How Do We Solve Toronto’s Rental Crisis?


Or if you prefer a debate before the debate, let’s start with, “Does Toronto have a rental crisis?”

Friday’s blog about the compensation paid to tenants upon legal eviction from a landlord resulted in a few different conversations about the state of the rental market, so I’d like to continue on that theme today.

There has been a lot of press lately about the “crisis,” and I’d like to draw your attention to one group who is actively lobbying somebody to fix the problem…


There’s a bit of a “chicken and the egg” phenomenon when it comes to the intersection of rental prices in Toronto, and the increasing price of downtown condos.

Despite the constant talk in the media of an unstable Toronto real estate market, my investor clients are coming back in droves.

Specifically the clients who are looking to purchase 1-bed, 1-bath condos, and rent them out long-term.

You might think that with the recent legislation, much of which we discussed last Friday, that many investors would be turning the other way, or even downright scared of becoming a landlord.  But there’s one thing that’s keeping them in the market, and making many want to become even more active: the increasing rents in Toronto.

I’m absolutely shocked at the rents out there right now.  Just flabbergasted.

A 495 square foot, 1-bed, 1-bath, with a balcony, no parking, and a locker.

How much?

Any ideas?

How about $2,150 in King West.

It’s just shocking.

And thus my investor-clients see the increasing rents, which increases the capitalization rate and return on investment for any given property, and the investment becomes even more attractive.

So are the condo prices going up in response to the higher rents, as demand surges among investors?

Or are the rents increasing as prices go up, since investors need to cover their costs?

Because of the recent implementation of rent controls, I don’t think investors are able to increase rents, freely, to cover their costs.

Ironically, I think if I had to choose the chicken, or the egg, I’d say that more people are buying because the rents are so high, than charging higher rent because of the price they paid.

And if that’s the case, then why are rents going up?

Call me predictable.

Call me naive.

Call me simple.

But once again, the answer is, our good old friend, supply and demand.

The demand part, we know.

People want to live downtown, whether it’s because they’re working longer hours and have less time to travel, or they want to ditch the car and avoid the commute, or there’s a movement among millennials to get out of their parents’ homes sooner than the previous generation.

The city population is growing, especially downtown, and the demand has never been higher.

But the supply has also never been lower.

And it goes without saying that increasing demand, and decreasing supply, is a recipe for disaster in any market.

The unintended consequences from the Liberal government’s “Fair Housing Plan” announced in April were many, but interestingly enough, the one that was the least predictable, and seems to be having the most effect, is the decline in rental units coming onto the market.

Instituting rent controls, theoretically, at least, should massively increase the time that the average tenant stays in one place, meaning there are fewer units coming back onto the market.

But more importantly, the rent controls make developing purpose-built rentals far less attractive to developers.

I’ve been saving articles on the rental market in Toronto for the last few months, and I find the trend rather interesting.

*June 13th, 2017 – “Developers Call For Changes To Ontario Rent Control Measures”

This was when we first started to hear about developers maybe looking at their purpose-built rental projects, and wondering whether or not it would be worthwhile to convert them to condos.

Ironically, it was the CEO of the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO), Jim Murphy, who spoke out against the rent controls.

You would think the FRPO would be in favour of rent controls, but they can actually see the fores through the trees.  They know what can happen if the government institutes a cap on rent increases that makes it unattractive for long-term investments among REITs looking to build rentals.

Mr. Murphy actually suggested that the cap be somewhere in the 10% neighbourhood, rather than 2.5%.

*September 13th, 2017 – “Toronto To Get 2,000 Market-Rent And Affordable Units”

This was a Toronto Star article about the City of Toronto’s decision to sell four pieces of land – two in the West Don Lands, one on Grosvenor Street, and one on Grenville Street, and mandate that they must be used for market rent and affordable housing.  The city seems to be patting themselves on the back, making it known that they would sell for more if there were no restrictions on the use of the lands.

600 of the 2,000 units will be “affordable,” and the other 1,400 would be market-rent.

1 in 10 of each unit will be “designed for large families.”

It’s important to note that there are 181,000 people on the wait list for affordable housing.

*September 25th, 2017 – “1,000 rental units cancelled because of Ontario rent control, new report finds”

Here’s where we started to see actual evidence of would-be, purpose-built rentals, changing course and becoming condominiums instead.

The “report” referenced gave us this headline about cancelled rental units, but perhaps an even more alarming stat, which the next story shows.

