The Government of Canada announced its 2022 budget on April 7, with housing being among the top areas receiving investments during this pandemic recovery period. This budget is arriving at the halfway mark of the government’s ten-year National Housing Strategy (NHS), and there remains much room for improvement.
As investment dollars in the NHS have increased significantly since the inception of the strategy half a decade ago, the 2022 budget still does not direct adequate funds in the most effective way to address the housing needs of those living on low- to moderate-incomes. For many of these households, homeownership is well out of reach, while rental housing and alternative housing choices are becoming increasingly inadequate, inaccessible and unaffordable. Additionally, experiences of homelessness are growing in Canada.
While the 2022 budget falls short in responding to the urgent housing needs of those most impacted by the housing affordability and homelessness crisis, we analyze here the key housing investments that have been made, followed by a detailed outline of the amounts dedicated to specific housing initiatives.
Overall, this is a modest budget, with less spending than in the years before. A major portion of the budget is directed toward housing initiatives, with a total of $1.95 billion to be spent this fiscal year, and a spending promise of an additional $7.45 billion until 2027. There are also additional funds allocated towards Indigenous housing and infrastructure projects outlined in the budget. However, despite the fact that some of the housing investments are promising, they are unlikely to significantly improve housing affordability, adequacy and accessibility across Canada.
Arguably the most significant new funding initiative introduced in this budget is the investment in building new cooperative housing. The government plans to construct an estimated 6,000 new cooperative housing units, which is a major commitment to non-market housing options after decades of underfunding of the cooperative sector.
The government has also committed to adjusting its existing programs to increase the affordable housing supply. Affordability targets for the Rental Construction Financing Initiative (RCFI) will be increased to 40% of the total number of projects funded, and the government will adopt a new definition for affordability under this program. These changes respond to the important findings of a recent report from the National Housing Council, indicating that only three per cent of units created through the program to date would be affordable to lower-income Canadians. It remains unclear whether, with these measures, the government will prioritize funding for deeply affordable rental housing projects with rents considerably lower than the 80% average market rate through its commitments under the RCFI.
In addition, the government will continue its support for the Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI), one of its most effective programs in generating deeply affordable housing. This investment is estimated to create 6,000 new housing units that will be affordable to lower-income Canadians, with a quarter directed towards projects prioritizing women. Unfortunately, the government did not make the RHI a permanent fixture, and it remains unclear whether this initiative will continue beyond 2024.
The government also announced the new Housing Accelerator Fund, with a $4 billion commitment over five years. This new fund is aimed at supporting municipalities to increase their supply of housing by speeding up developments. The details of the program and requirements are yet to be developed. The government also plans to encourage the creation of secondary suites through its new Multi-generational Home Tax credit. This new fund has been allocated $5 million for this year, with increases in funding in year two and beyond. To stabilize housing for Canadians experiencing housing need, the budget continues to include funding for the Canada Housing Benefit (CHB). It includes an investment of $475 million in 2022-23 to cover a one-time $500 payment to households facing acute affordability challenges. To date, the CHB’s reach has been limited when considering the number of Canadians facing housing affordability challenges, and with its restrictive eligibility criteria, many Canadians will be unable to access this benefit.
The government has also committed $150 million over two years to build affordable housing in Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon.
Finally, the government has indicated that it will conduct a review on the impact of increased commodification of housing, what it refers to as “housing as an asset class”, on renters and homeowners. Actions may be adopted following the review, which includes considerations for possible tax treatments of large corporations involved in speculation in the housing market.
The government committed to funding Indigenous housing through an investment of $4 billion over seven years, including funds for First Nations housing on reserves, and for housing in Inuit and Métis Communities. While this is an important step, it may be insufficient to have a significant impact on enhancing housing adequacy for First Nations communities. The Assembly of First Nations estimates that the cost of upgrading First Nations’ housing stock will be much higher, at $44 billion.
