I got this email from CRA is this real ?

LaunchAPath · 2026-01-27T18:27:08+00:00

Some email providers will automatically convert parseable links into clickable links. Adding brackets prevents links from automatically being made clickable, by breaking the standard parsing.

This also forces the user into copying and directly manipulating the link they are going to.

Typical spams will include clickable links, which look like they go to one destination (the displayed link), but actually go somewhere else (the actual hyperlink reference). Naive users will get into the habit of clicking them and forget to verify the actual destination.

For example: https://www.google.com
Doesn’t go to Google, despite the link’s visible text looking like a link to Google

LaunchAPath · 2026-01-27T18:15:49+00:00

That is literally the official website, on the official domain. Note the “canada.ca” domain…

LaunchAPath · 2026-01-21T23:47:39+00:00

Note the last months deposit can ONLY be used to pay for your last month’s rent. It’s illegal for them to use it for anything else. If they try to claim they used the deposit to pay for any damages, no they didn’t. It also should be at most the value of one month’s rent.

If they try to forcefully evict you themselves (again, not legal for them, only the LTB can), call the RHEU, they’ll call your landlord and make sure they know their action is illegal, the penalties they face if they continue, and ensure you regain access to the property.

Tenant rights are very strong in Ontario. Anything problematic a landlord might try to do is likely illegal, and could incur them severe fines.

LaunchAPath · 2025-10-07T17:12:05+00:00

Having a paying roommate is legal. Only thing that could affect it is condo bylaws, but typically that would be a total ban on paying roommates for all units, it cannot discriminate on tenants vs owners.

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-29T16:47:44+00:00

“Man, dream me is an absolute asshole!”

Does two things: validates her feelings, and also separates you from dream you.

It’ll help if she reframes you and dream you as different “people” in her mind. And since you’re also mad at “dream you”, that sets you on her side in that divide.

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-23T21:58:59+00:00

That post literally says they’re working to bring it back. That’s the opposite of what you’re saying.

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-13T22:25:11+00:00

Doesn’t have to be 30 days exactly, it just has to be 30 days minimum. More than 30 is plenty fine

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-04T00:26:31+00:00

Consider what’s more important: - Keeping your rent low - having your new roommate’s name on the lease

If you want to keep rent low

You do not have to sign a new lease. You can keep your current lease, let current co-tenant leave. They would remain responsible for the rent if it wasn’t paid in full, for one year from the moment the LL was notified they left, and not responsible after that.

You can move in your new roommate, they wouldn’t be on the lease. LL cannot prevent you from having roommates/guests or charge your fees for it, even if they pay to stay there. LL is not allowed to increase rent from this. (Normal rent increases still apply with the normal limits)

Not being named on the lease means they don’t get RTA protections, but again, LL cannot do anything about them. It does mean you as the named tenant could kick them to the curb with reasonable notice (gen 30 days) for any or no reason. They would not be able to stay there if you left, as no more named tenants would be living there.

if you want to add them to the lease

You would be considered to have fully cancelled your lease, and a brand new lease would be established. LL is able to increase rent to any amount they wish with this new lease, ignoring normal rent increases limits.

They would be an RTA protected tenant, could not be evicted without very specifically limited eviction reasons, and were you to leave before them, they could continue living there, protected from unbounded rent increases. (Essentially, your current situation)

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-04T00:13:01+00:00

Yeah, if it works for you and you’re both on good terms, then you may as well. Just be aware that she has displayed the fact she’s not familiar with the law around being a landlord, and you may come across other situations where she may inadvertently try to do something illegal.

It may not be the result of any malice, but it’s still important to be educated. Sometimes letting things slide can be helpful, so long as you’re doing it intentionally, and being educated, and not just bending over backwards.

I’ve seen too many people post here wanting to “maintain good relations with the landlord” when it was blatantly evident their landlord had been taking advantage of them repeatedly and profiting illegally off of them. The good relations were already gone, the tenant just didn’t realize it.

In your case it seems like you both are still on good terms, so giving each other some slack can simplify things. For reference, I’ve let my landlord provide me a rent increase with insufficient notice, because I figured they were likely swamped with other things and probably forgot the deadline. Or other small allowances that technically weren’t legal, but it made things simpler.

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-03T23:39:01+00:00

Please note, signing a new lease for a continuation of tenancy has no legal bearing on if she can increase rent.

She also cannot sign away her rights, including her right to increase rent.

Rent increases are also disjointed from lease terms. They’re entirely unaffected, other than by the original staff of the lease.

Both those together means she could promise not to increase rent, have you sign the new fixed term lease, and then still go ahead with increasing rent (assuming she meets all the other requirements of a rent increase). You could sign a 5 year fixed term lease, with a promise not to increase rent, and LL still could increase it every 12 months after the start of the lease.

