Ontario standard lease to be used starting April 30

actually having standard is good idea, everything should be standardized if possible.

Time to jack up all those new rents another 20%! Tenants will be given the bill for all risks and costs the government throws on landlords. Hope renters are enjoying the $2000 for 1 bedroom rental market in Toronto right now.

divx wrote: ↑ actually having standard is good idea, everything should be standardized if possible.

Many people, both landlords and tenants, have very different desires and circumstances. Since we're talking about consenting adults, they should be allowed to enter into contracts that they can taylor to their needs.

We wouldn't stand for the government mandating a "standard apartment", would we?

Not a major difference, illegal clauses in leases were never upheld anyway

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ Many people, both landlords and tenants, have very different desires and circumstances. Since we're talking about consenting adults, they should be allowed to enter into contracts that they can taylor to their needs.

We wouldn't stand for the government mandating a "standard apartment", would we?

Don't give them any ideas....

rjg4235 wrote: ↑ Not a major difference, illegal clauses in leases were never upheld anyway

They aren't but the less informed people are easily taken advantage of. On the surface, to me at least, this sounds like a good thing. That being said, I have zero skin the in the game so I could be horribly wrong.

I do remember when I was University years ago, my wife(gf then) rented a place in Oakville. The landlord had rules in her agreement that people weren't allowed to stay over night among other things. I was in Guelph so when I'd go visit her on the weekends we'd generally end up back in Niagara since I was 'allowed' to stay at her place overnight. I eventually convinced her that it was OK for me to stay there overnight, but I still had to park my car a few blocks over.

Evil Baby wrote: ↑ They aren't but the less informed people are easily taken advantage of. On the surface, to me at least, this sounds like a good thing. That being said, I have zero skin the in the game so I could be horribly wrong.

I do remember when I was University years ago, my wife(gf then) rented a place in Oakville. The landlord had rules in her agreement that people weren't allowed to stay over night among other things. I was in Guelph so when I'd go visit her on the weekends we'd generally end up back in Niagara since I was 'allowed' to stay at her place overnight. I eventually convinced her that it was OK for me to stay there overnight, but I still had to park my car a few blocks over.

Call my cynical but I feel like if someone was less informed enough to sign an illegal lease before they will still be less informed enough to sign a non standard lease.

I'm a landlord and I think this is fine, probably even needed. Having said that, none of my leases have clauses in them that contravene the RTA to begin with.

Lots of landlords out there put clauses in them that are illegal and would become null and void if challenged, but there are many tenants who are uninformed and are not aware of their rights or are to timid to challenge it as they don't want to piss off their landlord.

However the lease the way it is being presented is pretty stupid. It will have an additional comments section where uninformed or unscrupulous landlords will put their illegal clauses back in and the standard lease essentially solves nothing. The clauses will just be moved to the additional comments section.

I wonder how much money the government spent trying to solve this problem, only to not fix it at all.

Interesting. You can provide rent discounts. Might be a good way to ensure good tenants while managing the stupid rent increase limits.

Set the rent high to begin with and:
- provide 3-months rent free for the first year, equalling a 25% discount
- provide an extra 2% discount for rent paid before it's due

Discount doesn't auto renew, and may not even necessarily be renewable without a new agreement upon which you could shift to a weekly or daily agreement, reducing notice to end tenancy to 28 days.

Also makes it easy to automatically exclude all utilities and consumptive services.

rjg4235 wrote: ↑ Call my cynical but I feel like if someone was less informed enough to sign an illegal lease before they will still be less informed enough to sign a non standard lease.

Fair enough, especially for new Canadians, however I feel like the media coverage of this and at some point the standard form will become so commonplace that hopefully most renters will at least know of its existence.

I agree with a standaized form is best.

However there are fundamental issues that I as a landlord don't like.

For example, I really don't want anyone smoking (tabacco, weed, salmon) in my unit. Because the smell lingers and almost impossible and costly to remove. Then also neighboring units will complain then management holds me responsible.

Same with pets. One of my previous tenants friends pet came to live with him and on the day of taking back my unit, I found the dog ripped up the floor carpet in multiple places and obviously shat on and peed on spots. I had to guess an amount to charge the tenant to replace it and luckily he paid willingly. All this could have been avoided if no pets were allowed and followed.

I never had a dog at my own house and never let anyone bring a dog. Why am I not allowed to enforce the same rule in a unit that I own??

You know what's coming next.

Landlord registration and yearly licence fees.


They are really gung ho on forcing landlords to stop and rent will sky rocket with the reduced supply.

In a city where demand is growing bigger every day since no one can afford a townhouse or house now.

Chickennbeans wrote: ↑ Interesting. You can provide rent discounts. Might be a good way to ensure good tenants while managing the stupid rent increase limits.

Set the rent high to begin with and:
- provide 3-months rent free for the first year, equalling a 25% discount
- provide an extra 2% discount for rent paid before it's due

Discount doesn't auto renew, and may not even necessarily be renewable without a new agreement upon which you could shift to a weekly or daily agreement, reducing notice to end tenancy to 28 days.

Also makes it easy to automatically exclude all utilities and consumptive services.

Clearly your not a landlord.