*September 25th, 2017 – “New study finds Ontario’s rental housing supply is facing a shortfall of over 6,000 units per year to meet annual demand”

This story appeared everywhere, and was picked up by every online news outlet.

With a headline like that, who doesn’t want to read it?

The report, completed by Urbanation, was commissioned by the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO), who I’ll tell you more about shortly.

*October 9th, 2017 – “Rising Prices And Evictions: Toronto’s Housing Market Has ‘Gone Bonkers’”

This was a Globe & Mail piece with some “faces and names” to put to the stories we hear so often about just how expensive rents are getting.

One of the people profiled in the article is a “normal” 39-year-old woman, who spends 46% of her salary on rent.

Expect to see a lot more of these types of stories.  Just as we saw this kind of angle when the housing market for sales was red-hot, this makes for a great read among a host of people who can relate to the topic.

*October 12th, 2017 – “Toronto’s Rental Market Is Downright Scary Right Now”

This isn’t really an “article” per se, but rather 150 words on BlogTO about a very important study released last week by Ryerson University.

The study is called “Getting to 8,000” with a subtitle of “Building a healthier rental market for the Toronto area.”

If you’re wondering why that 8,000 number is significant, it’s because you saw the number “6,000” per year a few articles ago.

Recall that the Urbanation study showed a housing shortfall of 6,000 units per year.

The Ryerson study is recommending that the city and province strive to see 8,000 new rental units built per year.

If you have time, read the Ryerson study, which you can find HERE.

It’s 40 pages long, but a really interesting read, with a lot of stats and figures you’d be quoting while in line at Tim Horton’s to get your coffee.

Let me give you the Coles Notes on this.

The report offers seven public policy recommendations:

Making better use of land and existing housing

1. Municipalities introduce vacant unit taxes throughout the Toronto Area

2. Municipalities regulate short-term rentals throughout the Toronto Area

3. Municipalities adopt land-use changes to permit more residential development

Incentivizing new purpose-built market rental units

4. Province of Ontario expands and increases the proposed development charge rebate program

5. Municipalities expand incentives to all rental developments

6. Province of Ontario or the Federal Government develops an agency to provide a “one-window” service to offer development incentives

7. Federal Government makes changes to HST policy including implementing a zero-rating system to claim HST credits and the CRA’s exclusive use of the “Lending Value” and “Cost” approaches to determining fair market value when calculating self-supply HST.

There’s a lot of other good nuggets in there, such as their “Barriers” section, which references the barriers to building rentals in the city, but I need to move on here…

I mentioned the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) a few moments ago, and I’d like to draw attention to their public policy ideas as well.

The FRPO launched a website last month:

Be forewarned about the blinding, bright-pink background of the website that’s made my eyes sore for the last hour.

The FRPO launched this site in response to the Urbanation report (which they commissioned) back in September, but now that Ryerson has released their own report, I wonder if they’ll implement those findings as well.

Just as was contained in the Ryerson report, the FRPO’s “Rent-On” campaign offers several policy approaches to increase the supply of rental housing in Toronto:

1) Implement a new rolling exemption for purpose-built rental buildings from rent control, i.e. units after a designated date would not be subject to rent control to encourage new investment. The NDP government of the early 1990’s first introduced this concept.

2) Modify the rent increase guideline applicable to new purpose-built rental buildings (i.e. not condominium registered) to inflation plus a certain percentage. This formula, will provide the modest investment return necessary to ensure continued growth in the supply of new, purpose-built rental housing, while respecting the Ontario Government’s intent to assure tenants have reasonable, predictable rents they can afford. • Rental housing needs fairness in property taxation.

3) Rental buildings can be assessed at up to 3 times a single-family home. The government of Ontario has introduced property tax fairness for new purpose-built rentals, but all multi-res rental units need to be assessed at the same rate as single family homes province wide. By legislation, savings would be passed along to tenants.

4) Some municipalities have introduced municipal licensing fees for rental units. There should be no new taxes on industry that could act as a disincentive to build new supply. Further, Ontario municipalities should implement programs that waive development charges and building permit fees for new purpose-built rental. Vancouver has a similar program already in place.

•Rental housing providers should be given the option to sub meter electrically heated units like they already can for other forms of hydro so that high energy users bear the increased cost of usage, while energy-efficient tenants would be rewarded with lower bills.

5) Maintain vacancy decontrol. Since 2012 in Ontario over $5.2 billion in renovations of rental units have taken place as a result of this measure to improve living quality and maintain our purpose-built rental housing stock much of which is 35 years or older.

Some of the same ideas, and some new.

