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:
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.
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.