For years, Indigenous housing advocates have called on the federal government to establish an Urban, Rural and Northern Indigenous housing strategy, a recommendation that was once again formally made to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion through the National Housing Council’s recent report. The budget commits funding to develop this long-overdue strategy, however, some Indigenous advocates are disappointed that the strategy is not explicitly led by Indigenous communities themselves.
The budget allocates considerable funds to retrofitting programs. Several initiatives are detailed, including a new initiative called the Greener Neighbourhoods Pilot Program. The program will target up to six community housing neighbourhoods to pilot the Energiesprong model, an approach to conducting retrofitting through larger-scale neighbourhood initiatives. Additionally, the expansion of the Canada Greener Homes Loan Program will include low-interest loans and grants to providers of low-income housing. It is unclear whether the government plans to approach these retrofitting initiatives in tandem with capital repair projects, which combined can more effectively increase residents’ health and safety, while reducing emissions and preserving the existing housing stock. It is also important that these projects maintain housing affordability levels and ensure that existing residents are the main beneficiaries of these investments.
The budget includes further commitments to various programs and initiatives meant to support the path to homeownership. Rent-to-own projects continue to receive funding support. The First-Time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit has been doubled and the government has indicated that it will explore ways to make the program more flexible. A new Tax-Free First Home Savings Account was introduced with a total budget of $725 million, which will come into effect next year.
Overall, the budget includes commitments for several important housing initiatives. However, it falls short in making a major contribution to solving the affordable housing crisis or supporting the growing housing needs of low- to moderate-income Canadians. Missing are commitments to urgently tackle the housing adequacy crisis in long-term care homes, plans to repair and preserve the aging affordable housing stock, efforts to build affordable rental housing options, expanding supports to women experiencing hidden homelessness, and effective strategies to tackle housing financialization. Despite the government’s priority to support women and children who are survivors of domestic violence to access stable housing, the budget does not include specific investments to reach this goal.
Additionally, the taxation policies outlined in the budget do not go far enough to effectively regulate domestic investors or curb speculative behaviours in the housing market.
Disappointingly, the budget does not include a commitment to advancing housing as a human right, as legislated in its National Housing Strategy Act. A rights-based approach would ensure that programs and funding allocations, even in the current recessionary context, effectively respond to the needs of those most impacted by the housing crisis.
Here is a detailed outline of some of the 2022 federal budget’s housing commitments:
Cooperative housing is an affordable, secure and inclusive housing option for many Canadians. The new Co-operative Housing Development Program will support the construction of 6,000 new cooperative housing units to be built over five years. This is the largest investment in cooperative housing by the federal government in 30 years. It shows the government’s renewed commitment to community-based non-market housing options. The 2022 budget allocates $500 million in funding and $1 billion in loans for the new program. The program will allocate $6 million this year, which is to be increased to $34 million next year and above $70 million in the following years. A portion of funding under this new stream will be redirected funds from the National Co-Investment Fund and the Rental Construction Financing Initiative. The program will be implemented in partnership with the Cooperative Housing Federation of Canada.
The 2022 budget invests $1.5 billion over two years to the Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI), with most of the funds earmarked for this fiscal year, and with at least 25 per cent dedicated to women-focused housing projects. This funding stream has proven to be an effective way to build deeply affordable, supportive housing and to urgently respond to the needs of vulnerable Canadians. While this funding is welcome and an important initiative, it is disappointing that the government has not committed to making it a permanent fixture with future funding commitments.
The new Housing Accelerator Fund received considerable funding to allow the federal government to support municipalities to streamline and speed up the construction of housing projects. It received a budget of $4 billion over four years, to help create 100,000 new housing units, with the majority of funds flowing after the second year. The implementation plan of this fund is yet to be revealed.
No new money has been allocated to the National Co-Investment Fund (NCIF). However, the government will advance $2.9 billion from already provisioned funds, speeding up the delivery of planned investments so that all remaining funds will be spent by 2025-26. The government aims to accelerate the creation of up to 4,300 new housing units and the repair of up to 17,800 units through the NCIF. The budget did not specify whether this fund will be streamlined and how it intends to ensure that it can more effectively support affordable housing projects.