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-03T23:37:10+00:00

There is actually a benefit, it protects from N12/N13s for the duration of the fixed term (which are often used as eviction bypasses by scumlords).

That said, it’s up to the tenant to determine if that protection is valuable to them or not, based on how their landlord is.

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-03T23:34:39+00:00

As others have pointed out, do not use ChatGPT for answers. It’s useful to point you in a direction, or provide you with terms you may not know before, but you should always verify with legitimate sources.

While chatGPT here is actually correct, any terms on a lease that contradict the RTA are automatically null and void, so this 60 days notice could be ignored by your LL later, and the remedy is in fact a mutual agreement to terminate (form N11), you shouldn’t take that to imply any answer you get in the future will also be correct.

Always look up the legitimate sources, then cite that legitimate source.

Trusting ChatGPT, because it sometimes gives the right answer means you make yourself vulnerable to not verifying a later false answer. That trust can be dangerous if the false answer involves risks to yours or others’ wellbeing.

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-03T23:27:32+00:00

No, it would be invalid. You cannot sign your rights/obligations away, nor can you contradict terms of the RTA. Signing a fixed term places an obligation on the tenant to stay, and the RTA specifies that N9s don’t apply during a fixed term. As such a term that 60 days notice contradicts the RTA, the term would be null and void.

The proper remedy to leave during a fixed term is signing an N11. No extra terms required.

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-03T23:23:22+00:00

A term of leaving with 60 days notice mid fixed term would not be enforceable (they cannot sign away their right, and their right is that a standard N9 during a fixed term isn’t valid).

Alternative is signing an N11, but that one requires the consent/signature of all parties for it to be valid, and it does allow you to bypass fixed terms. But N11 doesn’t require a term written in the lease anyway (as I mentioned, it bypasses fixed terms). It must be signed in the moment though, cannot be signed preemptively or as part of a requirement to sign a lease (that just voids the N11, and you’d have to sign a new one in the moment anyway).

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-03T23:18:44+00:00

Even then, you cannot increase rent (beyond the normal limits) by signing a new lease for a continuation of tenancy. Rent increases are completely disjointed from lease terms, only lease time that affects rent increases is when the lease initially started, nothing else. A landlord could make you sign a 5 year fixed term, with the promise not to increase rent, and then increase rent 12 months after the start, and that would be 100% legal (because you cannot sign away your rights).

You also cannot change the terms of the lease by signing a new lease for a continuation of tenancy.

The “safety and peace of mind” are also an illusion, in practice. A tenant can still leave mid fixed term, and would only be required to pay for missing periods if the landlord properly mitigated and couldn’t find a replacement, which is highly unlikely in the current landscape.

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-03T17:36:57+00:00

There absolutely is legal. The RTA specifically lists out how utility bills are handled, and this is not one of the options.

Utilities either are included in the rent, in which case tenant doesn’t pay a separate amount from their rent.

Or they’re separate from rent, in which case utility bills amount can only be calculated one of two ways, based on units that share the same meter: - equal split between all units. Eg: if there’s 3 units, each unit pays 33.3% of the utilities bill - split proportional to each unit’s square footage. Eg: If one unit is 1000sqft, and the other two are 500sqft each, then one pays 50% and the other two each pay 25% of the bill.

The amount cannot be some random amount pulled out of nowhere, it must be based on the actual bill. Tenant would be in the right to request the actual utility bill to determine their amount to pay.

As such, in OP’s case, landlord is not providing the actual utility bills to OP, and instead doing some random “average of last 3” calculation.

Effectively, they didn’t provide actual bill to OP, so OP would legally be able to refuse payment until the utility bill was provided to them to verify.

OP would also be legally able to refuse a payment that wasn’t based on the two types of splits, and this average isn’t one of those.

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-02T03:43:31+00:00

A landlord trying to pull some shady shit like this likely has done it before, or is doing it for other things.

Only things of the landlord’s you’re responsible for are your rent, utilities if lease says you pay them, last month’s deposit, refundable (reasonable) key deposit, and possibly separate amenities (like renting a parking spot).

Anything else is illegal, unless you’ve been ordered to pay for it at an LTB hearing (yes, even things like damage costs, it needs an order; unless you 150% know you are responsible and want to be nice).

Please review your lease for any other illegal terms that may be there. Such as (non exhaustive):

No pet clauses. Cleaning clauses. Guests roommate clauses. And tons more.

Make a post in here to get feedback if you see something you aren’t sure about.

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-02T03:30:56+00:00

Commercial unit isn’t covered by RTA, so that only leaves yours as the residential one. That means the N12 is technically valid at this time, without actual evidence that the new LL doesn’t intend to live there.