But I think you’re getting the picture here: put enough people in a room, and you can come up with a list of ideas on how to increase the supply of rentals in the city.

So my obvious question at this point: what do you think?

And before we get to the conversation about how to increase the supply of rental units, feel free to take a step backwards and offer an opinion on whether or not this is even an initiative that needs undertaking.

The post How Do We Solve Toronto’s Rental Crisis? appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from


When Does A Landlord Need To Provide Compensation During An Eviction?


There is a LOT of incorrect information floating around on this topic, and as a result, buyers and sellers in the real estate market are misinformed.

Many are making mistakes, as evidenced by the clauses we’re seeing included in offers dealing with compensation for tenants who are being evicted upon the sale of a unit.

Let’s take a look at “Form N12” which clearly specifies when compensation applies, but first, we’ll trace the legislation back to where it began…


In case you’ve been living in a cave…………on the moon………………with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears (Simpsons quote, I believe?), you’ve heard about the Liberal government’s “Fair Housing Plan” and the associated changes to the Residential Tenancies Act.

There are many notable changes, but the one I want to explore today is regarding the compensation for tenants who are legally evicted.

Once upon a time, a landlord could serve a tenant, who was on a month-to-month term, with Form N12, and evict the tenant for “personal use.”

We all know that “personal use” clause was a farce.

Tenants all over the city would say that their brother, mother, or sister was going to move into the unit, and then simply re-rent it, or put it on the open market.

Going back a few revisions ago, the “personal use” clause wasn’t even detailed on the Form N12.  The form used to be a lot simpler, and a lot easier to manipulate.

After stories broke in early 2017 about landlords increasing rents by 80%, and during the real estate boom/crisis/peak/insanity, the Liberal government decided they needed to step in and make things more “fair.”

Enter: The Fair Housing Plan, much of which was deemed, by people who own real estate, to be unfair.

The Liberal government was very, very slow to detail what they had planned.

Their “16 Point Plan” contained few specific measures to be implemented, but rather made references to areas that would be explored, committee’s that would conduct studies and provide findings, and the usual government red-tape rhetoric.

The section regarding “protecting renters,” specifically their #3 point of sixteen, referred to legislation, but made no specific promises:


“Introduce legislation that would, if passed, strengthen the Residential Tenancies Act…”

It looked as though, as was the case with most of the points, nothing had firmly been decided.

“Adequately compensated” could have meant absolutely anything, and of course, the government could have just ignored the whole idea, and moved on.

But in September, they implemented the “adequate compensation,” which was determined to be a full month’s rent:


Many of us were shocked.

Fair or unfair, perhaps it’s a topic for another day.

But the penalties – up to $25,000, would surely scare away any landlords that thought about trying to play outside the rules.

But somewhere along the way, the market and its participants – landlords, tenants, buyers, sellers, real estate agents, and even lawyers, became confused about when the compensation applies.

This idea that “Once a tenant is in the unit, you can never get them out” began to circulate, which simply wasn’t true.

The mistake at hand, is predicated on the idea that ALL tenants must be compensated during ALL evictions, and that’s not the case.

Bill 124, Rental Fairness Act, 2017, contains amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

You can read the bill in full HERE.

Scroll down a few paragraphs, and you’ll see the following:

Notice of termination by landlord under section 48

Currently, subsection 48 (1) allows a landlord to give a termination notice if the landlord requires possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation by the landlord, a member of the landlord’s family or other specified persons.  Under subsection 48 (1), as amended, the landlord must require possession for the purpose of residential occupation for at least one year.  Under new section 48.1, a landlord who gives a termination notice under section 48 is required to compensate the tenant in an amount equal to one month’s rent or to offer the tenant another unit acceptable to the tenant.

Notice what isn’t present there?

Anything about the buyer of the property paying compensation.

The new “Form N12” is exactly the same as the old Form N12, save for the inclusion of the highlighted box below:


Notice that “Reason 1” is bolded.

What is reason 1?

Refer back to the first page of Form N12, and you’ll see two reasons, as follows:


Notice that Reason 1, refers to ending the tenancy so the landlord and/or family can occupy the unit.

Reason 2, refers to ending the tenancy because the landlord is selling the unit, and the buyer intends to occupy the unit.

Here’s where the confusions sets in for many people.

Because while I see this as pretty cut and dry, I’ve spoken to tenants who believe they need to be compensated when the unit in which they reside is sold, and they’re provided with a legal eviction on behalf of the buyer.

