You can do whatever you like. But keep in mind that in Ontario, leases roll over automatically. In your situation, the tenant would become month to month.oakvilles wrote: ↑ I'm in Oakville. I was wondering if 1-year leases is the minimum, or if it's possible to rent out a property for 6 months or 9 months? I think likely executives who are moving to the area for just a short while might be interested, so it would be a limited pool of potential renters I would be looking at. But I was wondering if this is even possible in the first place?
Which is absolutely **** hilarious. Imagine signing a contract and then being able to choose wether to abide by the terms or not while being able to force the other guy to abide by the terms convenient for you. I truly believe only imbeciles become landlords under these regulations.CNeufeld wrote: ↑ You can do whatever you like. But keep in mind that in Ontario, leases roll over automatically. In your situation, the tenant would become month to month.
You can still force the tenant out if you want it for your own use, but you would have to provide proper notice, and you'd have to pay one month's compensation to the tenant.
Keep in mind that that's kind of a worst-case scenario. If the tenant signed a lease for 6 or 9 months, they very well might move out at that time. It's just that they don't have to, if they decide to continue.
C
BAM amazing strategy. Mind blown.CNeufeld wrote: ↑ BTW, you MIGHT be able to get around this by leasing the property to a corporation or person that you trust to end the lease when they're supposed to, who can then sublet the apartment to the tenant. AFAIK, subleases ARE allowed to have fixed end date, and in fact, MUST end before the end of the original lease. You'd want to run that by a lawyer, though...
C
It has also greatly restricted supply so anyone who was a landlord of a condo in Toronto for the last 5 years has made $300,000 just from appreciation, then another $60,000 from mortgage pay down. Not to mention probably $500 or more in positive monthly cash flow. Pretty good for an imbecile.Applesmack wrote: ↑ Which is absolutely **** hilarious. Imagine signing a contract and then being able to choose wether to abide by the terms or not while being able to force the other guy to abide by the terms convenient for you. I truly believe only imbeciles become landlords under these regulations.
Wow, if this works that's a really neat workaround I didn't know about. I will definitely keep this in mind if I ever need to do short-term leases in the future! Are you allowed to lease it to family members too? (I'd have zero worries if the lease were made out to one of my parents or in-laws, but not sure if that would seem sketchy and too obvious of a workaround...if it has to be non-family, that might make things a bit more difficult to make sure both sides are safely covered.)CNeufeld wrote: ↑ BTW, you MIGHT be able to get around this by leasing the property to a corporation or person that you trust to end the lease when they're supposed to, who can then sublet the apartment to the tenant. AFAIK, subleases ARE allowed to have fixed end date, and in fact, MUST end before the end of the original lease. You'd want to run that by a lawyer, though...
Actually it's really not that bad if you rent to higher quality tenants and make them go through a stringent screening process (in most horror stories I read online, it's either because they're renting to poor quality tenants in bad areas, or the landlords did not do a good job screening tenants). It's also important to be thoroughly familiar with the laws in your province so you aren't caught by surprise. Besides, Ontario laws are much more favourable to landlords than Quebec's. It's definitely a lot of work being a landlord, but the financial payoff makes it well worth it--it's still a lot more money for a lot less effort compared to my day job, so can't complain!Applesmack wrote: ↑ Which is absolutely **** hilarious. Imagine signing a contract and then being able to choose wether to abide by the terms or not while being able to force the other guy to abide by the terms convenient for you. I truly believe only imbeciles become landlords under these regulations.
Not at all.Applesmack wrote: ↑ Which is absolutely **** hilarious. Imagine signing a contract and then being able to choose wether to abide by the terms or not while being able to force the other guy to abide by the terms convenient for you. I truly believe only imbeciles become landlords under these regulations.