As a landlord why would I want to provide someone with a discount to pay early? Unless I am cash poor and need the money desperately there is no reason whatsoever, and in that case you shouldn't be a landlord anyway. Who even does this? Does Rogers, Bell or your bank offer a discount to pay your monthly bill a few days early?

And why in the world would I want to provide someone with 3 months free rent unless I was struggling to rent out my unit? The bad applicants are going to apply regardless anyways. As a landlord it's my job to weed out the bad ones from the good ones thru proper screening

fryguy1987 wrote: ↑ Clearly your not a landlord.

As a landlord why would I want to provide someone with a discount to pay early? Unless I am cash poor and need the money desperately there is no reason whatsoever, and in that case you shouldn't be a landlord anyway. Who even does this? Does Rogers, Bell or your bank offer a discount to pay your monthly bill a few days early?

And why in the world would I want to provide someone with 3 months free rent unless I was struggling to rent out my unit? The bad applicants are going to apply regardless anyways. As a landlord it's my job to weed out the bad ones from the good ones thru proper screening

Chickennbeans is outlining what a lot of the slumlords will do to circumvent the restrictions on rental increases. Instead of setting rent at $1,000 and increasing it in compliance with the law each year, the landlords will set it at something like $3,000 and offer a $2,000 'discount' which they can revoke at will to gouge their clients. This sort of behavior is what caused the government to end the self-regulated free rent increase period and extend the rent control law to all properties instead of just the pre-91 ones, and it will continue to provoke reaction from the government in the form of harsher crackdowns on landlords.

If these idiots would just respect the spirit of the law or exit the market if they can't compete then things would be better for everyone, but they continue to try and gouge people because they think being a landlord makes them special in some way.

rfdrfd wrote: ↑
I never had a dog at my own house and never let anyone bring a dog. Why am I not allowed to enforce the same rule in a unit that I own??

I've been somewhat lucky and unlucky in that regard. I've had several tenants move pets in after they moved in which was unlucky but on the other hand anyone who has done so has kept the place immaculate with no damage. I currently have 2 different tenants who both have small dogs but there is nothing I can do and I don't stress over it as they both keep the place immaculate. It also somewhat depends on the kind of rentals you have as well.

I feel that certain kind of rentals attract certain kind of tenants. Your obliviously not going to eliminate the problem entirely no matter how gorgeous your rentals are but chances are better that your going to attract people who have a desire to have a clean well cared for house when you are charging 2x the price then someone seeking a 1 bedroom basement apartment on the cheap.

My rule of thumb as a landlord is I would never buy something I would not live in myself and move my family into. I have passed on a few opportunities to buy what I refer to as "crackhouses" that cash flow well and are a good investment, but I have no desire to deal with the type of tenant pool that those rentals would attract.

Piro21 wrote: ↑ Chickennbeans is outlining what a lot of the slumlords will do to circumvent the restrictions on rental increases. Instead of setting rent at $1,000 and increasing it in compliance with the law each year, the landlords will set it at something like $3,000 and offer a $2,000 'discount' which they can revoke at will to gouge their clients. This sort of behavior is what caused the government to end the self-regulated free rent increase period and extend the rent control law to all properties instead of just the pre-91 ones, and it will continue to provoke reaction from the government in the form of harsher crackdowns on landlords.

If these idiots would just respect the spirit of the law or exit the market if they can't compete then things would be better for everyone, but they continue to try and gouge people because they think being a landlord makes them special in some way.

oh I missed the set it high part, I misread his post

rfdrfd wrote: ↑I never had a dog at my own house and never let anyone bring a dog. Why am I not allowed to enforce the same rule in a unit that I own??

You're allowed to enforce it in your personal property if you're not charging for rent. If you're running a business charging rent then you must follow all business regulations. If you don't want a dog in your house the answer is simple: don't rent it out or conduct any business activities with it.

fryguy1987 wrote: ↑ I've been somewhat lucky and unlucky in that regard. I've had several tenants move pets in after they moved in which was unlucky but on the other hand anyone who has done so has kept the place immaculate with no damage. I currently have 2 different tenants who both have small dogs but there is nothing I can do and I don't stress over it as they both keep the place immaculate. It also somewhat depends on the kind of rentals you have as well.

I feel that certain kind of rentals attract certain kind of tenants. Your obliviously not going to eliminate the problem entirely no matter how gorgeous your rentals are but chances are better that your going to attract people who have a desire to have a clean well cared for house when you are charging 2x the price then someone seeking a 1 bedroom basement apartment on the cheap.

My rule of thumb as a landlord is I would never buy something I would not live in myself and move my family into. I have passed on a few opportunities to buy what I refer to as "crackhouses" that cash flow well and are a good investment, but I have no desire to deal with the type of tenant pool that those rentals would attract.

What I've seen lately as a trend is most of the applicants are students. From overseas and their parents are wealthy and pay their rent. So they go to nice areas and rent.

Students are not young working professionals, and we all know they do things as students do. Pets, smoke, parties etc.

Piro21 wrote: ↑ You're allowed to enforce it in your personal property if you're not charging for rent. If you're running a business charging rent then you must follow all business regulations. If you don't want a dog in your house the answer is simple: don't rent it out or conduct any business activities with it.

It goes to show the business regulations need improving. It's against the business owner.

Having a dog is not a human rights issue.