Furnished Apartments and Shorter Term Rental : Ontario RTA
- Thread starter Darr
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,042
1) No
2) Why
What I believe is that a landlord should have the right to expect a tenant to vacate at the end of their lease. They should only be allowed to stay if the landlord wishes to write a new lease.
2) Why
What I believe is that a landlord should have the right to expect a tenant to vacate at the end of their lease. They should only be allowed to stay if the landlord wishes to write a new lease.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Messages
- 82
[quote user=invst4profit] What I believe is that a landlord should have the right to expect a tenant to vacate at the end of their lease. They should only be allowed to stay if the landlord wishes to write a new lease.
1) Thank you & 2) I agree.
Furniture damage deposit is another reason I can think of.
Moreover, the landlord should have the right to alter the furnishing and decor as he/she sees fit. No-pets, non-smoking, single occupancy only clauses may not be enforced under the RTA.
1) Thank you & 2) I agree.
Furniture damage deposit is another reason I can think of.
Moreover, the landlord should have the right to alter the furnishing and decor as he/she sees fit. No-pets, non-smoking, single occupancy only clauses may not be enforced under the RTA.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,042
Clauses contained in a lease is another contentious issue. The RTA and LTB treat all tenants based on the lowest common denominator. They believe tenants are incompetent and unable to understand a contract. In the old days a lease was considered a legal binding contract and landlord/tenant issues were dealt with through small claims court. A contract was binding. What was happening was that tenants were being evicted for violating there contracts and the government was becoming more responsible for housing welfarians. They seemed to be the most common violations. To resolve the problem the government set up the existing system to eliminate the right of landlords to impose the personal restrictions on their properties that were most often being ignored by tenants. No pets, no smoking, no additional tenants, paying rent on time etc.
My opinion is contract law should prevail. My property my rules, if you don't like it you are welcome to live elsewhere. 30 day evictions and damage deposits should be implemented but never will be otherwise the government would end up housing every tenant on welfare.
Ontario is clearly a nanny state intent on insuring hard working citizens continue to work to support the lazy, crazy and addicted (and provide their housing)..Rant completed........
My opinion is contract law should prevail. My property my rules, if you don't like it you are welcome to live elsewhere. 30 day evictions and damage deposits should be implemented but never will be otherwise the government would end up housing every tenant on welfare.
Ontario is clearly a nanny state intent on insuring hard working citizens continue to work to support the lazy, crazy and addicted (and provide their housing)..Rant completed........