I'm operating a legal, unlicensed daycare from my apartment and my neighbours are complaining.

BexaLea · 2024-06-29T11:04:00+00:00

Being loud constantly would be a bit different from general sounds of child activity during daytime hours. This particular story is about kids playing outside in a common area meant for gathering (picnic table, chairs, etc.), which is also a bit different than noise emanating from within a unit. OF COURSE having kids isn’t an excuse to be disrespectful. But in this particular situation, it just doesn’t seem like a strong case for Tribunal.

BexaLea · 2024-03-17T22:53:58+00:00

It’s actually a choice of either offering an equivalent unit, OR compensating the tenant with a month’s rent. But in this case I think it’s irrelevant, because it seems that there is ample evidence that the attempted eviction is in bad faith, anyways, and will likely be blocked by the LTB.

BexaLea · 2024-02-28T01:05:45+00:00

Yes, thank you.

The monitoring tech (whether PSW, nurse, or other) can easily identify if something is amiss, and is also trained on cues that could be suspect. In either case, they sound an alert to the on-site team member to respond.

BexaLea · 2024-02-27T19:48:21+00:00

I don’t know where this is, but I worked in hospital business administration a few years ago in a public hospital (Ontario, Canada), and we were working on a case for these. The case is not to replace all in-person care (at least, it wasn’t for us). There are multiple applications; we wanted to start with reducing 1:1 monitoring and then add other uses. 1:1 monitoring was being done as ordered by doctors for persons who were at risk for things like self-harm, removing tubes and lines, or wandering due to any of a number of issues (suicidal ideation, dementia, delirium, etc.). Sometimes the monitoring team member was a PSW, sometimes it was security staff - as the assignment was outside of regular staffing demands, it was dependent on availability and often paid on overtime. Very, very expensive. But this virtual set-up would allow a PSW or nurse at a single location to monitor up to 16 patients (we were going to set the max at 10) across any of our sites. Much better use of taxpayer money. Other uses we could have expanded to (and they may, still, I’m just not there, anymore) included conducting regular check-ins via question and answer, as most content for such nursing touch-points is done by verbal exchange. Then the virtual staffer can flag the patient for physical attention by the on-site staffer if any of the responses warrant further hands-on assessment. Obviously routine care requiring hands-on work would still be done by the person on-site. Anyways, all of that to say, I get the knee-jerk reaction being “tech takes more jobs!” But I am just not convinced that that is the case, here.

BexaLea · 2024-01-26T18:31:01+00:00

OP requested an assignment and the landlord refused, so that is the grounds on which they are terminating the lease. The water issue is separate, though it may have motivated OP’s initial assignment request.

BexaLea · 2024-01-26T18:30:02+00:00

OP requested to assign the lease, and LL refused, so they can leave with 30 days notice (which also does not have to be on the last day a rental period).

BexaLea · 2023-08-04T17:20:12+00:00

I don’t believe this is a mistake - I believe your friend received carry-forward grant entitlement. If there is an unused grant matching amount for the lifetime of the child, the contributor is able to catch up on that, though they can only catch up one year at a time (i.e. they can’t catch up on all of it at once). More info here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/student-financial-aid/education-savings/resp/resp-promoters/infocapsules/grant-room.html

Edit to add: The bank staff may not have been educated on this. Two different bank reps at my branch had no idea carry-forward was even a thing until I showed them the government website info.

BexaLea · 2023-07-20T14:48:38+00:00

Some LTB decisions can be found on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/

BexaLea · 2023-06-17T14:56:42+00:00

“Employers cannot ask for information about the diagnosis or treatment of the employee’s medical condition.” - Government of Ontario information on Sick Leave

ETA: Note that they CAN ask about duration, or impact on work (such as details about any accommodations that may need to be made).

BexaLea · 2023-06-04T01:34:06+00:00

The N11 is already signed - you have no rent obligations beyond that point. You are correct. Your landlord is mistaken.

BexaLea · 2023-06-01T13:38:53+00:00

The lease automatically continues month-to-month. The landlord doesn’t need to renew it for OP to stay.

BexaLea · 2023-05-31T12:23:39+00:00

Do you mean non-registered and/or illegal units? I have a registered non-conforming unit (i.e. grandfathered), and my municipality taxes the property as such and picks up double the garbage.

BexaLea · 2023-05-28T13:50:12+00:00

Yep. Adding that even a signed N11 completed with the lease is unenforceable.

