The City of Toronto has formulated an Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) policy following two years of extensive research, analysis, and consultations to chip away at its target of creating 40,000 affordable rental homes by 2030, a commitment enshrined in its HousingTO 2020-2030 Action Plan.
This planning tool is a significant addition to the City’s existing menu of initiatives that are designed to increase affordable housing stock – notable examples include financial incentives through the Open Doors Program and utilizing surplus municipal properties for mixed income developments. Inclusionary Zoning is a policy that captures value generated from development activity and sets it aside for affordable housing options to be created, ideally, within the same development. This strategy has the potential of creating 25,000 new affordable units by 2030 across Toronto.
Last week, the Planning and Housing Committee approved a version of an IZ proposal which will be voted on at City Council next week. We hope that Toronto will not only adopt the policy but move forward with a version that is needs based and is consistently strengthened based on robust data as the policy evolves over the coming years.
City of Toronto Staff have made innumerable proposals related to extracting more significant contributions from the development industry for affordable housing for over twenty years. Yet, it has only been about ten years since provinces across Canada have started to empower their municipalities to adopt IZ. Toronto appears to be one of the first cities to consider a version that is comprehensive and mandatory.
The City’s current iterations have emerged following provincial passage of amendments to the Planning Act in 2016 which authorized municipalities to use IZ. A regulatory framework was released shortly thereafter laying out key conditions and parameters for municipalities in Ontario to adhere to when considering adoption of the policy.
Regulation 232/18 has afforded some flexibility for municipalities to chart their own path so long as a preliminary needs analysis and financial feasibility study is conducted while planned projects with less than 10 units are exempted. Subsequent provincial amendments in 2019 restricted the application of the policy to the boundaries of transit hubs or “Protected Major Transit Station Areas” (PMTSA).
The City has since conducted its own housing needs analysis along with three rounds of financial impact assessments, the details of which have been the subject of considerable feedback from myriad stakeholders in the housing ecosystem. The studies and engagements inform a policy that consists of design elements that have potential for increasing and sustaining affordable housing supply, while some aspects warrant reconsideration.
IZ as a requirement
The City has proposed that inclusionary zoning will be mandatory in new developments. Various exemptions remain, for example, for those development applications that were received before the policy was introduced. In general, however, evidence from other jurisdictions that have introduced a mandatory approach typically demonstrates greater success in producing affordable housing options compared to voluntary arrangements.
Set aside rates and phase-in
The proportion of units that should be set aside for affordable use varies by dwelling type and the area of the city in which the development will take place. This reflects the need for flexibility and alignment with local context to effectively deliver affordable housing. For example, some of the suburban areas of the city are exempt from the policy because there is not enough projected growth to absorb the costs of IZ. Over time, purpose built rental units have lower set aside rates partly because of greater uncertainty associated with returns on investing in such buildings. Adding stricter conditions may disincentivize construction of this much needed housing option.
Indeed, concerns around shocking the markets on account of the new policy, and in turn restricting supply, have helped shape an approach that slows the phasing in process of the policy and lowers the set aside rates of all property types relative to earlier estimations calculated by the same city commissioned third party organization (NBLC). Remarkably, purpose-built rentals do not face any requirements for the first five years.
In practice, such conclusions are based on two tests. The first calculates whether a certain area’s land value increases by at least 10% after rezoning and the introduction of IZ. Lower rates are assumed to render the policy unviable in that area. This threshold has been applied in all the feasibility analyses (In addition, the profits of developers are also accounted for, at 15%, as part of expected costs of development).
A second test was recently introduced to measure the drop in potential land values after an area is rezoned. It is conceivable that in a rezoned land, projected profits from land price increases might drop dramatically after factoring in IZ costs while still remaining above the 10% threshold. The test posits that a drop of anything beyond 15% could spook the markets, potentially prompting landowners to withhold their assets from sale in anticipation of prices to increase at an undetermined later date.
The rationale for this second test, in particular, is flawed. It adds an additional layer to maximize profits for a group that are already guaranteed windfalls on account of the first threshold. Second, the limits on the drop seeks to create a floor so that speculative behaviour can continue, a practice the policy is supposed to dampen significantly. Thirdly, it would not make sense for landowners to sit on their assets for a prolonged period in anticipation of land increases given that the program is here to stay, permanently. Four years of study, and two years of consultations that IZ is coming has been a clear signal for markets to start adjusting. Plus, earlier versions also gave room for the program to be phased in albeit at a quicker pace. The additional test therefore looks unnecessary and can be removed.
Incentives and alternatives
IZ programs tend to have incentives and alternatives that are meant to help developers manage their costs and effectively deliver. However, only a few seem to work. The City’s limited menu demonstrates its cognizance of such evidence. First, newly zoned areas where IZ is applied will allow for more density. However, no further density bonuses are made available unless developers volunteer to add more affordable units than what is required. This is a fiscally responsible approach that also ensures projects are financially viable.
Second, developers are given some room to construct affordable units off-site so long as the options are made available in the same market area and in a timely manner. Such requirements mitigate the real risks of less lucrative options being constructed later, when affordable housing is desperately needed, and ensures that they are not located in less resourced areas, depriving lower income communities from accessing key amenities and opportunities that are critical requirements for an adequate home. The process for availing of this option is also laid out meticulously in the City’s implementation guidelines.
Definition of affordability
The City has also proposed revising its definition of an affordable IZ unit using two steps. First, the average market rate of a particular unit is compared to whether income groups that fall below the 50th to 60th percentile, depending on the unit size, are paying no more than 30% of their income on shelter. Second, whichever option is the lowest amount determines what is deemed affordable for that unit size. Currently, this means that most unit types are pegged against income, and in turn imply that they are to be made available at below market rates. However, the average market rate metric continues to be adopted for two-bedroom rental units given that the calculated amount is lower than the income-based measure in this case. While this arrangement accounts for market and demographic variations over time and attempts to prioritize lower income earners, households on the lowest end of the income spectrum are likely not able to live in these units unless they receive additional financial supports.
Coverage and cut off
Provincial restrictions on where the City can apply IZ is at odds with an otherwise broad framework that affords considerable flexibility for municipalities to craft its own IZ policy according to its own needs. Indeed, the policy typically works better when applied as widely as possible given that this strategy offers more variety of options and creates mixed income communities across the city.
The City has tried to counter part of these restrictions through barring developers from adding replacement units as part of new proposals. Only new developments are considered to ensure that affordable stock is increased. However, project plans with less than 100 units or with a gross floor area of less than 8000 metres squared are exempt. This is less expansive than earlier proposals developed by the City, limiting the range of housing options for prospective tenants.
Period of affordability
It is required that units built through IZ remain affordable for 99 years, allowing for an arrangement that is effectively permanent. The challenge will be in enforcement, a consideration that appears to have received significant attention. In the proposed arrangement, the City has articulated high level roles and responsibilities along with annual reporting requirements to track and ensure compliance. A process is also in place to enable resale of units by owners during this period while maintaining that they remain affordable. However, there is likely room for more iteration, for example, in more clearly detailing out the function of third-party administrators, actors who are expected to manage much of the affordable units.
