I really, really, really don’t like telling these stories.

I mean, I have to.  Stories like this are too good not to share.

But every time I tell a story about an unscrupulous landlord in downtown Toronto, it gives ammunition to those that feel we need more legislation to protect tenants, when in reality, the current legislation is so incredibly unfair toward landlords that it makes landlording borderline untenable.

Some people will cheer that result, however.

The ill-informed will rejoice!  “No more landlords!” they’ll cry!  “Properties are for living in, not investing in!”

Except, they don’t realize that somebody needs to own the property in order to rent it out to the massive number of individuals who want and need to rent.

So crushing landlords isn’t a good thing.  If every landlord in the city said, “Screw this” tomorrow, and sold to end users, then there would be no rental stock in the city.

In any event, I will tell any story about the rental market, good or bad, pro-tenant or pro-landlord, anti-tenant or anti-landlord, so long as there’s a learning experience for the TRB readers and those who randomly stumble upon this blog when they’re Googling tenants’ or landlords’ rights.

I believe that there are some absolutely awful landlords out there, and today’s story will demonstrate that.  But I also believe that the system doesn’t work for landlords who experience problem tenants.  If a random tenant signed a lease today, moved in tomorrow, and stopped paying his or her rent the next day, it could take the landlord a year to get that tenant out, and the landlord would never be repaid.  Not only that, nothing would preclude the Landlord & Tenant Board from siding with the tenant – he or she who isn’t paying rent, so long as a good enough excuse is provided.

Do you think I’m exaggerating?

Do you want an example?

I don’t have to look far…

“This GTA Condo Owner Says He’s Struggling To Make Ends Meet As Tenant Won’t Pay $20K In Rent”
CBC News

It’s an awful story.

The tenant hasn’t paid rent in over a year, and yet there’s no action on behalf of the Landlord & Tenant Board, who said in August of 2022 that an eviction order would be provided, and yet it hasn’t been.

But to hell with landlords, right?

The public is clamouring, “Serves him right for owning real estate!  Properties are for living not investing!”

So yeah, when I tell stories like the one I’m about to, I do so almost begrudgingly because I know people will use it to justify the ridiculous rights that tenants have gained over the last decade, at the expense of honest landlords – and at the expense of common sense.

Oh, and this story also won’t make real estate agents look good, since the “bad guy” in the story is one.

Nevertheless, it’s a cautionary tale that needs to be told, so here goes…

There’s a young agent in my office, whom we’ll call “Rose.”

Rose works with a lot of tenants and thus, as you might expect, comes across a lot of questionable practices during the course of her business practice.

A few weeks ago, she showed a 1-bed, 1-bath condo in the downtown core that was perfect for her tenant-client.

The property was on a high floor with a great view, had an open concept living area with no wasted space, and the building was only a few years old so the finishes were great and the style was on point.

The unit showed very well too.  It almost felt as though it was a staged condo, but that wouldn’t make sense for a lease listing.

Rose put together an offer to lease for the property and sent it over to the listing agent.

It took a day, but the listing agent reviewed the tenant’s references and confirmed employment, and then accepted the offer to lease.

Done deal!

Right?

My story ends here?

Not even close.  You simply won’t believe what comes next.

The listing agent called Rose and asked, “Would your tenant be interested in any of the furniture?”

On the MLS listing under the section for Occupancy, the agent had noted “vacant.”  That meant, in theory, that nobody was living there.

So whose furniture was this?

Was this a furnished rental?  Was it an AirBnB?

Rose inquired with her tenant-client, then called the listing agent back and said, “No, my client isn’t interested in the furniture, thanks.”  But he told Rose, “We’d really rather lease the unit with the furniture in there.  We just don’t want to go through the hassle of taking everything out of there.”

This unit was “furnished” right down to the knives and forks in the kitchen.

It was odd.

So Rose asked the listing agent, “Who’s furniture is this?”

The listing agent said, “It belongs to the old tenant.”

Here is where this situation goes really off the rails and where the story starts to touch on many different themes.

The listing agent explained that, two months ago, the existing tenant sent him an email and said, “I can’t afford to pay my rent anymore.  I’m moving back home.  Keep all my stuff, I don’t care about any of it.  I’m sorry.  I might check into CAMH, I don’t know.  I might go home.  But I’m never coming back here so just keep everything.  Goodbye.”

Really sad stuff, of course.

But what do you do in this situation?

If you’re the landlord, what’s your responsibility under the law?

In this case, the landlord was a real estate agent, and one that I have never particularly liked.  So his actions here come as absolutely no surprise.

Rose asked him, “Did the tenant sign an N11?”

The listing agent said, “She didn’t need to.  She’s gone.  She’s never coming back.”

This was a mess.  Or at least, it had the potential to be a mess.

Legally speaking, like it or not, that tenant can come back at any time and walk back into HER condo.  Because it’s hers.

It doesn’t matter if she’s stopped paying rent.  It doesn’t matter if she emailed the landlord and said, “I’m never coming back, keep all my stuff.”

Without a signed N11, she’s still the rightful tenant.

What’s more, is that the comment, “I might go to CAMH” muddies the water because it could be argued (ie. at the LTB down the line…) that the tenant wasn’t of sound mind when she sent that email.

Bottom line: without an N11 signed by the tenant, the landlord isn’t allowed to lease this property to anybody else.  There is a rightful tenant in place.

