Renting in Canada

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

In Copenhagen, the rents are at Toronto levels if not somewhat higher and landlords can legally ask for six months up front on a one-year lease (three months prepaid plus three months as a deposit). It makes you miss Canada, and certainly Montreal.

I'm going to "holy cow!" that as well...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'm going to "holy cow!" that as well...

I was wondering how lower income people and immigrants can put a roof over their heads?

Is there some type of underground/clandestine/parallel system of apartments that serves this part of society?

[SignalHillHiker]

The norm here seems to be first month's rent and a damage deposit. The latter never exceeds the former, but often equals it. So to get a shithole basement apartment downtown, you'd probably need around $1,300 to get the keys ($800 rent, $500 deposit).

Most places let you give your notice and then put the deposit toward your last month's rent after the inspection.

[lio45]

FWIW, I've been taking a very serious look at Arkansas real estate lately... being slightly pissed at how much (a few hundred bucks!) my first eviction experience (of a bad tenant who "came with" a property I bought and had zero deposit) ended up costing in FL.

At least it was quite speedy though -- unlike in Quebec.

I realize I'm probably over-reacting to a situation that was basically created / set-up by the seller last year, because the ability to charge some kind of deposit (say, one month's worth of rent) in practice negates the eviction costs...

But I nonetheless find this quite appealing

http://littlerockturnkey.com/arkansa...lord-friendly/


I'm wondering if anyone else on this forum with landlording experience (mistercorporate for example) would be on my side of the spectrum, as opposed to the tenants'.

My experience, shaped mostly by many years of landlording late 1800s units in the heart of downtown Sherbrooke, can be basically summed up as "tenants are out to get you and abuse you, and your rights are extremely limited, so expect to get screwed all the time".

Of course, that's the reason property in Quebec is that cheap, so I can't really complain -- I know I wouldn't have been able to amass so much downtown real estate in a city of 200,000 if it hadn't been in an anti-landlord jurisdiction. I guess it's kinda part of the business, you just have to play by the rules...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I was wondering how lower income people and immigrants can put a roof over their heads?

Is there some type of underground/clandestine/parallel system of apartments that serves this part of society?

My guess is, even though you legally can charge up to 6 months, you might be satisfied with charging only one month as deposit for a cheaper / lower-end unit.

(I know I would be fully satisfied with a month's worth of rent as deposit any time. Seems to be the standard in TX and FL from what I've seen so far.)

I would assume that if you insist on having a 6 months deposit for a cheaper, slummier unit, you're likely to see it remain vacant, as more flexible competing landlords fill in their units over yours by letting people into them with much smaller (and, frankly, much more reasonable) deposits.

So, I'm pretty sure it's not a problem for lower income people.

It's nice to legally be able to charge a deposit, even if you end up not doing it.

In my experience, several landlords in places where a deposit is legal are letting people in without deposits.

[lio45]

A disclaimer though: I have no idea of how long the eviction process is in Denmark.

If an eviction typically takes 6 months, then a 6 months deposit is perfectly normal.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'm wondering if anyone else on this forum with landlording experience (mistercorporate for example) would be on my side of the spectrum, as opposed to the tenants'.

Not me personally but my best friend (who owns a bunch of "doors" in Gatineau) would definetely be on your side.

He talks about the Régie de logement a lot!

Oddly enough he has not invested in Ottawa at all even though the rules there are slightly more favourable to landlords.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not me personally but my best friend (who owns a bunch of "doors" in Gatineau) would definetely be on your side.

He talks about the Régie de logement a lot!

Oddly enough he has not invested in Ottawa at all even though the rules there are slightly more favourable to landlords.

Well, the thing is, in practice there's a bunch of (technically illegal but perfectly moral IMO) things that you can do to try to mitigate the tenant-friendliness of the laws on the north side of the Ottawa river.

So... he might, like me in Sherbrooke, have found some kind of somewhat-sweet-spot where he can have a lot more doors -- wouldn't you actually just say "a lot more units" in English? -- than he would've been able to get in Ottawa, thanks to revenue property being cheaper due partly to the landlord-unfriendly environment.