The budget commits to investing $4 billion over seven years in housing for Indigenous Communities. This includes $2.4 billion over five years to support First Nations housing on reserves, as well as funds to support housing in Inuit and Métis Communities. In addition, through a $300 million investment over five years, the government will co-develop and launch an Urban, Rural, and Northern Indigenous Housing strategy.
The budget also outlines the government’s $75 million plan for the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, with $4 million budgeted for this year. Through funding and partnership with Justice Canada and Natural Resources Canada, it plans to co-develop an action plan with Indigenous partners.
The budget outlines the government’s commitment to reform the Rental Construction Financing Initiative (RCFI) by enhancing affordability and energy efficiency requirements. It announced that eligible developers could be granted partial loan forgiveness for projects that significantly exceed these requirements. The budget announced that the RCFI’s goal will be to invest at least 40 per cent of its funds in affordable housing developments. The definition of affordability under this stream has also been revised. Affordability will now be defined as rents that are at or below 80 per cent of average market rent. However, in many cities across Canada where rents have skyrocketed, these affordability targets fail to create housing that is deeply affordable.
In its attempt to curb rising prices of residential homes, the budget outlined the federal government’s plans to prohibit investors who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents from buying residential homes for a two-year period. A list of exemptions is provided, including for international students or people residing in Canada on work permits. Given that a major portion of the speculative and investor-driven demand is from domestic players, it is doubtful that this two-year ban will have any significant impact on reducing residential housing prices.
The Reaching Home stream is part of Canada’s main strategy to end homelessness, funding initiatives to support those experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The government announced new funding starting in 2024 of $562.2 million over two years, which will go to Infrastructure Canada to continue the funding for Reaching Home, ensuring the continuity of this program.
The Canada Housing Benefit received an additional $475 million to provide a one-time payment of $500 to recipients. The details of this one-time payment are yet to be released. Launched in 2020, the Canada Housing Benefit represents a joint funding commitment between federal and provincial governments of $4 billion over eight years.
The government has proposed a new tax credit to provide up to $7,500 for homeowners to build a secondary suite to be used by a senior or a person with a disability. Next year, in the 2023-24 fiscal year, households can use this credit to claim a portion of their renovation and construction costs for secondary suites.
This informational pamphlet examines the issue of renovations and upgrading that lead to evictions from rental housing, which denies people their right to security of tenure – a key component of the right to housing. We outline how “renovictions” are playing out across Canada, and how advancing the right to housing can help to address these issues.
This pamphlet was produced by the Canadian Centre for Housing Rights (CCHR) and the National Right to Housing Network (NRHN).
A Housing Affordability Taskforce set up by the Ontario Government recently released a much-anticipated report recommending ways to combat the province’s housing affordability crisis. The Taskforce proposes several recommendations to increase the supply of market housing as the key way to resolve the problem. Broadly, the recommendations include a combination of changes to urban design rules, streamlining the housing approvals process, curtailing delays in developments that result from appeals at the Ontario Land Tribunal, promoting density, and targeting financial support towards municipalities who align their priorities with similar policy changes. The role of non-profits in increasing supply of affordable rental housing is only covered in the appendix of the document while other key options such as measures to protect affordable housing stock and rent regulations to curb arbitrary rent increases are not explored.
The Taskforce had only a couple of months to produce its recommendations during which it made some attempts to consult with myriad actors in the housing ecosystem. However, criticisms have been raised by housing advocates and experts regarding the limits to outreach, particularly in not adequately engaging with enough housing advocates, and the membership of the deliberating body being heavily comprised of representatives from the private sector.