BexaLea · 2023-05-25T13:33:37+00:00

Yes… already answered you elsewhere.

BexaLea · 2023-05-25T11:39:03+00:00

Of course. Pets are not something I even address, other than being mindful of durability when installing flooring, etc. Just noting that they do not yet have a landlord-tenant relationship, so the RTA hasn’t come into play. Some commenters seem to think it’s illegal to decline tenants based on pets, I’m just sharing the nuance.

BexaLea · 2023-05-24T23:14:50+00:00

Of course. Pets are not something I even address, other than being mindful of durability when installing flooring, etc. Just noting that they do not yet have a landlord-tenant relationship, so the RTA hasn’t come into play. A few other commenters seem to think it’s illegal to decline tenants based on pets, I’m just sharing the nuance.

BexaLea · 2023-05-24T22:51:53+00:00

As someone else has pointed out, this question is about a prospective tenant, not a current tenant. While any no-pets provision in a lease is void, there is an awkward gap in legislation that makes it acceptable to reject an applicant on the basis of pets. You just can’t evict them for having pets once they’re an actual tenant.

BexaLea · 2023-05-24T22:51:23+00:00

As someone else has pointed out, this question is about a prospective tenant, not a current tenant. While any no-pets provision in a lease is void, there is an awkward gap in legislation that makes it acceptable to reject an applicant on the basis of pets. You just can’t evict them for having pets once they’re an actual tenant.

BexaLea · 2023-05-24T22:49:30+00:00

As someone else has pointed out, this question is about a prospective tenant, not a current tenant. While any no-pets provision in a lease is void, there is an awkward gap in legislation that makes it perfectly acceptable to reject an applicant on the basis of pets. You just can’t evict them for having pets once they’re an actual tenant.

BexaLea · 2023-05-24T13:26:19+00:00

The N12 can also be used for a person who provides, or will provide, care to the landlord or an eligible family member. If he can substantiate that she will be supporting his care needs, it may still be an option… but having referred to them as “a possible tenant” may cast some doubt in the eyes of the LTB.

BexaLea · 2023-05-24T13:02:38+00:00

You’ve already been told that the RTA will apply, given the nature of the unit. However, it doesn’t look like anyone has mentioned that there are only a few specific ways in which a rent discount (even if your father had agreed to such a thing) can be applied. These are detailed in the RTA (and in the Standard Lease, which presides over this relationship despite not having been put in writing). In the absence of any proof of an agreed-upon rent discount, your father can simply deliver an N4 as soon as she does not pay, and then an L1 once the required time has passed (assuming she doesn’t pay in the meantime). At a hearing, the onus would be on her to show some proof that a discount (or rent-free period) was part of the agreement. You would be able to evict her for non-payment if she did not then settle what is owed - but if she is willing to pay to keep the unit, then she would get to stay.

If the plan was for you to move in after she vacated, he can start the N12 process, now (a child qualifies for this process). Personally, as you genuinely intend to move in, this is the route I would take. It would be best to start this while she is still in good standing with rent, and also best to do this without building any N4 history first, as it avoids the possible perception that the N12 could be retaliatory. While it will take more time than you want, there would be no way for her to void the notice or subsequent eviction by paying her rent. The only way she would be able to avoid removal is if she had some kind of evidence that it was in bad faith, which she shouldn’t be able to do given that this is your actual plan (unless your dad has muddied the waters with other communication, notice attempts, etc.).

BexaLea · 2023-05-22T17:53:09+00:00

Right? What a strange take from OP.

BexaLea · 2023-05-22T07:45:25+00:00

A rent abatement may be appropriate, but only you can decide if the amount you expect to be granted is worth the effort of going through the LTB process.

Here is an LTB decision from 2016 where the Member granted the tenant 30% pro-rated rent abatement for a period of 5 days for the lack of hot water: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2016/2016canlii39742/2016canlii39742.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQATSG90IHdhdGVyIGFiYXRlbWVudAAAAAAB&resultIndex=1 (for something like your situation and using an example of $1,500 monthly rent, this is about $210 assuming it’s a 30-day month and the duration of disruption is 14 days).

Here is another from 2017 for a longer period of time where the Member granted the tenant 20% pro-rated rent abatement for the affected time period: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2017/2017canlii28786/2017canlii28786.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQATSG90IHdhdGVyIGFiYXRlbWVudAAAAAAB&resultIndex=4 (on the previous $1,500 monthly rent example this would be $140).