Without an eviction notice from the LTB, that tenant, even without paying her rent for two months, is the rightful tenant.

Naturally, Rose asked the listing agent, “What the hell are you doing?”

He was actually taken aback.

“The tenant is gone, he said.  It doesn’t matter if she signed an N11 or not, she’s gone.  This is over.”

For that landlord, the hope is that maybe, just maybe, it’s only beginning.

And as far as this story goes, it’s also just beginning because what happens next makes what we just discussed look like preamble.

Rose’s client asked Rose to send her a copy of the MLS listing, and when Rose went into MLS to search the address, she noticed that the property was just put up for sale.

Huh?

The property was just leased.

Except, funnily-enough, the listing agent hadn’t updated the MLS listing for lease just yet.

Instead, he was advertising the property for sale with the caption “Currently Tenanted Until May Of 2024 But Vacant Possession Available!”

How could vacant possession be available if Rose’s tenant just signed a lease and it was set to begin on May 1st?

Rose called the listing agent and asked him again, “What the eff?”

He downplayed it, of course.

“Oh, don’t worry, I’m just testing the market,” he said.

He explained that he owned “many, many properties” and he wanted to sell one of them, but wasn’t sure yet.  So he listed a bunch of them to see what the interest level would be like.

Rose’s tenant-client had already bought furniture, booked the moving elevator in the building, signed up with Rogers, and found two friends to help her move on May 1st.  The idea that this condo could be sold to somebody else and that the agent/landlord/seller (who is all the same person…) could offer “vacant possession” was ludicrous.

Now, guess what happened next?

The agent/landlord/seller received three offers on the condo, for SALE.

But Rose didn’t know that until after – get this – the agent/landlord/seller called Rose’s client, behind Rose’s back, to talk her out of the lease.

That’s right.

Rose’s client called her two days before she was set to take possession and was really upset.

“The landlord called me last night and told me he was canceling our deal,” the tenant told Rose.  “He told me that he had some clauses in our lease agreement that let him do so and there was no option for me.  I don’t understand any of this,” she told Rose, sadly.

Rose went on the offensive, as anybody in her position should.

She called the agent/landlord/seller and gave him a piece of her mind.  Again, he downplayed it.  He didn’t admit to attempting to strongarm the tenant, but rather suggested that “it might be best to find another place to live before a buyer of the condo gives you notice to vacate for personal use.”

Rose shot back, “You can’t give somebody, who is just starting a twelve-month lease, ‘notice to vacate for personal use.’  That buyer would have to wait a year.”

Amazingly, the agent/landlord/seller fought Rose on this and told her that he was an experienced agent, investor, and landlord, and that if the tenant had yet to take possession, then the eviction would be valid.

That’s total nonsense, of course.

And Rose, again, fought him on it.

“My client is moving in on Monday,” Rose said.  “You let me know where we can pick up the keys.”

The tenant began to get anxious, however.  She told Rose, “I really don’t like this.  I don’t want to get off on the wrong foot with this landlord or another landlord, if this guy sells the condo to somebody else.”

Rose knew that, despite the tenant being in the right here, that her client wasn’t going to love living here

So Rose called the agent/landlord/seller and gave him an out.

“Ten grand,” Rose said.

“For ten thousand dollars, my client will agree to terminate her legal lease agreement, that begins in two days.”

The agent/landlord/seller said he was “appalled” at the offer, and said he might consider giving one month’s rent.

Rose said, “You have until tonight, and then we’re not discussing this again.”

Good on Rose.

And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this, by the way.  This isn’t “an eye for an eye” either.  This is a scumbag landlord following up one bad practice ie. renting a condo to a new tenant when an N11 from the prior tenant hadn’t been signed, with another bad practice.

The agent/landlord/seller called Rose and said, “I”m going to sell the condo today and the buyer wants vacant possession.  Can you have the tenant email me to say she would rip up the lease agreement?  If so, I’ll give her the ten thousand dollars.”

Rose’s client emailed the landlord.

The landlord sold the condo.

Then the landlord gave Rose’s client $10,000, and the saga was over.

Rose’s client actually dodged a bullet here and still managed to come out on top.

What would have happened if the prior tenant came back to the condo one month from now and found that her key didn’t work in the door?  What if she used her key in the door, walked inside, and found somebody else living in her unit?

The fact that the agent/landlord/seller leased this unit to Rose’s client without first disclosing the potential issue with tenancy was absolutely brutal.

The fact that Rose’s client was able to get out of this lease agreement after the fact and come away with $10,000 was a huge win.

In the end, the agent/landlord/seller was able to move the unit for $715,000, with a 30-day closing, and “vacant possession,” so that $10,000 was nothing to him.  And he’s simply passing this tenancy issue along to the buyer, since that old tenant still has legal right to the condo.

There are a lot of problems in this story, but they all stem from one source: an individual that has zero concern or respect for the law, zero integrity, and not a single care in the world.

This isn’t all landlords, but this is at least one.

One of these guys is too many and I fear there are many more of them.

The fact that he’s a licensed real estate agent just rubs salt into the wound.

As I said at the onset, I don’t love giving the anti-landlord folks ammunition like this, so perhaps I’ll follow up next week with a story about an awful tenant just to bring things full circle…