Since the report’s publication, the Taskforce’s 55 recommendations have received a mix of supportive feedback and much skepticism. However, there seems to be some consensus that there is a need to act and be bold given the growing scale of the problem in Ontario. This sentiment is captured throughout the report, beginning with a call to prioritize housing in the province’s planning guidelines.
Many of the Taskforce report’s shortcomings stem from criticisms around scope and conceptual clarity. For example, the Taskforce’s restricted mandate to find “market housing” solutions overlooks the fact that the private sector has historically been unsuccessful in creating sufficient affordable housing options without some government support. More public interventions and the role of non-profits in filling this gap is only covered briefly in the document appendix.
In addition, the diagnosis of the problem, that a shortage of supply is leading to escalating housing prices, is questionable. Specifically, the target of creating 1.5 million homes over ten years has been criticized as not reflective of the problem at hand. In particular, the estimate in the report appears to be based on the assumption that every individual in need of housing is to live alone in a unit, rather than as part of a household. As such, the target appears to be too high and ought to be modelled instead at the household level, which would be a more useful reference to determine housing need. Using the latter frame, it may very well be the case that housing starts, at least for homeownership options, are keeping up with population growth across the country, as the trends of the past few years suggest. However, a shortage of affordable rental options remains no matter what lens is applied.
The implication is to make use of more accurate and granular data to enable nuanced distinctions between factors such as tenure choices, and in turn, help create more appropriate targets and associated interventions to meet those targets. The report does acknowledge that better data is required to determine housing needs including to understand, in more depth, which groups are facing the greatest barriers to accessing housing options.
Based on the premise that housing supply shortages should determine policy priorities, a variety of the recommendations are intended to remove barriers that slow development. Setting aside the contested premise, there remains a compelling case to fix bottlenecks in the development process to speed up construction. For example, the report shows how the development approvals process in Canada is one of the slowest among OECD countries, and that Ontario is particularly slow compared to the rest of the country. To this end, proposals to simplify policy documents and find efficiencies in existing urban design guidelines, for example, may hold promise.
However, stalled projects may not just be on account of the approval processes. For example, 19,000 units in Barrie that have received approvals have not yet proceeded with construction for various financial, engineering and related matters that are largely under the control of developers. In Toronto, the figure for a similar set of approved projects that are yet to get off the ground stands at 70,000. Plus, even as approvals may be perceived as roadblocks, the mechanisms still serve a fundamental purpose of upholding the integrity of the development process from environmental, social, economic and aesthetic perspectives. Any efforts to find efficiencies cannot be in good faith if not done deliberatively and measured against a rigorous process such as a cost-benefit analysis.
The report also recommends changes to the approval process through depoliticizing it and through fixing gaps in how existing mechanisms to appeal development proposals are perceived to be vulnerable to exploitation by local interests that may halt development for years. Indeed, there is a compelling case to be made against NIMBYism. Pushback from those living in existing neighbourhoods is not just exhibited in opposition to specific developments but against broader changes to regulatory practices, such as changing exclusionary zoning rules to be more inclusive. As the report finds, such practices have resulted in cities such as Toronto restricting 70% of its land for single family homes.
To this end, the report has made bold proposals to permit developments, as of right – in other words, without the need to go through the necessary zoning procedures – to, among other things, promote gentle density across the province, allow “unlimited density” for new construction near major transit stations, permit multi-tenant houses (rooming houses) to operate, and enable housing growth in underdeveloped land. These proposals are significant in acknowledging how the current trajectory of subdivisions for detached homes and condo-led developments are not producing the sufficient variety of housing options that Ontarians need. Notably, the report also states at the outset that existing land is sufficient for development with no further need for urban sprawl.
However, the menu of proposed regulatory rollbacks may also run the risk of watering down local powers. Various local governments have raised such concerns and noted how the province’s diverse demographic, socioeconomic and geographic conditions warrant a continuation of localized, democratic approaches to planning and development. For example, the recommended density threshold for as of right developments generally and across transit corridors might not be suitable in mid-sized communities, broadly implying the need to retain room for differentiated approaches to providing housing options across the province. Proposals to add guardrails to prevent potential delays at the Ontario Land Tribunals by local citizens has also been critiqued for stacking the cards in favour of developers.