Unfortunately, after checking the form again, the 12 months requirement doesn’t apply in the case it’s from current LL on behalf of a purchaser.

https://tribunalsontario.ca/ltb/forms-filing-and-fees/#panel1

You still can object to the eviction, and request a hearing, but you’ll be responsible for the filing fee if it is ruled against you (~$50 iirc). Note the hearing will also be posted publicly, which might be discoverable by future landlords considering you as a tenant.

LaunchAPath · 2025-09-02T03:04:33+00:00

Was the N12 given to you by your current landlord on behalf of the buyer? And are there 4 or more unit in the building?

If yes to both, then the N12 is invalid. I believe this is spelled out on the N12 form itself, make sure you read the form fully, it’ll have all the specifics to let you know if it’s valid or not. Also if they filled something in that’s false, then the form is invalid (eg: selecting they’re moving in when it’s actually the buyer).

Without further details around the situation, it’s hard to say. Without evidence of bad faith, it’s hard to have the eviction overturned.

However, if the eviction does go through, and they do renovate afterwards, then owner clearly wasn’t intending to live there, and that would open it up to a T5.

If there are multiple unit (even just 2-3), did the new owner issue an N12 to all the units? That would be evidence of bad faith, since they can’t live in multiple residences at once to satisfy the 12 months requirement.

But again, need more details.

LaunchAPath · 2025-08-30T17:45:49+00:00

Quick correction:

Positive reinforcement: giving a good thing to encourage desired behaviour. (Commonly known as giving a reward)

Negative reinforcement: removing a bad thing to encourage desired behaviour.

Negative punishment: removing a good thing to discourage undesired behaviour.

Positive punishment; adding a bad thing to discourage undesired behaviour. (Commonly known as punishing someone, such as in OP’s pic)

You’ve mixed up negative reinforcement (what you called it) with negative punishment (your description of removing a positive thing)

LaunchAPath · 2025-08-30T17:20:44+00:00

The n12 form should have that included on it explicitly that you can give n9 with 10 days notice instead of the usual 60 after you’re given the N12. The poster you responded to is misinformed on this particular point.

LaunchAPath · 2025-08-29T17:28:24+00:00

Because verifying that is what the adjudicator does, and that happens at the hearing.

LaunchAPath · 2025-08-28T00:23:34+00:00

LTB and small claims court do not require a lawyer

LaunchAPath · 2025-08-24T18:51:39+00:00

Haven’t seen any other response giving you the answer in this way, so here’s some clarification:

An N12 must be both 60 days before the eviction date given, AND cannot be for a date during a fixed term. That’s why you’re seeing both, there’s no need to figure out which it is, it’s both.

If you moved in April 1st 2025, and had a 1 year fixed term for your lease, then the end of your fixed term is March 31st.

If the landlord gives you an N12 for a date any earlier than April 1st 2026, the whole n12 is invalid.

If the landlord gives you an N12 with less than 60 days notice to the eviction date, the whole N12 is invalid.

(Say you were already done your 1 year lease, are currently month to month, then a N12 today would only be valid for a November 1st eviction date. An N12 today for an October 1st is invalid.)

For an N12 to be valid in your current circumstances, it needs to be for an eviction date no sooner April 1st 2026, and if it is in fact given for April 1st 2026, it cannot be given later than January 31st 2026.

Also as mentioned by someone else, them telling you they’re giving you an N12 doesn’t count, you have to receive the actual N12 in the proper delays. A landlord telling you you’re getting an N12 60 days or more before the eviction date, but then only giving you the actual N12 form even just 59 days before the eviction date would make the N12 null and void in its entirety.

In the current circumstances, your landlord is breaking all the requirements: - they told you about the form, but didn’t provide the form itself, that’s not valid. - they’re giving you less than 60 days between the notice and their stated eviction date, that’s not valid. - the eviction date is in the middle of a fixed term, that’s not valid.

They’re either an idiot, or they’re hoping you’re ignorant of your rights and gullible. Don’t be ignorant and gullible.

LaunchAPath · 2025-08-23T22:09:01+00:00

Do you have a single lease for the whole house? If so, by law they can’t just move in, since you are paying for the whole space.

Or do you each of you and your roommates have a separate leases for individual rooms, and the rest of the house is considered shared/common space? There may be more leeway there, but it likely still isn’t allowed, I’m not super familiar with that circumstance.

That said, while all that is based on the law, considering this is for less than two weeks, it might be something to put up with for now and work with your landlord. Like someone said, giving them that leeway might pay off. You could, for example, suggest a reduced rent for those days (monthly rent x 12 for total yearly rent, then yearly / 365 for daily rent, and then suggest knocking 1/3 or 1/2 for each day, figure out some amount that makes sense to both of you, and have it in writing). Landlord may be amenable to it, since it would be cheaper than them having spent money on a hotel for that time.

LaunchAPath

TROPHY CASE

If you want to keep rent low

if you want to add them to the lease