Other implementation considerations
The policy stands out in its requirements that prospective residents of affordable units have the same access to amenities and other dwelling services, and that the quality of the unit be the same as their market counterpart. Such provisions ensure affordable housing is accessible and livable. In addition, it also accounts for demographic variations, such as family needs, through requiring that there are sufficient multi-bedroom options available at affordable rates for projects that have a significant number of units with more than one-bedroom.
The selection process of tenants or owners consists of clear allocation of roles and responsibilities to minimize any uncertainties. In addition, it appropriately leverages City resources to administer the process and is reasonably inclusive which is demonstrated in eligibility criteria that includes citizens, permanent residents, and temporary residents who have applied for permanent residents.
The City’s policy has many important ingredients to increase the supply of affordable housing options for those living on low to moderate incomes. In addition, through extending the period of affordability into perpetuity, this policy can ensure that prospective residents are afforded a much needed degree of tenure security.
But there is room for this policy to evolve beyond its current form to become more effective and inclusive. It is still unclear how many affordable units the policy can truly create. Data gaps need to be filled to form clearer conclusions about the variety of housing options that can be created, whether the threshold for where IZ can be applicable can be lowered, and whether a larger portion of units within a building can feasibly be set aside for affordable use. In particular, assumptions around how the market will react need to be revisited keeping in mind that the policy ought to reduce some speculative behaviour.
The policy also creates innumerable new opportunities for collaboration with civil society and non-profit housing providers, many of whom will likely be tasked with administering the affordable units. It will be imperative to create platforms for such entities to engage consistently and share lessons learned from their day-to-day management experiences. Plus, there will likely be a role for the province to reconsider its current restrictions as the program evolves.
Inclusionary Zoning alone cannot create enough affordable housing options for the growing housing needs of Torontonians. Indeed, it is not feasible to rely exclusively on extracting value from private development to create deeply affordable homes. A major reason for the housing crisis in Toronto is due to federal and provincial governments retreating from their traditional obligations to support the creation of affordable housing, such as social housing options for lower income households.
While the federal government stepped up its commitments through its National Housing Strategy, there has been limited focus on increasing deeply affordable housing options and maintaining social housing. Plus, there is room for greater intergovernmental collaboration, for example, through ensuring provinces cost-match funds made available through federal initiatives. In addition, local level barriers to development, such as NIMBYISM and rickety approvals processes also warrant attention. Such issues must be considered alongside policies such as IZ to deliver on a comprehensive approach to addressing Toronto’s affordable housing crisis.
Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) is a planning tool used by municipal governments to encourage or mandate developers who intend to build new dwellings, to “set aside” a portion of these units for affordable use. Such units may be allocated for sale or lease at affordable rates. Developers may also have the option of building the affordable units in other locations within a city, or they may be able to pay cash in lieu of actually developing the units. Municipal governments may offer incentives such as further relaxations on building height or “density bonusing” to generate more investments from developers in affordable housing.
The rationale for adopting the policy partly stems from a general failure among many local governments to effectively leverage the dynamics of the market to create affordable housing options for low - and moderate-income people. For instance, in Toronto out of the 230,000 new housing units that were constructed or slated for development over the last five years, only 2% offered rents at or below market rates. Most of the new buildings are condominiums or detached homes. Housing options available for those living on fixed incomes like seniors or for people making a living off precarious employment like many young adults, are negligible.
Local planning and infrastructure investment decisions have created conditions to promote private development activity in major cities across Canada, but not enough affordable housing has emerged out of this process. Specifically, zoning amendments such as density relaxations and encouragement of mixed -use development signal greater economic activity, in turn promoting speculative behaviour in land markets. Prospective investors and developers make projections about potential development revenues generated based on the policy changes and related market and operational variables, in practice materializing into inflated investments in land. To maximize profit margins, new housing built on these lands are priced at rates that are targeted towards higher income earners.
The strategy is thus investor driven - one that endeavours to increase returns at exponential rates. The housing needs of households in the low- and moderate-income range are effectively overlooked, leading to a form of market failure that warrants some form of government intervention. Indeed, public policy appears to have created conditions for the development industry to reap windfall profits without many conditions in place to capture a meaningful portion of the proceeds for the greater needs of the public.
IZ closes part of this gap. By requiring or negotiating with developers to provide affordable housing options either directly or through cash in lieu, evidence from most jurisdictions that have experimented with the policy shows that affordable options can be created over time with varying levels of success. Plus, it is likely that the restrictive orientation of the IZ policy tool has a dampening effect on the skyrocketing prices of land in many cities.
Opponents of the policy tend to point to the policy’s cost prohibitive design. This, they suggest, leads to rising house prices, the burdens of which are carried by prospective homeowners, or supply could be constricted at a city-wide level. However, the theoretical basis and evidence to support such claims are fragile.
Firstly, property buyers tend to be sensitive to dramatic price shifts, so developers are left with little room to pass on high costs to these groups without risking losing market share. To the extent that there may be some increase in house prices in select cases, the role of IZ in this increase is minimal. In areas such as the Washington-Baltimore region, where the effects of the policy on supply have been studied, there appears to be no evidence of any negative effects after the introduction of the IZ policy.
While IZ clearly demonstrates potential, it can only work in cities with hot property markets, ones which are experiencing population and economic growth. If house prices are not escalating rapidly enough, then developers do not have the room to internalize the costs of the policy and generate sufficient returns. In fact, within cities, some neighbourhoods might be experiencing faster growth than others, implying the need for a differentiated approach to applying the policy.
Further, IZ primarily benefits moderate-income earners. A private developer can only do so much in creating affordable housing options. To sustain the arrangement, the prospective homeowner or renter must be earning a reasonable income generated from employment. This helps cover costs of rent or mortgage as well as maintenance and repairs over time. Its potential of helping meet the needs of this group is significant. Persistent shortfalls in affordable housing options can increase the risk of labour shortages on account of pricing out such households who then seek out cheaper options in other jurisdictions.
However, households in lower income categories such as newcomers and single-parent families have limited mobility options given that economic opportunities and social and physical infrastructure tend to be concentrated in larger cities. Neglecting such groups threatens the very economic dynamism and social fabric of large metropolises. A creative IZ policy that includes provisions for more stringent affordability requirements in some areas along with additional supports may hold some potential in covering a wider spectrum of income groups including households living in more precarious economic conditions.
Several European countries have experimented with various forms of IZ over the years. The United States, given its long history with implementing the policy, and comparable federal structure to Canada is noteworthy. IZ started emerging in the 1970s in American urban policy as federal housing programs started to wind down.