I am sure that I would see perfectly eye to eye with your friend on the Régie du Logement
(or with just about anyone else with a lot of doors in Quebec... no doubt about that)

[kool maudit]

A lot of people rent rooms in shared flats or get on the waiting list for a subsidized place in a co-op (about 50% of copenhagen apartments are co-ops) when they are 18 and stay at home/post up in big shares with friends until they are granted a place.

it also gets less cut-throat as you move away from copenhagens inner areas.

[1overcosc]

Quebec is probably the most extreme anti-landlord jurisdiction on the continent.

I've heard that it can take months to evict someone for non-payment of rent and that landlords often never get the money back there.

In Kingston (I presume the rest of Ontario as well), eviction of a non-paying tenant is typically complete within a single month (ie. tenant never pays for April, they're gone by the end of April).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

-- wouldn't you actually just say "a lot more units" in English? --

Yes, I guess the word is "unit".

I never talk property in English with my friend. So it's always in terms of "J'ai 20 portes maintenant sur le boulevard Mont-Bleu"... etc.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

In Kingston (I presume the rest of Ontario as well), eviction of a non-paying tenant is typically complete within a single month (ie. tenant never pays for April, they're gone by the end of April).

That is very surprising actually. In Toronto it can take MONTHS (like, 4+) to get a non-paying tenant out. And it's virtually impossible during winter time. Almost everyone I know who rents out a second suite has horror stories, usually which end in having to take the unit for "personal use" and having it empty for several months.

I can't see how it could be done in a month here as it's next to impossible to even get a hearing scheduled for less than a month in advance. And they are ridiculously easy to postpone with even the smallest amount of evidence against the landlord, fabricated or not.

Maybe Kingston is an anomaly or the system moves more quickly in smaller areas. Although I've heard similar horror stories about tenants from former coworkers in Peterborough.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by niwell

That is very surprising actually. In Toronto it can take MONTHS (like, 4+) to get a non-paying tenant out. And it's virtually impossible during winter time. Almost everyone I know who rents out a second suite has horror stories, usually which end in having to take the unit for "personal use" and having it empty for several months.

I can't see how it could be done in a month here as it's next to impossible to even get a hearing scheduled for less than a month in advance. And they are ridiculously easy to postpone with even the smallest amount of evidence against the landlord, fabricated or not.

Maybe Kingston is an anomaly or the system moves more quickly in smaller areas. Although I've heard similar horror stories about tenants from former coworkers in Peterborough.

Interesting.

Here, hearings are usually scheduled within a week. More capacity in the tribunals here I guess?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Quebec is probably the most extreme anti-landlord jurisdiction on the continent.

I've heard that it can take months to evict someone for non-payment of rent and that landlords often never get the money back there.

Takes a couple months if you're lucky.

The thing is, the Régie du Logement audience you're getting (that takes a couple months to get) is not a session where there's any time to spare. These audiences are always running late on their "court list" for the day, and the time allocated to each case is limited.

Normally, it's very straightforward -- the typical case is that only the landlord is there in person, the tenant is missing or has fled already. So the régisseur asks to see proof of all communications (usually the landlord's paid a bailiff to stick something officially on the door of the empty apt, the tenant is deemed to have received it), landlord under oath declares which months are unpaid, régisseur says "you're receive the decision in the mail in a couple weeks", then... Next!

But a tenant can game the system easily.

I had a Colombian tenant who wasn't paying... he had a complicated story (also spoke very little French and no English, to make matters even more complicated) so the régisseur said "we have no time for that today" (audiences are always over-crowded, as I said) so the "complicated cases" are put on another circuit that takes another couple months to get a "special audience with enough time allocated to discuss a complicated case"!!!

(Thank God most tenants aren't aware of that.... it's such an easy loophole!)

In the case of that Colombian guy, he had taken the initiative of trying to help, and had painted lots of stuff (including parts of the building's exterior) doing a horrible job, with inappropriate colors. In his head, I was owing him for his time and paint... in mine, I was willing to forgive him for the damage, at most.

So, it wasn't as simple as "rent isn't paid", because he was fighting back... (his position was "rent was paid in labor, and actually I did so much that the landlord is the one owing me at the moment, not the other way around") and just for fighting back, he gained a couple months right there.

