Canada

It shows that "no rent control" basically means "your landlord can throw you out at any time without notice" by raising rent to a ludicrous amount. It completely undermines all other tenant protections. Even conservatives should be supporting at least modest rent controls to prevent cases like this.

Name them and shame them.

When escalation of this magnitude is your solution, you shouldn't be surprised when your clients respond with violence.

This absolutely should not be legal

Fuck Canada, more than half of Canadian politicians are fucking landlords and this is why they allow these abusive and scummy laws to stay, no rent protection, fuck this country.

It doesn't really help the case that they show a picture a sky line dream apartment, but still that price is ridiculous and obviously there to drive them out.

Does that mean the landlord has to charge the next tennant that rate, or was that a special rate just for them? Can they charge different rents fir different people based on whether they like the tennant?

They must have really pissed off the landlord. It doesn't say what they asked for in the lease agreement changes... Or what they said to him when they "complained" when he raised the rent initially by a smaller amount.

Still ridiculous that it's legal to raise rent by that much, but oof, if you're in one of those buildings, be nice to your landlord.

Edit: i think people are taking what I said the wrong way - I'm saying with the way things are, if landlords can get away with this, they hold all the power!

Edit2: I guess I'm the bad guy here, but I recommend you focus your rage on Ford who set this shit up in the first place.

Exactly the same problem in Québec, buildings 5 years or less have no law nor rent control, so it's free for all for the landlord to raise a rent from 1500$ to 4000$ as he wants.

By the looks of it, Toronto might get worse than Vancoucer for rent prices very soon.

I wonder if there are information or anonymised statistics regarding the portion of elected representatives, senators and members of the judiciary from municipal, provincial and federal bodies/institutions that own more than a property (principal residence).

How many properties? What type of properties (from residential single family to high rise residential appartments/condominium, from empty/rundown/abandoned farmhouses/buildings to unused farm/land, etc…) What purpose do they have for those properties? Do those properties generate some kind of revenue? If so, how much? How is the revenue generated?

While thinking about it, how much of all properties in Canada are tied up behind a corporate veil by companies/fondations/trusts and various legal entities? Are there statistics on that?

There are too many unknowns and legal protections behind those unknown to be able to make a clear picture of the housing crisis.

I don't want the scapegoat excuse of too much RED TAPE to build new housing or that IT'S THE IMMIGRANTS and the FOREIGN WORKERS or FOREIGN INVESTORS/SPECULATORS took all our housing. That's too easy of a excuse to avoid the real and difficult work of understanding this whole mess.

I want real data, not proxy data. Full information on every transfer of property; from whom to whom, by which financial institution, for exactly how much, timespan elapsed between transfer of ownership, who is the mortgage holder if a loan is involved, renovation details if there has been any, every inspection report and details should always be public and attached to the property for the life of the property as a historical snapshot of the property, etc…

It's not that hard to implement these data gathering services but there are always deeply vested interests that would do everything in their power to discourage such endeavors and make up any excuse to avoid providing it.

Anyways, sorry this became a long rambling rant on my part.

Damn I didn't realise the Ford government weakened it to 2018 and before. Reminds me of a lot of US states, although they have a cutoff in the fucking 70s sometimes

I've always thought the hard "full rent control no hikes above inflation" "no rent control do whatever" dichotomy was stupid.

Why not compromise? Like 5% above inflation (or $50, whichever is higher) on all properties, regardless of how old or new they are. Allows a landlord to adapt to a shifting market, and gives a renter plenty of time to adapt and adjust as a landlord is changing rent yearly.

Then get rid of all the silly "year constructed" exceptions.

I'm guessing there's a rule against this, unless he can find another tenant that will actually pay that.

Assuming that's a photo of the apartment, that shit would be like 15k a month in NY. Not that any of it's right, just, or moral, but they definitely had it better than most to be paying that little for what many would consider quite a luxury apartment.

A landlord has an absolute right to raise rent whenever he feels like it. Don’t like it? Buy your own house!