The cheque please! – Unpaid rentals continue a tenancy crisis

I could have written another article about Bill 60 and the changes under Schedule 12 to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA), namely the shortening of the time to appeal a decision or to initiate an eviction for non-payment of rent. Instead, I’ll address the greater issue: why renters in Ontario are becoming more easily targeted for evictions rather than offered mediations, joining the tens of thousands of applications waiting for scheduled hearing dates before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

Outside of governing the landlord-tenant relationship, establishing fair practices, and protecting the rights of both parties, the RTA created a statutory process whereby the LTB (not landlords) must fairly assess claims before issuing eviction orders, orders for payment to landlords, or abatements for tenants. In other words: a landlord does not have the unilateral power to evict a “tenant” covered by the Act.

However, thanks in part to growing legal – and real estate-savvy among property investors and landlords, increased access to landlord-oriented resources, and active social and mainstream media discourse, many landlords now understand the official forms and procedures, including how to navigate, or pressure tenants through the system.

Meanwhile, there are indeed “professional renters” (as the term is sometimes used) who may exploit loopholes, but there are also more “seasoned landlords” who, informed by this systemic knowledge, may engage in tactics of harassment, manipulation, or intimidation to push tenants toward rent increases, or tenancy terminations. This shifts the balance of power away from tenants (especially vulnerable ones) toward landlords. While difficult to quantify, this trend is widely discussed among tenant-advocacy groups and legal practitioners.

As a licensed paralegal, I once represented a family of seven threatened with eviction. The landlord had asked them to sign an “unofficial” Notice to End Tenancy (akin to an agreement), but they were handed only page 2 (the signature page) rather than the full form explaining rights and consequences. Instead, they received a typed letter from the landlord, never got their own copy, and were never provided documentation such as receipts, rent-increase notices, or interest payments on their last-month deposit despite regular increases.

Under the RTA, rent increases must be served using the official form (Form N1) with at least 90 days’ written notice, and a rent deposit (if collected at the start of the tenancy). Their last-month deposit must be used only as the tenant’s final month’s rent (not for damage) and landlords are required to keep records and provide receipts.

It is because of such systemic breakdowns and given that under the new rules of Bill 60, many of the procedural protections and opportunities for tenants to raise counter-issues have been weakened, I have serious concerns.

For example: under Bill 60, when a landlord gives a non-payment notice and applies to evict, the hearing may be scheduled faster than before. Tenant defenses, or counterclaims at a non-payment (L1) hearing such as issues over maintenance, the conduct of the landlord, or invalid rent increases, are now conditional. The tenant must generally pay 50% of the claimed arrears (or satisfy other regulatory conditions) before those issues can be heard.

In practical effect, many tenants (especially low-income or precariously housed) will be unable to meet that threshold, which means they can’t raise valid counterclaims at their first hearing. That creates a situation where vulnerable tenants have fewer realistic defenses and increased risk of eviction, even when there may be legitimate legal, or equity-based reasons to resist.

Thus, rather than resolving disputes by mediation, or dealing with issues of unlawful rent increases, missing deposit interest, or improper eviction notices, the system is increasingly geared toward fast-track eviction.

I believe it is time to consider stronger landlord licensing, or registration requirements. For example, classifying landlords who own multiple rental units (especially within a family context) as a “corporation,” or require licensing and regulatory compliance under the LTB, with enforceable penalties for failure to meet statutory obligations (notice, rent-increase procedures, deposit and interest accounting, provision of receipts). Finally, require that all lease agreements need to be registered online with the board, annually. This kind of regulatory oversight could help rebalance protections, make enforcement more uniform, and deter abusive practices.

There are deeper systemic issues at play beyond individual cases. Homelessness has significantly increased over the last two decades, and many formerly stable tenants are now at risk, a trend driven by a severe lack of affordable housing, rising rents, and increasingly aggressive eviction practices.

As the government moves forward with reforms like Bill 60, it must weigh carefully whether speeding up evictions (with weakened tenant protections) will exacerbate the housing crisis, or if alternatives (like: stronger regulation, more access to mediation, increased housing supply, or robust tenant-support systems) should be prioritized instead.