The example I used with the RdL régisseur: "okay, let's say I spot your car in the parking right now, and decide to paint it flashy pink -- roller painted, mind you, not spray-painted -- THEN I charge you both the cost of the paint (I chose to use extremely high-quality pink paint, 'cause you know, why not) and my time... are you going to PAY me for that? You're more likely to not only not give me a penny, but also to sue me...

That Colombian guy lived in the apt (with all utilities included) for free for a few months before I could throw him out legally.

It's quite rare that I had to do everything fully legally, I often could negotiate something with the tenants, but that guy was the anal type who will sue you at the slightest little chance you give him...

Nowadays we basically don't have tenants like that any more... sticking with UdeS students, at least those will need a good name later in life and are aware of how important it is.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by lio45

FYI, you're not yet "screwed over".

"Screwer over" would be that your story ends with an Ontario court ruling in favor of the management company, against you. (i.e. dismisses your case.)

From what you've said so far, you're not going to get screwed over.

You're technically right; however it is having an impact on my cash flow. I got paid today (from my job) but because I'm currently missing almost $2000, I'm only able to make minimum payments on my credit card this month.

There's also legal costs if I pursue legal action.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

That is very surprising actually. In Toronto it can take MONTHS (like, 4+) to get a non-paying tenant out. And it's virtually impossible during winter time. Almost everyone I know who rents out a second suite has horror stories, usually which end in having to take the unit for "personal use" and having it empty for several months.

I can't see how it could be done in a month here as it's next to impossible to even get a hearing scheduled for less than a month in advance. And they are ridiculously easy to postpone with even the smallest amount of evidence against the landlord, fabricated or not.

Sounds like Quebec!

But at least, given equal eviction timelines, in Toronto you're going to lose at least one less month worth of rent, 'cause you usually have at least one month's deposit, right?

The cruel irony is that it's IMO really harming the people it's trying to protect... there are so many people nowadays that we won't let in -- too risky. I know many landlords who are doing the same. So the only apts available for "risky" tenants (made risky by the super strong legal protections they enjoy) are usually very slummy (because no one's crazy enough to let them in anything nice).

Go sleep under a bridge or something, 'cause if we let you in, we'll be stuck with you for months... I'd rather continue to leave the unit empty until I find a non-risky tenant.

I can't even begin to count the number of people yearly (in downtown Sherbrooke) that we're refusing to let in our units...

By comparison, under Arkansas laws, we would probably try nearly all of them. And who knows, maybe some of them would turn out to be good tenants. Those who don't would be evicted at next to no cost in barely over a week...... so why not "try" them. The risk is almost nil. We'd give them all their chance.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

You're technically right; however it is having an impact on my cash flow. I got paid today (from my job) but because I'm currently missing almost $2000, I'm only able to make minimum payments on my credit card this month.

There's also legal costs if I pursue legal action.

They'll end up paying all of your costs... But I'd say you're in a good position to likely obtain success by simply threatening them, without having to actually spend money on legal action.

They should know you're going to win and they'll end up having to pay you every penny of your costs and damages and all.

Sucks for your cashflow, but you can tell them that, and it's even more pressure on them (it's clearly part of the extra annoyance for which you'll ask for damages when you'll sue them).

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by lio45

They'll end up paying all of your costs... But I'd say you're in a good position to likely obtain success by simply threatening them, without having to actually spend money on legal action.

They should know you're going to win and they'll end up having to pay you every penny of your costs and damages and all.

Sucks for your cashflow, but you can tell them that, and it's even more pressure on them (it's clearly part of the extra annoyance for which you'll ask for damages when you'll sue them).

I'm going to wait and see what my company may be able to do. If they're not able to, then I will likely theaten legal action.

I'm guessing this company is not used to getting those kinds of threats. A lot of their tenants, from my understanding, are recent immigrants and many are likely unaware of their rights in Ontario.

[manny_santos]

Update: I've filed a formal complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB). Though this company is not a BBB member, they still may be able to help.

Failing that, I have court documents ready to submit to Ontario Superior Court at anytime.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Update: I've filed a formal complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB). Though this company is not a BBB member, they still may be able to help.

Failing that, I have court documents ready to submit to Ontario Superior Court at anytime.

'atta boy! usually a written warning from a lawyer is enough.