Today, there are over 500 IZ programs in about half of the country’s states, with jurisdictions ranging from large cities such as Chicago to smaller communities like Telluride, Colorado. The majority of initiatives is concentrated in California, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Key facts include:
The extent to which IZ can generate a significant number of affordable housing stock is contingent on the calibration of the policy, the permutations and combinations of which are determined by local context.
Montreal and Vancouver were the first Canadian cities to start experimenting with voluntary forms of inclusionary zoning. As provinces empower municipalities to adopt the policies, more are considering following suit. Notably, Toronto has proposed a mandatory program that will last for 99 years. Such actions point to an increasing recognition amongst municipal governments across Canada that value capture tools are a critical way to address the growing housing crisis in the country.
“One misconception is that people don’t want to get better”
In recent years, there has been an uptick in public campaigns aimed at destigmatizing mental health. While these campaigns are undoubtedly important and have had a positive impact, there remains work to be done, especially when it comes to mental health and homelessness.
We spoke with two people who have experience working with the homeless population about some of the challenges that this group faces and how a Housing First model can help.
Mo Moore is a family doctor who runs a clinic out of a homeless shelter in St. Catharine’s, Ontario. In her clinic, she sees people with a variety of concerns.
“For some visits, I see some regular family medicine issues like diabetes and blood pressure control —things I might see in another setting — but I see a much higher proportion of complex mental health concerns, substance use concerns, complex physical health concerns, and chronic disease.”
Studies have shown that people who are homeless are more likely to experience mental health challenges than the general population. For some, these issues can precede the onset of homelessness. As the Homeless Hub notes, “people with poor mental health are more susceptible to the three main factors that can lead to homelessness: poverty, disaffiliation, and personal vulnerability.”
Mental health challenges can also contribute to homelessness or worsen with continued homelessness.
“Some people are quite forthcoming with the story of how they became homeless, and it sort of varies,” Dr. Moore says. “A lot of the time, people may have had a job and a family and may have gone through some sort of trauma which impacted their mental health, which led them to using substances to cope, and then the substance use sort of took over and they lost [things] they had because of that. I would say that is a relatively common scenario.”
Another common issue is supporting people’s mental health in shelters.
“Mental health wise, you are in a setting where you’re really just in survival mode, you are trying to get through your day. And a lot of people have a history of trauma and violence and sometimes that happens within shelter walls,” Dr. Moore explains. “You are looking out for your own. You are making sure your stuff is not getting stolen. It is really not a place where you can make any meaningful steps forward to healing when you are just trying to survive through the day, and I think that is a huge challenge.”
Safiyah Husein is a senior policy advisor with the John Howard Society of Ontario (JHSO), an organization that has been operating in Ontario for over 90 years, and has 19 community offices across the province. JHSO provides “programs and services that help people affected by the justice system develop key life skills, navigate issues of criminal justice, and build productive futures after incarceration.”
Husein says that what a lot of people don’t realize is that mental health, homelessness, and justice system involvement are interconnected.
In 2018, John Howard Society took part in research project called Closed Quarters that looked at how the “criminal justice system fosters housing insecurity and contributes to homelessness, and the extent to which mental health and addictions problems are implicated in this.”
“It is sort of a cyclical relationship. We see that that mental health issues can result in justice involvement, which can result in homelessness and vice versa,” Husein says. “When we’re talking about mental health, we recognize that there is often a lack of mental health service providers in the community. There’s a lack of support. A lot of the time, for folks that are struggling with mental health issues, that can often be exacerbated by homelessness, but it can also lead to homelessness.
And then we know that those are also risk factors for criminal justice involvement, which can again worsen those issues.”
Both Dr. Moore and Husein say they have seen Housing First approaches help people experiencing mental health challenges and homelessness to better be able to navigate those challenges and find a semblance of stability.
Housing First involves quickly moving people experiencing homelessness into stable and long-term housing, and then providing additional supports as needed.
“There has been some research done of the Housing First model where people are provided with safe housing first, with supports usually built into the program, and that has been shown to have positive outcomes. [These studies show that] housing stability [results] in decreases in violence, fewer accidental overdoses, and overall fewer deaths with those type of supports been built in,” Dr. Moore says.
The John Howard Society often takes a Housing First approach with their clients and has found this approach successful for many of their clients.
Husein shared one example with us:
“Jack* is a true example of the benefits of our Housing First mentality. The client has struggled for over a decade with substance abuse issues and homelessness resulting from those same struggles. When the client reached out to our housing worker at John Howard Society of Toronto, he had been living in an encampment at Trinity Bellwoods with his female partner who was dealing with similar addiction and legal issues as the client in question.
With the help of our Post incarceration Housing Department, the client was found housing and immediately his life began to change for the better. Both in his wardrobe and appearance, the client quickly began presenting himself better physically, as he had access to a laundry room, and place to store his clothing…After being housed the client began to reach out to his housing worker for information on drug treatment programs, and for aid in securing his rent payment moving forward through income support programs.
Jack has since completed an in-treatment addiction program that he says has changed his life. It is also worth mentioning that since being housed the client’s live-in partner, Anna*, has also had the opportunity to successfully complete an in-treatment drug program. Both clients are currently sober for the first time in over a decade, and have sustained housing for six months, which is the longest time they have held housing in over two years. Jack is currently seeking to re-enter the work force, as he has a degree in social work and would like the opportunity to help people in at risk communities like the ones he has inhabited as best he can.”
*Names changed to protect the clients’ privacy
Mental health and homelessness are complex topics but learning what “some of the challenges and barriers that this population faces just in day to day living” can help with understanding this complexity, as well as the resiliency of this population group, Dr. Moore says.
“I think maybe one misconception is that people don’t want to get better and if they could just do more, or get a job, then they would be able to get housing and get out of the situation,” Dr. Moore says. “But when you see what people have gone through and see the barriers they face every day, you would realize that is just not possible without our system having better supports for this group.”
If you would like to know more about mental health, homelessness, and the justice system, check out these resources by the John Howard Society of Ontario: Broken Record, Closed Quarters, and Poverty Reduction Submission.
Canada recognized the right to housing in 2019 through the passing of the National Housing Strategy Act, which commits our government to the progressive realization of the right to housing. This means that housing should meet certain conditions to be adequate such as being affordable, habitable and accessible. For Canada’s aging population living in long-term care (LTC) homes*, the right to housing means that their homes are safe, adequate and accessible. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified the substandard conditions experienced by residents of many LTC homes, many of which sadly became sites of viral transmission that resulted in a high number of preventable deaths. It is important that our governments adopt policies that will prevent such a tragic outcome in the future.
LTC homes are different than assisted living facilities or retirement homes as these are designed to house residents who are more independent and require less assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). Individuals who suffer from chronic conditions, trauma or illness that limit their ability to carry out basic self-care tasks live in LTC homes, which support them with the provision of care.
As such, LTC are homes to their residents and their right housing, including adequate facilities, should be protected. This includes proper infection control, clinical management and the maintenance of a basic standard of living, and ensuring that residents live in safety and dignity with essential health services provided.