I’ve also spoken to a lawyer who believes that “all month-to-month tenants being evicted” need to be compensated, and who suggests that this Form N12 is flawed!

Is it possible that this is what the Liberal government had first intended?

Because from where I stand, the seller of a condo, with a month-to-month tenant, shouldn’t be punished for wanting to sell his or her asset.

But maybe it doesn’t matter if it’s the current owner who is evicting, or the future owner who has contracted to purchase the property.  An eviction is an eviction, right?  And the government is trying to help evicted tenants, correct?

I’ll be very interested to see if there are any cases at the Landlord & Tenant Board in this regard.

There are so many people out there that are under the impression, either because it’s what they’ve heard, or what they feel is just, that ALL tenants are due compensation regardless of the situation, that I almost feel as though the legislation is unclear.


But if you’re a landlord, make sure you know what the Form N12 says!

The post When Does A Landlord Need To Provide Compensation During An Eviction? appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from

Urban Living Downtown Townhouses | Pick5



The post Urban Living Downtown Townhouses | Pick5 appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from

Hot Loft of the Week: 1 Columbus Ave #201


Welcome to One Columbus Ave!

These lofts were developed by Jackson Goad Architects and it was registered in March of 1997.

It has 4 storeys and 10 units, and it is self managed.

This loft is gorgeous, comes with brick walls, private elevator, oversized windows, 10ft high wood ceilings, metal beams, and heated concrete floors.

The only downside here is that it’s only 1 bed, and 1 bath.

Let’s take a look!

Price: $1,799,000

Taxes: $4,563.71/2017

Bedrooms: 1

Bathrooms: 1

Maintenance Fees: $664.63

SQFT: 1400-1599

Parking: Yes

MLS: W3952159

W3952159 W3952159_2 W3952159_3 W3952159_4 W3952159_5 W3952159_6 W3952159_7 W3952159_8 W3952159_9 W3952159_10 W3952159_11 W3952159_12 W3952159_13 W3952159_14 W3952159_15 W3952159_16 W3952159_17 W3952159_18 W3952159_19 W3952159_20

What do you think about our Hot Loft of the Week? Yay or Nay?

The post Hot Loft of the Week: 1 Columbus Ave #201 appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from

A Housing Champion and Team Leader (in News)

Remembering Don McBain, a visionary Indigenous housing advocate who helped thousands find homes.


Related Stories

Original Post Seen:

Hot House of the Week: 94 Eileen Avenue


Welcome to Lambton!

Completely rebuilt smart home.

Bright and airy with 10ft. ceilings, and heated floors.

It has a separate entrance to the basement, and it is made out of aluminum siding and wood.

Comes with an above ground pool, three parking spaces, pool shed, and a timed lighting system.

Let’s take a look!

Price: $879,999

Taxes: $3,543.06/2017

Bedrooms: 2 + 1

Bathrooms: 3

Lot Size: 25 x 109 Feet

Parking: Yes

MLS: W3950380

W3950380 W3950380_2 W3950380_3 W3950380_4 W3950380_5 W3950380_6 W3950380_7 W3950380_8 W3950380_9 W3950380_10 W3950380_11 W3950380_12 W3950380_13 W3950380_14 W3950380_15 W3950380_16 W3950380_17 W3950380_18 W3950380_19 W3950380_20

What do you think about our Hot House of the Week? Yay or Nay?

The post Hot House of the Week: 94 Eileen Avenue appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from

Hot Loft of the Week: 99 Coleman Ave 204


Welcome to the Coleman Lofts!

These lofts were developed by 99 Coleman Avenue Inc. and it was registered in December of 1991.

It has 3 storeys and 18 units, and it is managed by the board of directors!

It is over 950sqft of open space and has soaring ceilings and a beautiful skylight.

There is a spiral staircase that leads to the master bedroom on the second level.

Let’s take a look!

Price: $529,000

Taxes: $2,454.71/2017

Bedrooms: 1+1

Bathrooms: 2

Maintenance Fees: $445.06

SQFT: 900-999

Parking: Yes

MLS: E3950933

E3950933 E3950933_2 E3950933_3 E3950933_4 E3950933_5 E3950933_6 E3950933_7 E3950933_8 E3950933_9 E3950933_10 E3950933_11 E3950933_12 E3950933_13 E3950933_14 E3950933_15 E3950933_16 E3950933_17 E3950933_18 E3950933_19

What do you think about our Hot Loft of the Week? Yay or Nay?

The post Hot Loft of the Week: 99 Coleman Ave 204 appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from