us. Through hard work and saving their money they bought another house to rent 15 years later, they renovated the house and created a triplex, they can now live a comfortable life in their eighties due to their hard work and smart investment in a second house, (by the way my mother worked until she was 76 years old). So they profited from peoples need for housing same as my brothers profit from people needing to eat and i profit from people needing me to build houses for them. People like my parents did not buy houses to hoard them they bought them to better their life and by doing that they created housing for many people over the last 34 years.
 
They would continue to rent somewhere else, such as purpose built rentals, rentals where the owner is also a resident,
But if profits are not allowed what‘s the incentive to build such properties? No one owes you a house. It’s capitalism.
 
Last edited:
People can make passive income as they wish, if they made the money legally and want to invest in real estate that's their choice, it sounds like you have an issue with people that can do things that you can't.
Ad hominem, we can stop there.

But if profits are not allowed what‘s the incentive to build such properties? No one owes you a house. It’s capitalism.
Buying up housing stock to rent it out, isn't the same thing as building purpose built rental housing.
They made poor investment decisions and signed a deal they could not deliver on, no one owes them any sympathy. It's capitalism.
 
So what would be your alternative? That income properties should not exist? That they can exist but never be sold? That a tenancy should be permanent?
My alternative would be that houses should be homes and not investment tools.
Rent out space in your primary residence all you like.
Sell your primary residence if you like, but if you decided to agree to terms you have no ability to deliver on, then that's on you.
 
My alternative would be that houses should be homes and not investment tools.
Rent out space in your primary residence all you like.
Sell your primary residence if you like, but if you decided to agree to terms you have no ability to deliver on, then that's on you.
A single family home is used as an income property by a sole investor. A multiple unit building is used as an income property by multiple investors. Where's the line?

I agree in a way that the owner (whether or not they lived there or not is irrelevant) signed an agreement they ultimately could not fulfil, but not through any fault of their own but through a breach of contract of the tenant. After the end of the lease, they are a trespasser. That's why I say the legislation is faulty.
 

Back
Top