In Canada, LTC homes are funded by the federal government through the Canada Health Transfer to the provinces and are a provincial responsibility governed by the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. However, LTC is not included in the Canada Health Act as an insured health service, so the provinces and territories are not required to fund LTC homes in order to receive federal funding. This has led to the uneven allocation of funds which has in turn resulted in the delivery of varying standards of care across the provinces
According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), there are 198,220 LTC beds across 2,076 homes in Canada. Of those homes, 46% are publicly owned and operated and 54% are privately owned and operated. This means that with a population of 6,835,866 people aged 65 and older, there are 29 LTC beds per 1,000 older persons.
While not every older person in the country will rely on a LTC home, the limited availability of these homes means limited housing options for residents who need them. But older persons are not the only people who rely on LTC homes. In Ontario, while older persons represent the majority of LTC residents, 6.6% are younger than 64 years old, and the limited number of LTC options impact them as well.
There are several systemic issues that serve as barriers to adequate housing in LTC homes, which were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Understaffing, overworked staff, lack of inspections and accountability mechanisms, poor design and age of the homes, the presence of mould, bug infestations, overcrowding and neglect are just some examples. The pandemic has brought these systemic issues to the surface, forcing our society to reflect on ways our aging population is treated and initiating a renewed call to make LTC homes safe and adequate for their residents.
People over the age of 70 are twenty times more likely to require hospitalization from COVID-19 and are at even greater risk of death, as indicated by the rates of infection and death across geographies. LTC facilities in Ontario and Quebec represented 82% of all COVID-19 cases and 88% of all deaths. Many of the residents of LTC homes were reported to live in conditions that were undignified and unsafe. For many of the residents who were forced to physically remain in their rooms and unable to leave, isolation also became a major concern.
Additionally, many of these homes are experiencing staff shortages, which has led to an overworked staff who experience physical and psychological stress. LTC staff are also increasingly vulnerable to infection, representing 10% of infection cases across the country. In larger LTC homes with shared rooms, the likelihood of an outbreak was much higher, which led to increased absenteeism, increased workloads for already overworked staff, and ultimately, reduced the ability of these homes to provide an adequate standard of care.
The pandemic not only showcased the living conditions of our LTC residents in Canada, but it also illuminated the challenges associated with providing adequate housing for older populations living in LTC homes globally. However, some countries have fared better than others, as their LTC homes are able to meet standards of care and housing adequacy.
So, what makes some countries more successful at providing adequate LTC homes to their residents?
The approach to managing and funding LTC homes that a country takes will depend greatly on several factors including a country’s history, political landscape, available resources, culture, community standards, the role of government in social welfare and the varying emphasis on personal/familial responsibilities. Despite differences in funding mechanisms and qualifications, there is very little difference between public expenditures dedicated to LTC homes, taken as a percentage of GDP, but the standard of care varies greatly.
According to the Global AgeWatch Index, Norway is a leader in the delivery of LTC homes. It offers universal coverage as part of a tax-funded social care system, though care is municipally implemented and there are strong federal regulations. There is also an emphasis on the adoption of technology to account for staffing issues and as a means of prolonging the transition from in-home care to a LTC home. Generally, Scandinavian countries take great efforts to enable older persons to stay in their own home with the necessary accommodations to ensure a standard of care and quality of life is provided. Denmark and Sweden both offer the option of home or institutionalized care. In Denmark, private care providers are subject to quality and price standards. The government will reimburse family members for lost wages when informal care is provided to loved ones in their own homes. Three-quarters of municipalities sponsor integrated home care systems which has helped to reduce the number of people who rely on nursing home care. In Sweden, individuals can opt for private home care. In 1992, reforms decentralized care which resulted in a 50% decrease in the ratio of beds to clients. There are also separate facilities for individuals living with dementia.
Just as the delivery of LTC in Norway, Denmark and Sweden is distinctly Scandinavian, in the United States the approach is distinctly American. In the United States there is stark political opposition to tax-funded LTC homes through universal healthcare coverage and instead they rely on safety net or means-tested programming. The country relies on insurance-based care and private care models, and an LTC home is offered through Medicare and Medicaid. The federal government sets the standards, individual states are responsible for inspection of the facilities.
Australia has proven to be a leader in the delivery and monitoring of LTC homes. There are strict accreditation and inspection processes in place, and strong oversight which enabled it to fare well during the COVID pandemic. All homes are expected to provide equal care and funding is allocated based on overall resident dependency.
While LTC homes exist in other countries that are not included in this article, it is important for policy-makers to look at ways other countries protect their older persons and provide a LTC home that is adequate for their residents, allowing them to live with dignity.
Looking both inward, and at other examples globally, there are several ways our governments can ensure adequate housing for older persons living in LTC homes.
One way to do so would be to institute better standards and oversight in our LTC homes. Some advocates have pointed to the need to set national standards as a condition of federal funding to provinces in order to improve the provision, oversight and accountability of care delivery that may include infection prevention practices. If this is the direction the federal government takes to improve our LTC homes, it’s vital that the federal and provincial governments better coordinate and adopt an emergency response plan to proactively address systemic barriers to adequate LTC homes.
Another important move that can increase adequate LTC homes is to make home care an option, enabling older persons to stay in the comfort of their home. This move would improve a person’s dignity while relieving the strain on LTC homes to care for the most vulnerable. To make home care a viable option, it’s important to ensure that resources are made available to caregivers to provide the necessary standard of care.
Staffing and resources for LTC homes also needs to be improved in order to lift the strain on this system as a whole. Governments can ensure there are enough trained staff and make available the necessary resources to run these homes adequately, improving the minimum standard of care. Likewise, infrastructure improvements such as the age and design of LTC facilities could also enhance the delivery of care.
Lastly, LTC homes that are culturally adequate should be increased to help residents who suffer from cognitive decline and regression as their sense of security, fulfillment and dignity of personhood would improve greatly. This could include something as simple as having a staff member who speaks the same language or grouping together people with similar cultures and beliefs. Cultural adequacy also means providing spaces for traditional practices and healing approaches.
While many conversations around the inadequacy of LTC homes and their inability to protect their residents during the pandemic have revolved around the private vs. public debate, what we can conclude is there is a defined need to rethink the care model altogether. Solutions may lie in increasing resources to enable home care or adopting transformative resident approaches like a compassionate dementia care model.
Rethinking the care model also means listening to the needs of the residents of LTC homes and finding ways to engage them in identifying solutions that will meet their needs. It means listening to the families of residents, who care about their loved ones and often shoulder the burden of LTC unaffordability and inadequacy. Family members have been calling for improvements to LTC homes’ living conditions from a place of compassion so their loved ones can live dignified lives. It also means listening to policy makers and advocates who are equipped with the knowledge and evidence-based research pertaining to this complex issue and the approaches that can be leveraged to enhance LTC homes and the standard of care being delivered.