Insurance companies typically don't allow homes to remain vacant for more than 60-90 days without a massive increase in the insurance cost. Some won't even insure it beyond that. Also during that 60 or 90 days you must be checking on it extremely frequently for the insurance to be valid. What insurance company are you with that allows you to do that without a massive rise in the policy cost? I am curious for one of the properties I own that will soon have a vacancy.happyflower25 wrote: ↑ My property isn't in Oakville (it's in Ottawa) but my experience should still apply. I was able to rent out my detached home for a 6 month lease. I hired a realtor to find a tenant and it took about a month in a "hot" rental market. Most people were looking for at least a 1-year lease and were turned away by the fact I wasn't able to offer a lease for that long. We had already offered the rent at a couple hundred/month below market value as incentive for the short lease.
It would be worth calculating if it's worth it to even rent the property for that short of time. If using a realtor the going rate is about 1 month's rent commission. Then if you want to move back into the property at the end of the lease you have to pay the tenants 1 month's rent. I figured as long as any potential repairs due to the tenants living there was less than the 4 months of rent it was worth having someone living there.
One thing I was surprised at is how reluctant my insurance company was to insure for a less than 1 year lease. They said their policy is to only insure for leases of at lease 1 year of length since tenant turnover is a big risk for them. They would have preferred I have the house vacant instead of short term tenants. With explanations of why I wanted a 6 month lease they were able to get special approval from their underwriter to allow the 6 month term. So check with your insurance before you start looking for a tenant.
It is called personal responsibility. A fully grown adult should be responsive for making their own decisions. A contract that isn't allowed under Ontario law should make the entire contract invalid. Meaning both parties should go back to the same situation they were before contact was signed. As a result the tenant should no longer be a tenant. Right now what it does is abuse unknowing landlords who lend out their units under certain terms and are shocked when they find out those terms don't need to be abided by yet the bullshit Ontario rules are applied to them when they specifically don't want them.
Oh yes it IS that bad. There are people out there who just go from rental unit to rental unit and never pay rent. They just abuse the legal process by delaying and delaying. When they are finally evicted they just go to their next victim. Where is the protection from landlords against these predators? There are plenty of ways to falsify documents. Furthermore why is it such a bitch to get damages from tenants who trash the unit? The fact that damage deposits are illegal is ridiculous. Hence I restate my statement that anyone renting out an RTA protected unit is an embicile. Any profit you make is under extreme risk and not worth it. You get one wrong person and you will be down tens of thousands of dollars.jk9088 wrote: ↑ Wow, if this works that's a really neat workaround I didn't know about. I will definitely keep this in mind if I ever need to do short-term leases in the future! Are you allowed to lease it to family members too? (I'd have zero worries if the lease were made out to one of my parents or in-laws, but not sure if that would seem sketchy and too obvious of a workaround...if it has to be non-family, that might make things a bit more difficult to make sure both sides are safely covered.)
Actually it's really not that bad if you rent to higher quality tenants and make them go through a stringent screening process (in most horror stories I read online, it's either because they're renting to poor quality tenants in bad areas, or the landlords did not do a good job screening tenants). It's also important to be thoroughly familiar with the laws in your province so you aren't caught by surprise. Besides, Ontario laws are much more favourable to landlords than Quebec's. It's definitely a lot of work being a landlord, but the financial payoff makes it well worth it--it's still a lot more money for a lot less effort compared to my day job, so can't complain!
...unless a unit was first rented as a residential space after November 15, 2018, restrictions on rent increases will continue to apply once a tenant takes occupancy.
I wish it were as simple as that.Applesmack wrote: ↑ It is called personal responsibility. A fully grown adult should be responsive for making their own decisions. A contract that isn't allowed under Ontario law should make the entire contract invalid. Meaning both parties should go back to the same situation they were before contact was signed. As a result the tenant should no longer be a tenant. Right now what it does is abuse unknowing landlords who lend out their units under certain terms and are shocked when they find out those terms don't need to be abided by yet the bullshit Ontario rules are applied to them when they specifically don't want them.