To the extent that the province has contemplated ways to push municipalities to adopt these proposed reforms, it has been through recommending the creation of a Housing Delivery Fund that would reward those municipalities that synchronize their policies with the priorities of the Taskforce.
How the combination of proposals will lead to the creation of affordable housing options is not entirely clear in the Taskforce’s recommendations. Indeed, an affordable home is left undefined even though the report calls for a province-wide definition in the appendix. This does not mean that the question of affordability is not addressed. For example, as part of its proposed approaches to align government fees with promoting more housing, the Taskforce recommends waiving development charges for all affordable housing options that are guaranteed to remain affordable for 40 years.
In addition, there is likely room to find cost savings in a bloated regulatory regime. One study suggested that in eight cities in Canada, it costs an additional $229,000 to construct every new single detached house because of requirements such as zoning regulations. Bottlenecks in the labour supply chain can also do with fixing to reduce costs, the broad strokes of which are referenced in the report. Indeed, the premise of the report, that through finding an equilibrium between supply and demand, prices will become “affordable” is another circuitous route to which the document endeavours to fulfill its namesake – “The Ontario Housing Affordability Taskforce.”
And yet, the report overlooks many nuances. First, even if costs are reduced for developers through, for example, efficiency gains in the approval process and savings found in the supply chain, there is no guarantee that the proceeds will be passed on to the consumer, and by extension, a house be made “affordable.” Private developers and their financial backers are instead incentivized to maximize profits with little concern for broader public interest matters such as affordable housing unless they are required to take an interest in such matters. Absent any conditions, developers will likely continue to sell at rates as high as the market can bear.
Similarly, more density does not necessarily lead to more affordability, at least in prosperous areas and hot housing markets. On the contrary, this change may inflate the value of land and produce the opposite effect of making housing less affordable. In part, this is because such regulatory changes attract more people who will demand more services, which in turn, will attract more investments into the neighbourhood, all of which drives up the value of the area, and can be aggravated further by prospective buyers’ speculations of further price increases in the future. Such changes can gentrify neighbourhoods, in turn displacing traditionally lower and moderate-income residents from their communities.
The report does not contemplate such perverse impacts. It does indirectly explore the applicability of inclusionary zoning in its appendix but not in the context of how the policy could dampen the inflation of land prices and contribute to more affordable housing developments. Instead, it is more concerned about possible constraints placed on developers on account of its current iterations in cities such as Toronto.
In general, the Taskforce report pays little attention to how the role of managing “demand” has the potential to moderate prices. It rightly says that current government policies to manage demand, largely those adopted by the federal government, has not worked well. This is likely because the interventions amounted to tweaks to lending and borrowing requirements that effectively tinker at the edges and don’t have much of an impact on affordability. However, more consequential interventions to disincentivize investors to treat houses as investments – such as through charging a vendor a land transfer tax as opposed to the purchaser (which the province has control over) – have been given little attention. Plus, a more thorough investigation into the trade-offs between more rent regulation and vacancy control and its potential impacts on supply could add value to the current crop of proposals.
The report pays some attention to how investments in purpose-built rentals over time have declined. It rightly acknowledges feasibility constraints that inhibit further development of this much needed form of housing. To promote more construction of purpose-built rental apartment buildings, it largely recommends leveraging property tax incentives along with a combination of federal and provincial loan guarantees to support rental projects including affordable options.
There is also much promise in solutions explored to increasing the stock of affordable rentals in the appendix, where more public options are considered. The private market, after all, will not create affordable housing options alone, if at all. As such, proposals to providing incentives for affordable housing providers and surplus land for affordable housing are a good start. Importantly, the report acknowledges that many of the non-profit housing providers face the same barriers that private developers do – costly and time-consuming approvals coupled with restrictive zoning and local pushback to development. However, given the topic is not the focus of the report, a more detailed look into creating the conditions for and strengthening providers of deeply affordable housing options is missing.