When we rethink the care model, we ensure that our older persons are not only able to live in safe, adequate and affordable homes, but it also reflects who we are as a society when we take care of our aging population and ensure their fundamental human rights.
*An LTC home is defined by Health Canada as a “living accommodation for people who require onsite delivery of twenty-four hour, seven days a week supervised care, including professional health services, personal care and service such as meals, laundry and housekeeping.” In the province of Ontario, the Long-Term Care Homes Act states that, “a long-term care home is primarily the home of its residents and is to be operated so that it is a place where they may live with dignity and in security, safety and comfort and have their physical, psychological, social, spiritual and cultural needs adequately met.
Canada is in the midst of a deepening affordable housing crisis. Forty percent of Canadian renter households are paying unaffordable rents, spending nearly a third or more of their income on housing. Increases in average housing costs continue to outpace increases in the average income for renter households – a dire situation that has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Having safe, adequate, and affordable housing will be essential throughout the remainder of the pandemic and is critical for the post-pandemic recovery.
Housing is a major concern for the majority of Canadian voters in this upcoming federal election. The Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA) and the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) have come together to present a summary of eight housing policy priorities of each major party’s platform. By knowing the housing priorities and policy proposals of each party, voters can be more informed when they head to the polls on September 20, 2021.
See the party platforms in full:
Liberal Party | Conservative Party | New Democratic Party | Green Party
Canada has an obligation under international law to use the maximum of its available resources to realize the right to housing for all. The National Housing Strategy Act – Canada’s current housing policy that was passed into law in 2019 – acknowledges this obligation and commits the government to progressively realize this right over time.
LIBERAL PARTY
CONSERVATIVE PARTY
NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
GREEN PARTY
A legacy of colonization and ongoing systemic racism have contributed to significant housing challenges for Indigenous communities. Indigenous peoples make up 4.3% of the population in Canada, but represent between 28-34% of the homeless population, and 20% of Indigenous households are in core housing need. Indigenous communities and housing advocates have repeatedly called for national Indigenous housing strategies to be created by and for Indigenous people.
LIBERAL PARTY
CONSERVATIVE PARTY
NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
GREEN PARTY
Canada has a major shortage of affordable housing, especially for lower to middle income households. A wider variety of affordable options are required to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population. Policy solutions that increase housing choices are essential, especially to build affordable purpose-built rentals, non-profit housing, and co-operative housing.
LIBERAL PARTY
CONSERVATIVE PARTY
NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
GREEN PARTY
The ‘financialization of housing’ is the rising trend of treating a home primarily as an investment that generates wealth rather than a place to live. Institutional investors now own nearly 20% of the country’s purpose-built rental apartment stock, and their profit-maximizing business model is one of the main reasons behind the loss of affordable rental housing across Canada.
LIBERAL PARTY
CONSERVATIVE PARTY
NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
GREEN PARTY
Over the past 15 years, affordable housing units have been lost without enough units being built to replace them. Policy options that could help retain the supply of affordable housing include implementing rent control and making investments in maintenance and capital repairs to ensure these units remain in good condition. Addressing the backlog of repairs to social housing units is also needed, and could be a more affordable option than creating new affordable units.
LIBERAL PARTY
CONSERVATIVE PARTY
NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
GREEN PARTY
It is estimated that a quarter of a million households were unable to pay their rent in 2020 alone, with many facing the threat of eviction from their homes. While some direct financial support has been available to help commercial tenants stay afloat, resources like rent relief have not been provided to support residential renters directly.
LIBERAL PARTY*
CONSERVATIVE PARTY*
NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
GREEN PARTY
* No mention of direct rent relief to tenants
An estimated 35,000 people experience homelessness in Canada on any given night, and the number of people experiencing ‘hidden homelessness’ is estimated to be at least double that figure. Indigenous people, youth, women, people living with disabilities, and racialized communities all face unique challenges with homelessness.
LIBERAL PARTY
CONSERVATIVE PARTY
NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
GREEN PARTY
Homeownership is increasingly out of reach for people across Canada, and it is no longer only an issue in and around major urban centres like Vancouver and Toronto. According to the Canadian Real Estate Association, across Canada the average price of a home increased by more than 30% between July 2019 to July 2021. Low mortgage rates, low housing supply, money laundering and the financialization of housing are some of the major factors contributing to soaring prices.
LIBERAL PARTY
CONSERVATIVE PARTY
NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
GREEN PARTY
Two Ontario provincial Bills were passed in the last year that impact the legal rights of renters across the province: Bill 184, passed in July 2020, and; Bill 204, passed in October 2020. Here we take a closer look at what renters need to know about these two Bills and their legal rights.
Bill 184, the “Protecting Tenants and Strengthening Community Housing Act,” was passed by the Ontario government on July 21, 2020. This law made some important changes to the Residential Tenancies Act and the Housing Services Act, two of the most comprehensive laws that govern housing in Ontario.
Many advocates, including CERA, are concerned about the negative impacts that these changes will have on tenants’ rights and housing security.
Bill 184 increased the fines for landlords who evict tenants “in bad faith.” These fines can apply to evictions in two scenarios.
In the first scenario, a landlord evicts a tenant by claiming that the landlord, a family member, or someone purchasing the unit needs to move in. This is commonly known as an eviction for a “landlord’s own use”. However, it would be considered “in bad faith” if once the tenant has moved out, the landlord, family member, or new purchaser does not move in and instead puts the building up for sale or re-rents it, sometimes at a higher price.
In the second scenario, a landlord evicts a tenant claiming that they want to demolish the rental unit or renovate it. Once the tenant has moved out, the landlord re-rents the unit at a higher price or puts the building up for sale. This type of eviction is commonly called a “renoviction.”
In both of these scenarios, landlords can be fined up to $50,000 (and $250,000 in case of a corporation) if a tenant can prove that an eviction has been done “in bad faith”.
Starting on September 1, 2021, tenants who have been evicted in bad faith may request additional compensation equaling an amount of up to 1 year’s rent. If they were evicted so that the landlord could renovate the unit but they weren’t provided with an option to move back after the renovations, tenants may now bring an application for a bad faith eviction. Such an application can be made up to two years after the tenant had to leave their apartment and if they requested “the right of first refusal”, meaning that they asked their landlord to provide them with the opportunity to move back into the unit before it is offered to anyone else.