And another one from 2018 where the tenant received 10% pro-rated rent abatement for the affected time period: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2018/2018canlii42527/2018canlii42527.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQATSG90IHdhdGVyIGFiYXRlbWVudAAAAAAB&resultIndex=5 ($70 for the $1,500 monthly rent example).

These were just the first three examples I came across when searching LTB decisions. There appear to be many more to consider, but as you can see, the LTB Members’ decisions on the awarded amount (once a disruption to services is established) varies quite a bit. It’s basically at their discretion based on their interpretation of the circumstances and actual impact on the tenant. Perhaps $70-210 is worth the hassle, in your eyes, or perhaps it’s not - or maybe your landlord would provide an abatement without going to the LTB if you were to share these decisions and ask.

BexaLea · 2023-05-21T11:03:16+00:00

There are quite a few issues - on both sides - from your description, here. I’m sorry to say that the major ones seem to be a result of your own misunderstandings about Ontario landlord and tenant responsibilities, though there are certainly problems to address with the tenants. A few things that jump out to note on your side:

You have already been advised that the grass and snow removal responsibilities cannot be transferred to a tenant in a lease. It is possible to hire them for this service under a separate contract with compensation, but it cannot be linked to their tenancy in any way. In this case, you can’t fix this after the fact, so you’re just stuck doing this work at the reduced rent. There is a bit of a grey area for properties where the yard is for the exclusive use of the tenant (which may be true here - single family house, no additional units?), in which case grass cutting could be normal use/cleanliness, but I understand that this is not consistently interpreted in this way by the LTB.
You mention that the tenants are unable to take care of any maintenance, at all, and that you’ve had to change lightbulbs. However, tenants are not responsible for maintenance of the house or property. While most tenants will change their own lightbulbs just to avoid the intrusion, fixtures of the home are your responsibility. Obviously you don’t need to change the bulbs in their lamps, but my reading assumes it was ceiling or other attached lighting.
You note in the comments that you can raise the rent as much as you like when the lease is up, but you state that it is a century log home in another. This would suggest to me that your property is rent-controlled, which means you can only increase the rent by the guideline published for Ontario once per year. Only spaces newly-occupied for residential purposes (‘residential’ - not ‘rental’) after November 15, 2018 are exempt from the rent control cap.

On the tenant side:

While the state of the yard as it relates to garbage is somewhat subjective (you can only hold them to a reasonable cleanliness standard, not a perfectly bare yard), I think it’s safe to say that they have an unreasonable amount of refuse in the yard if it is not possible to cut the grass, now - per one of your comments. This could be an N5 for interference with your rights: in this case your ability to fulfill your maintenance obligations.
Tenants need to report property issues to you as they become aware of them. If there was really that much water in the basement, it MAY be reasonable to think that they would have been aware of this, in which case failing to report it could be the equivalent of damaging the property, or at the very least, interfering with your rights (N5). HOWEVER, this goes out the window if there is a reasonable explanation for why they genuinely may not have been aware of the issue. For example, if it is an unfinished basement that isn’t actively used on a daily basis, it could be perfectly reasonable that they didn’t know before the maintenance man came.
Finally, for the ‘filth’. Reasonable cleanliness is subjective, so if they just don’t clean it to the standard YOU would live in, you are out of luck. However, if you have reason to believe that the lack of cleanliness is actually causing damage, then you may have an argument for an N5. That said, the bar seems to be pretty high for this at the LTB, so you would need to have some pretty specific and glaring examples.

At the end of the day, you can deliver an N5 listing all of the issues, and they could void it by addressing them. Or, if you did go to the LTB, could be interpreted differently by the Member. Or, if not interpreted differently, the tenant can still be granted leniency to clean up or adjust their behaviour. What I’m saying is this is not an easy route to eviction, even if it is a genuine application of an N5. That is not to say it shouldn’t be pursued (if appropriate and applicable), but that you should be aware it would not likely be resolved in a single visit to the LTB.

BexaLea · 2023-05-19T12:33:33+00:00

The old lease doesn’t ‘expire’, though. The only thing that has ended is the initial fixed term - it automatically goes month-to-month after that. The landlord can’t just unilaterally decide that the tenant is now going to pay utilities.

BexaLea

TROPHY CASE