As Ontario begins its legislative session, many of the report’s recommendations may be taken up for further consideration. These proposals offer a good starting point. However, the limitations of market solutions to creating affordable housing options are also made clear. Moving forward, a more integrated and effective strategy would more creatively incorporate the role of deeply affordable housing providers, retain a significant degree of local engagement to account for the province’s socio-economic diversity, and entertain matters beyond creating new supply such as through advancing strategies to preserve affordable housing stock.
This toolkit provides key information that housing service providers must know about Ontario rental housing laws, rules and responsibilities, and how to apply them in order to uphold the right to housing in their work.
As a housing service provider, it is important that you know the rules that govern your relationship to the tenants with whom you work. Some laws you should be aware of are:
The Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) is a comprehensive law governing most landlord and tenant relationships. It lays out the rights and responsibilities for tenants and landlords, tenancy agreements, repairs and maintenance, eviction and tenancy termination, rent and utility costs, care homes, mobile home parks and land lease communities. It also outlines the administration and enforcement of the RTA and offences under the RTA.
Finally, the RTA defines the role and functions of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) as the exclusive body responsible to determine how the RTA must be applied. Both tenants and landlords can file an application with the LTB for tenancy disputes.
The Housing Services Act (HSA) provides rules about subsidies for people who live in subsidized housing. In most types of subsidized housing, tenants are protected under the RTA and the HSA, as well as any additional rules set by their service provider, which is typically their municipal government.
The Co-operative Corporations Act provides rules and regulations for people who live in co-operative housing. These individuals are not considered tenants under the RTA, but they still benefit from some of its protections.
The Long-Term Care Homes Act provides rules and regulations for people who live in long-term care homes. These individuals are not protected under the RTA.
The Retirement Homes Act provides rules and regulations for people who live in retirement homes. These individuals are also protected under the RTA.
The Human Rights Code protects individuals from discrimination when dealing with a private organization. The Code does not protect every type of unfair treatment. Instead, it identifies different protected grounds upon which individuals should not face discrimination. If a person is treated badly or unfairly but the treatment is not connected with one or more of the protected grounds, then it is not considered discrimination under the Human Rights Code even though the person may be significantly impacted.
The sixteen grounds that are protected when accessing and maintaining housing are:
The Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) applies to most social housing in Ontario, including Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) housing. However, some parts of the RTA do not apply to tenants in social housing, such as the rules about rent increases and the rules about subletting or assigning a lease.
The Housing Services Act (HSA) is the provincial legislation that covers the administration of social housing and RGI housing, and it also covers community-based planning and delivery of housing and homelessness services with provincial oversight and policy direction. Service managers (who are often municipal governments) and housing providers have the authority to make certain decisions under the HSA.
The HSA also outlines certain rights related to processes for determining eligibility for RGI housing such as:
Finally, each service manager has written policies and procedures that govern things like determining household income, rules for filling vacancies and for record keeping. In Toronto, these policies can be found in the RGI Administration Manual.
Accommodating a tenant means that structures, rules, and policies may have to be changed to ensure that people who are members of protected groups under the Code are able to fully enjoy equality and dignity in the exercise of their rights and responsibilities.
Both landlords and tenants have duties and responsibilities during the accommodation process.
In order to meet their responsibilities, landlords must:
A tenant requesting accommodation also has obligations. They must:
Landlords may request medical documentation, but tenants are not required to disclose specific medical diagnoses. If requested, medical documentation must disclose enough information for the landlord to understand the tenant’s limitations and need for accommodation. Documentation should be treated carefully by the landlord, as it is personal information and should not be shared.