Bill 184 has stripped away many protections from tenants that were formerly afforded to them under the Residential Tenancies Act. Here are five key concerns under Bill 184 that could negatively impact tenants, identified by housing rights advocates:
If a tenant has been unable to pay their rent, their landlord can file an application at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) to evict the tenant. This process may involve the landlord and tenant developing a written document that outlines the dates and amounts the tenant will pay to the landlord until the total amount owed has been paid in full. This document is known as a ‘payment agreement.’ Under Bill 184, landlords and tenants are now allowed to develop a payment agreement on their own and file the agreement with the LTB. If the tenant misses a payment or makes a payment later than the dates they agreed to, the landlord may be able to apply for an eviction without notifying the tenant. This means that a tenant could receive an eviction order from the LTB without ever attending a hearing. Moving outside of the hearing process has the potential to negatively impact tenants, as it removes the involvement of a Board member, who is required to consider a tenant’s circumstances when setting out the terms of a payment agreement. Without the involvement of a third-party like an LTB member or a mediator, tenants could be more vulnerable to pressure or intimidation by their landlord to sign an agreement with terms that they do not understand or cannot afford.
Disputes between landlords and tenants can now be resolved through alternative dispute resolution processes, in addition to mediation and hearings. However, it remains unclear what these “alternative” dispute resolutions will involve. Without clarity on what the alternative processes are, housing advocates are concerned that such processes could potentially weaken tenants’ access to justice, and that tenants may not have the same protection as those available through the hearing and mediation process.
During dispute processes, tenants are now required to notify the LTB in writing in advance of their hearing of any concerns and complaints they would like to raise against their landlord at their hearing. The problem with this change is that tenants often do not raise problems with their landlord until they arrive at their hearing out of fear of retaliation from their landlord in the form of eviction threats, harassment, or loss of a landlord referral. This requires tenants to be legally-savvy and develop their legal arguments well in advance of their hearing. Most tenants find the legal process complex and overwhelming as upwards of 97% of tenants do not have representation to help them navigate the LTB process.
Starting on September 1, 2021, landlords may seek financial compensation from tenants at the LTB for various issues, including for unpaid rent, unpaid utilities, damages to the rental building, and costs associated with if the tenant interfered with the landlord’s reasonable enjoyment of, or legal interest in, the rental property. Landlords can claim compensation from current tenants, as well as from former tenants, for up to one year after the tenant moves out. The landlord can apply for this money as long as the tenant is still in possession of the unit on September 1, 2021, even if the money is owed for things that happened before that date.
In the past, these issues would have been resolved at Small Claim Court, where rules and processes exist to inform tenants about any legal proceedings against them and serve them with legal documents. For proceedings at the LTB, landlords are responsible to notify their former tenant of any applications or hearings where they are involved. If a landlord fails to notify a former tenant for instance because they do not have the new address of that tenant, the tenant may not know about the hearing and fail to attend their hearing, and a landlord may obtain an Order that they can enforce, without the tenant knowing anything about the issue.
Tenants who receive notice of any of these applications should get legal advice about their options. Reach out to a Legal Clinic or contact CERA.
There are very specific laws that regulate rent increases in Ontario. However, tenants sometimes unknowingly pay illegal rent increases when they are unaware of these regulations or have been pressured by their landlord.
Before Bill 184, tenants could challenge an illegal rent increase at the LTB at any time, and an illegal increase could never become legal. Under Bill 184, if a tenant pays the illegal rent increases for 12 consecutive months, this becomes the new legal rent amount and the tenant is no longer able to challenge the illegal rent increase afterwards.
Tenants who are protected under the Residential Tenancies Act cannot be evicted without a formal process. This process involves the landlord making an application to the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) requesting an eviction. If the eviction is granted by an LTB member, only the Sheriff can enforce the eviction.
However, if a landlord and a tenant enter into a payment agreement and the tenant fails to stick to what was agreed upon, such as making a payment a day late or missing a payment altogether, the landlord no longer has to go through a formal LTB hearing. Instead, they can obtain an ‘ex-parte’ eviction order, which is an eviction order that can proceed without a hearing at the LTB.
Find out if you are a tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act
A new standardized payment agreement form is now available, in which landlords and tenants can define the terms of an agreement. Question #4 on that form includes two options that will determine what will happen if a tenant fails to make any of the payments as defined in the agreement. If the first option is selected, a landlord may proceed with an eviction order – without seeking a hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board – if a tenant fails to make a payment. This is a new provision under Bill 184 which tenants must be especially aware of if they are signing a payment agreement with their landlord.
When a tenant has fallen behind on their rent, they can develop an agreement with their landlord to repay the amount they owe over a period of time. After the landlord has filed a notice of eviction and application for a hearing for unpaid rent, landlords and tenants can develop a payment agreement on their own without attending a hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB). A landlord could potentially show up at a tenant’s door, with no warning, and demand that the agreement be signed on the spot. If a tenant feels pressured or intimidated by their landlord, they may feel that they are obliged to sign the first agreement their landlord presents them with even if that agreement is unrealistic. It is important that tenants are not pressured and have the time to think of more realistic terms that they can meet and obtain legal advice.
Tenants are not required to sign any payment agreement. If they do not sign a payment agreement, the matter must go before a hearing at the LTB as it normally would.
If your landlord is pressuring you to sign a payment agreement that you do not understand or cannot afford, seek advice immediately from a Legal Clinic or Tenant Duty Counsel.
No. There are very specific laws that regulate rent increases in Ontario. Rent can only be raised once per year based on that year’s rent increase guideline which is identified by the provincial government based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Landlords are still required to provide 90 days’ notice in advance of increasing the rent. Bill 184 did not change these rules.
In the fall of 2020, Ontario passed Bill 204 which froze rent increases for most renters at 2020 levels, even if the notice of a rent increase was given to the tenant in 2020. This means that if the rent increase was going to take effect in 2021, it is no longer valid. The rent freeze applies to all residential units, including those that are not regulated by Ontario’s rent increase guideline (ie. units first occupied as residential unit after November 15, 2018 which are exempt from Ontario’s rent increase guideline) as well as rent-geared-to-income units.
Landlords are still able to raise the rent in some circumstances. For example, the landlord may increase the rent if the tenant agrees to receive additional services. Or, the landlord may apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for an above-guideline rent increase to cover extraordinary expenses related to municipal taxes, major repairs, or additional security.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the lives of Canadian renters have been impacted in unprecedented ways. We have seen a wave of income loss across the country and with that the rise of rental arrears and evictions. While the federal government provided much needed emergency financial assistance to many, for those paying unaffordable rents in cities like Toronto, these financial supports were not enough to make ends meet. In Ontario, with some of the most unaffordable cities to rent a home, people have experienced increased housing precarity and face the risk of eviction because they were unable to pay their rent in full during the pandemic.
Ontario’s government was quick to respond to the pandemic early on by placing a moratorium on residential evictions beginning in March 2020 but lifted it in August 2020, putting many households at risk of eviction while we were still in the middle of the pandemic. Since then, the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) has been operating digitally, by holding virtual hearings many of which are for evictions based on rental arrears. There have been major access to justice and technology issues for many renters at these hearings. Some temporary measures were adopted by the government to delay the carrying out of these evictions via a moratorium on the enforcement of evictions at different times during the pandemic. However, financial rent relief supports have been missing from our governments, leaving many in a precarious situation not knowing if they’ll have a place to call home.
The COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and policies to reduce public transmission of the virus, have led to massive income loss throughout Canada, which disproportionately impacted low-income communities. Early on in the pandemic, it was clear that renter households were to face major hurdles in keeping their homes as it was reported that 46% of Canada’s renters did not have enough funds saved to pay the following month’s rent. Ontario was one of the hardest hit during the pandemic and pandemic-related job losses impacted many industries that employed renters working in hospitality, food industry and retail.
Many people living in Canada who faced income losses during the pandemic accessed the Federal Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). However, the maximum $2,000 of CERB support was not enough to help people paying skyrocketing rents in places like Toronto where there has been a rental affordability crisis for over a decade. Some people had to choose between paying the rent in full or keeping food on the table, while others have fallen into debt to keep a roof over their head. The rent arrears levels in Toronto are the highest across Canada, and the threat of mass evictions across the city is alarming. Provincial and municipal supports have also been limited in their impact and reach. In particular, the City of Toronto expanded its eviction prevention programs like the Toronto Rent Bank, by increasing the household income eligibility criteria, freezing all rent bank loan repayments, and providing some grant options instead of loans, all of which are welcomed. However, they remain limited in meeting the demand as well as the increasingly large arrears accrued by many renters.
Another example is the Housing Stabilization Fund (HSF), intended to prevent homelessness by meeting the emergency housing needs of renters receiving income from Ontario Works (OW) or Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). While some enhancements made to the HSF to respond to the pandemic were helpful, like helping with paying for last month’s rent deposit, or expanding supports for moving costs, or allowing access of the annual maximum amount for one additional time, these enhancements were limited in supporting individuals because there are strict eligibility criteria. For example, funds for rental arrears are issued to applicants if their housing costs are within 85% of their total monthly income. Due to the fixed low rates recipients receive from OW and ODSP and the lack of affordable rental housing in the city, many individuals are unable to qualify for HSF.
The limitations of CERB and other governmental programs, coupled with high rents and low vacancy rates for affordable rental homes, have left low to middle income renters in Toronto with inadequate financial supports. It was reported in the 2021 Rental Market Report by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), that the highest share of rent arrears in Canada in 2020 were recorded in Toronto, with 11% of all units reporting arrears in rent payments. Many of those disproportionately impacted were lower paid workers in the hospitality and service sectors, jobs that are highly concentrated in Toronto. The federal and provincial governments provided rent relief to help commercial renters pay their rent, but did not extend support to residential tenants to help them stay in their homes.
The LTB shifted its operations from mostly in-person hearings to digital hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic. This move to a digital hearing process has hindered access to justice for many lower income renters due to technology and accessibility barriers faced by many. Many lower income households have difficulties accessing the internet or a reliable computer, and some do not have access to a telephone, which means that they are unable to attend their online eviction hearings. The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) observed hearings from March to May 2021 and found that renters were present for less than half of the hearings observed, while landlords were present for the majority of those hearings. ACTO also found that a smaller percentage of renters were attending digital hearings compared to when hearings were held in person. This discrepancy was attributed to the lack of access to technology among low-income renters and what ACTO has called a “digital divide” between renters and landlords. In addition, with the new online platform, little has been done by the LTB to accommodate renters living with disabilities, those who face literacy challenges, or those who face language barriers.
During the hearings observed it was found that LTB Board members rarely asked why renters were not present. This is important because board members have been made aware that fewer renters are attending digital hearings than previously attended in-person hearings. ACTO has noted that given this knowledge and the potential risk of eviction for renters if they do not attend their hearings, the LTB board members need to take extra steps to establish why renters are not present at hearings or are disappearing from them midway through, by asking, for example, whether the renters have access to technology, were aware of the hearing or have any language barriers. In the hearings observed by ACTO, it was found that landlords and their representatives more often participated by video, while renters participated by phone. This creates an unfair situation for renters, as landlords benefit from several advantages by participating by video. For example, they are able to see what is happening in the virtual hearing, including evidence shared on the screen, and have an opportunity to make a human connection with the people present or see the social cues that often help people understand contexts and “read the room” better, which renters are unable to do by phone.
ACTO also reported that between March and May 2021, the majority of landlords were represented at their hearings, while few renters received legal advice or were represented. In over two thirds of the hearings observed by ACTO, renters who participated in hearings were not represented or had not benefited from advice from Tenant Duty Counsel (TDC), who are usually at the LTB to provide free legal advice to renters prior to their hearings. Lawyers who work with TDC have reported many difficulties in providing legal advice to renters since the shift to digital hearings. For instance, renters may be reluctant to provide their phone numbers publicly at the hearing in order to receive a phone call by the TDC for legal advice. In the virtual setting there is also less trust and less privacy for renters who may feel uncomfortable sharing details of their situation as they may be calling from a place where they’re unable to speak freely.
It has been troubling to many that Tribunals Ontario plans to switch to a permanent online system, as part of its digital first strategy. Advocates have urged a change from this approach, as the digital first strategy deepens the uneven playing field between landlords and renters. Advocates fear that this system will continue to be unfair and make it easier for the renters to be evicted from their homes without presenting their side of the story.
Ontario must take steps to ensure the Landlord and Tenant Board returns to functioning in a way that can guarantee a fair legal process to renters. We also continue to see a rise in eviction hearings based on the non-payment of rent but there remains insufficient financial supports, both on a provincial and federal level, to assist those who were unable to pay their rent and have fallen into rental arrears. This will leave many households owing debts to their landlords, affecting their ability to access housing in the future. It is clear that more needs to be done to provide financial assistance to those in arrears.
Canada may be facing an unprecedented eviction crisis that amounts to a systemic housing issue. In 2019, Canada passed the National Housing Strategy Act (NHSA) which recognizes the right to adequate housing as a fundamental right under international law and commits to responding to systemic housing issues that limit housing adequacy across the country. The NHSA also requires that mechanisms be created to monitor the implementation of the right to housing and address systemic housing issues. One of these mechanisms is the Federal Housing Advocate, who is an independent human rights expert located within the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The role of the Advocate is to promote and ensure compliance with the federal government’s policy to progressively realize the right to housing over time. Submissions can made to the Federal Housing Advocate on systemic housing issues. Pending the appointment of the Advocate, CERA and the National Right to Housing Network (HRHN) began to utilize this mechanism by making a submission to the federal government on addressing the evictions and arrears crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic. The submission included a proposal for a federally-funded residential tenant support program that would help renters stay housed.
We continue to push for a rent relief program to help lift people out of the crisis they may be facing. Our hope is also that the NHSA mechanisms will be utilized to compel the federal and provincial governments to take important steps to protect renters from evictions and ensure their security of tenure.
Finding and accessing an adequate place to call home in Toronto is unattainable for many but especially for renters in a city where nearly half pay unaffordable rents and 20% live in unsuitable homes.
