[Admiral Beez]

They made poor investment decisions and signed a deal they could not deliver on, no one owes them any sympathy.

No, their property is being held by trespassers, and the law should help them, just as it should help all of us if our property is taken. If you rent a car and at the end of the rental period do not return it, you’re no longer a renter, but are a thief and the rental company will have the police remove you from the car and arrest you. Why is this any different?

Sympathy is never owed or obliged, that‘s not how empathy and concern for others works.

 

[Admiral Beez]

My alternative would be that houses should be homes and not investment tools.

So if you have a second property you should be obliged to sell it? Here in Cabbagetown where I live many used to own houses here as income properties or investments, subdividing houses into separate units. Some were dodgy rooming houses, but most were just normal two spilts or triplexes. But then what you suggest occurred, these houses became homes rather than investments and the new home owners evicted everyone and restored the old Victorians back into single family homes.

 

[picard102]

Why is this any different?

Because a car isn't a fundamental human right. The LTB exists to deal with these issues and in time will hear this case. That the owner made an agreement he couldn't deliver on doesn't mean a cop should be pulling them out of the house instead of going through the LTB.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The LTB exists to deal with these issues and in time will hear this case.

Why would the LTB be involved here? They’re not tenants; they’re not paying rent, they don’t have a lease or agreement with the property owner. They might as well have walked through an unlocked door and taken residence in your house - would such trespass be okay?

Regardless, we can agree that these property owners got themselves into this trouble all on their own. Do not commit to an agreement you can not meet. The property should have been sold with the squatters inside. That’s what my aunt did, she owned a two-unit property in Parkdale and one former tenant refused to pay the rent and refused to leave. My aunt told the potential buyers and they said no problem, we’ll remove them. And then did, as I recall, the new owners gave notice of entry, waited until the trespassers were out and then came in, removed everything into an offsite storage locker and changed the locks, putting a notice on the door where they can get their stuff. It goes both ways, the former trespassers can now go to the LTB or even small claims court if they wish and they can wait the 12-24 months or so whilst their case works through the system.

I do wonder if this property owner tried the cash for keys method, https://rentprep.com/evictions/how-to-get-rid-of-tenants-without-eviction/

 

[picard102]

They’re not tenants; they’re not paying rent, they don’t have a lease or agreement with the property owner.

That's for the LTB to decide. Just because you get an eviction notice, or you go past your leases initial end date, does not remove their status as a tenant. Leases convert into month to month automatically, and a tenant can appeal to the LTB to fight an eviction notice. If they are not, in fact, paying rent the LTB will likely uphold the eviction order.

 

[Admiral Beez]

That's for the LTB to decide.

I think if the LTB‘s decision making, appeal process and enforcement action didn’t take so long it’s likely both sides of these disputes would find more satisfaction.

 

[lenaitch]

It seems we have another 'tenant squatter':

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/this-landlord-bought-a-toronto-area-farm-2-years-ago-but-the-tenant-has-barred-him-from-the-property-1.6420494

If the Board is that slow, the best course seems to be to have the property vacant before the deal is closed.

 

[picard102]

That's always been the best course.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It seems we have another 'tenant squatter':

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/this-landlord-bought-a-toronto-area-farm-2-years-ago-but-the-tenant-has-barred-him-from-the-property-1.6420494

If the Board is that slow, the best course seems to be to have the property vacant before the deal is closed.

In cases like this the property owners must be tempted to set the place on fire. While it will smoke out the rats, arson isn’t the right course, and can lead one to jail for homicide, but I’m not surprised if it hasn’t been tried.

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/landlord-convicted-of-torching-rental-gets-two-years-to-be-served-in-prison-4678468

 

[cinnamontv]

Bunch of landleeches in here. Truth be told the laws you're complaining about are probably actually for your protection. If you give landlords too much control a guy like Mao comes along and cleans house eventually.