Landlords have a duty to accommodate a tenant’s disabilities up to the point of “undue hardship”. This means that a landlord is only discharged of their duty to accommodate if they can demonstrate that:
Only these three circumstances can be assessed by a court or tribunal to determine whether an accommodation process would cause undue hardship. If a court or tribunal determines that undue hardship would be caused, a landlord is not required to make the requested accommodation. If undue hardship is not found to be a concern, the landlord is required to make the accommodation.
It is not up to the person in need of accommodation to prove that the accommodation can be accomplished without undue hardship. The responsibility is on the landlord to demonstrate undue hardship.
Finally, evidence of undue hardship must be objective and real (i.e. financial statements and budgets). Landlords may have to hire qualified experts and consultants to collect and present this evidence. Speculation is not persuasive evidence of undue hardship.
If a landlord does not accommodate a tenant’s disability, the tenant has the right to bring an application to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.
A landlord is responsible to repair and maintain the rental unit. This includes items that came with the unit, such as appliances, as well as common areas, such as parking lots and hallways.
The Residential Tenancies Act says that “A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.”
This obligation does not change even if the tenant has agreed to accept a unit “as is,” or was aware of a problem when they moved in, or even if the lease says something else about repairs and maintenance. The landlord is always responsible for repairs.
In most parts of the province, property standards are in place that landlords must follow. These can vary depending on where the property is located, but could include rules around garbage, heat, pest management, exits and the number of people who can live in a unit. In locations where no local property standards by-law exists, the provincial Regulation 517/06: Maintenance Standards applies.
Pest control is a normal part of maintenance that all landlords must carry out, and the interior and exterior of all properties must be kept clear of pests.
In Toronto, large apartment buildings have higher standards for pest control. In those buildings, once a landlord becomes aware of pests, they must:
Further, Toronto landlords of apartment buildings with three or more storeys and ten or more units must post pest management plans including documentation of pest control services, a schedule, service standards, and product information related to pest control activity.
Tenants must allow their landlord or a pest control company to do their job so that pest control treatment can be done. For instance, this might include the tenant preparing their unit for treatment by moving furniture away from the wall or allowing a pest control company to enter their unit. If a tenant needs help to prepare their unit, they should tell their landlord. If they need help because of a disability, the landlord must accommodate them.
Requirements around the exact temperature and dates that units should be heated vary across Ontario and also depend on the type of housing. The standard temperature is around 20 degrees. In Toronto, rental units must be kept at a minimum of 21 degrees from September 15 – June 1. This rule does not apply to common areas.
If air conditioning is provided by the landlord and the air conditioning unit breaks, the landlord must repair it at their own cost because the air conditioner is considered to be part of the rental unit.
The rules around maintaining an air conditioner are much more complicated if the air conditioner is not provided by the landlord, but the tenant wants it. The first step is to look at the lease. If the lease does not mention an air conditioner, the tenant is allowed to have one. The landlord could require that the air conditioner be safely installed, for instance by a professional. If the lease says that the tenant needs permission to have air conditioning, the tenant is required to get permission from the landlord before installing an air conditioner.
Whether or not a landlord can charge a fee for air conditioning depends on who pays for electricity. If the tenant pays for electricity, the landlord cannot charge a fee for air conditioning. If the landlord provides electricity in the lease, the landlord can charge the tenant a fee for air conditioning. The amount charged cannot be more than the actual cost to the landlord and it must be “reasonable.”
Sometimes air conditioning is necessary as an accommodation for a tenant’s disability. For instance, a tenant’s asthma could be exacerbated by heat and an air conditioner could be an appropriate accommodation. In that case, the landlord may have to pay for the cost of the air conditioner, the electricity, or both.
To enter a unit in order to carry out renovations or maintenance, a landlord must provide the tenant with written notice, which must be delivered 24 hours in advance and include:
A landlord may enter a tenant’s rental unit without notice:
A landlord’s agent, superintendent or person hired by the landlord may also enter on the landlord’s behalf.