For years, people with lived experience of housing precarity, along with many housing advocates, have been sounding the alarm on the increasingly unequal access to adequate and affordable housing in Toronto. One of their proposed solutions to reverse these trends is to push governments to approach housing as a fundamental human right. The right to housing is an important framework that can enable people to secure adequate, affordable and accessible housing. Canada committed to the right to housing in its international commitments and in 2019 passed legislation that solidifies this commitment. What this means is that governments in Canada have an obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to housing. However, without concrete plans or strategies in place, there would be no practical avenues to claim the right to housing.
Fortunately, two levels of governments have developed housing policies that commit to advance the right to housing. Federally, this obligation has been cemented under the National Housing Strategy Act (NHSA), and the City of Toronto is the first municipality in Canada that has committed to a rights-based approach in its ten-year housing strategy, the HousingTO 2020-2030 Action Plan.
These policy decisions and policy tools are historic achievements in and of themselves. Here we explore how they can be used to address systemic barriers and how communities can claim the right to housing.
Under international human rights law, the ‘right to housing’ is recognized as the right of every person to a safe and secure home where they can live in security, peace and with dignity. A set of standards have also been recognized to ensure that a home is adequate for its inhabitants, meaning that it is affordable, secure, habitable, accessible, close to services, in an acceptable location, and culturally appropriate.
All of these international standards apply to housing standards in Canada as the NHSA and the HousingTO 2020-2030 Action Plan recognize that housing is a human right. However, there is much work to be done for this right to be realized for many people across the country.
To understand systemic barriers, let’s use the following example. Several groups of people can face similar housing challenges, not because of their individual circumstances, but because they stem from the same root causes. For instance, people who work a minimum wage job may be struggling to pay their rent in Toronto because they don’t earn enough to afford the rising cost of housing. Similarly, people who have lost their job as a result of the pandemic may also be struggling to pay their rent because of income loss. While the individual circumstances of people in these two groups may be different, the root cause is the same – there is a lack of affordable housing in Toronto.
These are ‘systemic barriers’ and there are several at play that deny the realization of the right to housing for many communities in Toronto who are simply trying to find an accessible, adequate and affordable place to call home.
The NHSA is Canada’s first piece of legislation that identifies housing as a fundamental human right as recognized under international law. It recognizes that all people have the “right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity.” This law requires the federal government to develop and support rights-based housing policies to advance its commitment to progressively realize the right to housing over time. It has also created mechanisms to engage with vulnerable communities who are facing systemic housing challenges to ensure that housing policies respond effectively to the needs of communities.
Three key mechanisms have been created under the NHSA to hold the federal government accountable to implement the right to housing:
Each of these mechanisms has a distinct role and a set of responsibilities, while all three interact with one another. Together they provide an innovative and participatory model through which systemic housing issues and human rights claims can be brought forward by affected groups and reviewed outside of the judicial system. Our primer provides further details of the functions and responsibilities of these mechanisms and how they work together.
Following the adoption of the National Housing Strategy Act in July 2019, the City of Toronto took an historic step by aligning its own housing policy with a rights-based approach. The HousingTO 2020-2030 Action Plan was adopted in December 2019 and includes an updated Toronto Housing Charter. The updated Charter recognizes and commits to progressively realize the right to housing, and affirms that all residents have the right to an equal opportunity to thrive and that adequate housing is essential for the inherent dignity and well-being of an individual.
The plan identifies 13 strategic actions that the City will pursue in 10 years. Among its laudable goals, the City has committed to promote better access to good quality, safe and affordable housing for people who need it, as well as enhancing housing stability to keep residents in their homes. The plan aims to invest City funds into strategic measures that prevent evictions, create 40,000 affordable rental and supportive homes, and provide pathways to support better and more stable housing options for Indigenous communities, women, and seniors.
Crucially, to advance the right to housing the plan also commits that the City will establish accountability and oversight mechanisms to ensure that it follows through on its human rights commitments outlined in the plan. One major element of this oversight mechanism is the establishment of a Housing Commissioner’s Office to hold the City accountable to its commitment to advance the right to housing and to address systemic housing barriers.
Key human rights features of the HousingTO Plan include:
Embracing the right to housing framework in line with the National Housing Strategy Act and an updated Toronto Housing Charter based on key human rights principles.
While the NHSA and the HousingTO Plan provide important avenues to advance the right to housing over time, it is important to clarify that these are policy tools that do not require the federal government nor the City of Toronto to immediately provide every resident with an adequate home. They also do not provide a pathway for individuals or groups to claim their right to housing or to seek justice for a rights violation through the justice system.
Instead, what the NHSA and HousingTO plan do provide are avenues for impacted communities to bring forward their systemic barrier claims to official bodies that are responsible to look at the complaints. These bodies, like the Federal Housing Advocate or the Toronto Housing Commissioner, would then investigate the issues and send their recommendations to the government ministries responsible. Their recommendations will offer practical ways that the issues should be resolved in order to uphold that community’s right to housing.
The federal government is currently recruiting Canada’s first Federal Housing Advocate. Housing advocates are hopeful that this key position will be occupied by a qualified candidate with human rights expertise. At the municipal level, the City of Toronto’s original plans to establish the Housing Commissioner in 2020 have been delayed several times. It remains unclear when this key mechanism will be put in place. CERA and other housing advocates, specifically as part of the Right to Housing Toronto Network, will continue to urge the City to take this next step and emphasize that the Housing Commissioner is crucial to advance the right to housing in Toronto.
Once the Federal Housing Advocate and the Toronto Housing Commissioner are fully installed, it will be up to the groups and communities who face systemic barriers to make their case and claim their right to housing.
To support communities in this important work, CERA and the Right to Housing Toronto network are bringing together communities across the Greater Toronto Area in a series of workshops over the spring, summer and fall of 2021 to discuss the systemic barriers faced by communities. In these workshops we will explore how the right to housing can be claimed together through the mechanisms outlined in the NHSA and HousingTO plan.
The first workshop was held on May 5, 2021 – check out the recap.
The second workshop will be held on July 6, 2021. Registration will open soon – stay tuned!
One year ago, provincial and territorial governments began taking measures to address the plight of renters who were struggling to pay the rent, many falling into arrears and facing evictions. These measures have varied across the provinces and territories. Most have been quite modest in their support for tenants and were implemented only during the first few months of the pandemic, leaving many renters struggling to make ends meet as the pandemic continues to rage across the country.
Here we take a look at the available data that shows the scale of rental arrears and evictions during the pandemic across Canada, and the various provincial and territorial supports provided to residential renters.
An eviction ban was lifted on May 31, 2020. Tenants who have lost income because of the pandemic and have been evicted as a result of rental arrears can receive a 30-day extension on their eviction termination period from the date a notice of eviction was served to the tenant.
There is no data available on rental arrears or evictions in Nunavut, and there have been no announcements made by the Nunavut government concerning changes to rent or evictions during the pandemic.
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.