If a prospective tenant discloses that they have a pet before a rental agreement is signed, a landlord is allowed to refuse their rental application. After a tenant enters a rental agreement, a landlord cannot evict them simply for having a pet, even if the lease has a “no-pets” clause.
If a current tenant’s pet causes a problem – for instance making unreasonable noise, causing severe allergic reactions, presenting a danger or causing damage – then a landlord could insist that a tenant get rid of their pet.
However, there are two exceptions:
Tenants have the right to decide who comes into their home and a landlord cannot control who visits a tenant. A landlord cannot raise the rent or charge a fee because a tenant has guests. When a tenant has guests, they are responsible for the actions of their guests. If a guest causes property damage, for instance, the tenant who invited them to the property could be responsible for that damage.
The issue of guests becomes more complicated in RGI housing because rent is based on the income of tenants who live in the unit. In RGI housing all tenants must be provided with a copy of the housing provider’s guest policy. A guest policy that does not allow any guests is not legal.
As a housing worker, you have the power to implement the right to housing through the decisions you make, and you can also encourage your organization to implement right to housing principles as well. All of us, regardless of our relationship to power, can take steps to acknowledge and strive for a fully realized right to housing in Canada.
As a housing worker, consider how decisions you make affect your clients or residents. Are you able to use your discretion to enable a more flexible and human rights approach to your clients? Can your organization create and implement housing that ensures a right to housing approach and prioritizes those most vulnerable?
Some examples of this approach in action include:
Where you have the power to do so, use resources to act with urgency to fulfill the right to housing. Finally, we can all advocate to government and those in power to fully realize this important right.
Canada’s rental housing market is punishingly competitive. Low vacancy rates and out of control rental rates that are divorced from people’s ability to pay have left housing out of reach for many in the city. Finding housing that fits within one’s budget is extremely difficult, and the resulting housing instability has led to countless households being underhoused or homeless.
In addition to having to compete for housing in this environment, many Black households face anti-Black racism and discrimination from landlords and housing providers when trying to access housing, even though race is a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Discrimination in the housing market is unfortunately not rare. In July 2021, CERA and the Right to Housing Toronto held a workshop on discrimination, where two Black women shared some of the challenges they have faced when trying to find and maintain safe and accessible housing in the GTA – from passive aggressive comments to blatantly discriminatory housing ads. The women shared that the racial discrimination they faced was compounded by other factors related to their income, family status and disabilities. After long searches and multiple refusals from landlords, both women were forced to accept the only options open to them, in unsuitable housing where they did not feel comfortable or safe.
In 2009, CERA conducted a study about discrimination faced by renters in Toronto’s housing market. The important findings from this work have informed our advocacy efforts for equitable changes to housing policy and legislation. CERA’s research study found that Black housing seekers faced discrimination based on multiple human rights grounds, such as race, family status and/or place of origin. Intersectionality is also relevant to the difficulties Black renters can experience when trying to find housing. Our study found that 1 in 4 single parents who were Black experienced discrimination when searching for rental housing, and this continues to be reported by the media.
In the same CERA study, the research found that racial discrimination, while prevalent, was not explicitly stated by housing providers. Media reports show that it is common for Black renters to face additional questions and inquiries from housing providers due to discriminatory stereotypes. The consequences of housing insecurity for racialized communities have only worsened in the decade since our study was released and have become dire with the onset of COVID-19.
Acknowledging the systemic racism that has prevented many Black Canadians from accessing housing is crucial to advancing effective change. This discrimination has not only impacted individuals but has also meant that Black renters have been shut out of entire parts of the city. The right to housing must be a reality for all households on an equitable basis, and it cannot be fully realized without addressing the housing discrimination experienced by the Black community.
In order to even begin to address anti-Black racism in housing, governments must take some basic steps:
CERA is dedicated to helping renters facing anti-Black racism and discrimination from their housing providers. If you are being discriminated against by your housing provider,please contact us to speak with a caseworker about how we can help to advocate for you:
Renters can also reach out to:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
