Toronto's Rental Market

The Sad State of Toronto’s Rental Market

Leasing/Renting

6 minute read

August 15, 2018

Tough subject today, no doubt about it.

And every time I write about the rental market, I try to tread carefully.

We all have different opinions on this subject, and whether you agree or not, I remain one-hundred percent convinced that our opinions are based on our own demographic and place in life.  I’m sure somewhere, there’s an owner of a $10 Million mansion in Toronto lamenting society’s most unfortunate, and maybe/maybe-not actually doing something about it.  But for the most part, our thoughts and opinions on something like the ability to choose a prospective tenant are shaped by where we are in our own lives, how we were brought up, and our own intrinsic value systems.

And “choosing” tenants right now, is an issue.

I’ve never seen a rental market this competitive, and I have probably said that six or seven times previously.

Properties are being leased sight-unseen, within hours of hitting MLS.  Tenants are “bidding” over the asking price, submitting 4-6 months’ deposit in advance, and writing personal letters to try and form a connection with the landlord.

And “offer dates” are being set for rentals.

Let me say that again, in case you’re skimming: offer dates are being set for properties on MLS for lease.

Check out this MLS listing for a midtown rental:

Is that insane, or what?

That’s for a lease listing!

But what can you do, if you’re the listing agent?  You’re truly damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

If you simply accept the first  offer that comes through, you piss off 50 other prospective tenants and their agents.  If you hold an “offer date,” then you’re a greedy, egotistical jerk who is getting high on the power of being a listing agent in a frenetic market.

I recently put a condo up for lease for an investor-client, and the response was mind-blowing.  I was inundated with showing requests the moment the listing went up on MLS – probably 20 the first day alone, not to mention a dozen emails from Realtor.ca.

And this is where things get dicey for both the landlord and the listing agent.

I believe in the free market.

I also believe there is far too much government intervention in our lives, and I also believe the world is absolutely off its rocker with political-correctness and bending-over-backwards to acquiesce to every social cause.  Like that guy, John, who once told you that you had ugly cuticles.  So nobody in North America should be permitted to name their child “John” ever again, and furthermore,  we should insist that every individual on the planet wears gloves at all times, to not alienate those people with bad cuticles.  If said person was on the TTC, and saw a beautiful hand, he or she might feel like a lesser being, and thus we should all wear gloves, all the time.

And so on.

But somewhere in all this cynicism, and within my own resistance to this new world we live in, we risk becoming like many other parts of the world, where the racists, bigots, and haters have been given a voice, a platform, and support.

Which brings me to today’s Toronto rental market.

As I said above, there simply has to be an intersection of a landlord/investor/owner/risk-taker protecting his or her investment and asset, and adhering to legal guidelines, and acceptable societal behaviour.

Ask ten different people what is “acceptable societal behaviour,” and you’ll get ten different answers; probably three hovering around the middle-ground, two on either sides, and then two both at complete opposite ends of the spectrum, representing conflicting ideologies.

I’ve written about rental discrimination so many times on this blog, that if you Google, “rental discrimination Toronto realty blog,” no fewer than eight links will appear, in a row, with links to blogs I’ve written on this topic.

But here are again.

So as is often the case on this blog, I want to turn this around to the readers, and ask for input.  I want to give you the details of five inquiries I received on this 600 square foot, 1-bedroom, 1-bathroom condo, and have you tell me if you think that a landlord would be discriminating against the potential tenant if the landlord said “no,” or if the landlord has a right, in those cases, to choose who he or she wants.

Three of these are text messages, and two are phone calls which are as close to verbatim as I can provide.

Inquiry #1:

“Hi David, would your landlord consider renting to two couples?  I know that might be a bit unorthodox, but they’re two wonderful, lovely young couples, hard-working, not party-goers, who lived together in a house away at school and want to stay together.  One couple would be in the bedroom and one couple would be in the den/dining area, which could really be its own little nook away from the TV and kitchen.  Let me know, they’re such a lovely couple, please consider them!”

Inquiry #2:

“My client is UOFT student who will pay three months rent prepaid looking for 16months lease term for school but no reference or employment or credit.”

Inquiry #3:

“I have a single mother to two children who is moving here from abroad.  Would you consider a single mother with two children from abroad? thank you”

Inquiry #4:

“My clients are both new to the city and will be looking for work immediately (currently living here, renting AirBnB, on the job hunt) but can provide references, credit scores, and pay stubs from their last jobs.  They could provide three months rent up front and one parent could co-sign (lives in Sarnia) if needed but they would prefer not to.”

Inquiry #5:

“Husband is relocating for work.  Wife stays home there is one child. There is mother too but they all live together now in smaller place than this. Beautiful condo they would cherish this opportunity.”

Halfway through writing the above, I realized this almost seems formulaic; like a test.

I assure you, these are (in some cases, copy-and-paste), verbatim.  These are only five of the inquiries I selected, because I had the same general inquiries multiple times, and because a few of the inquiries were totally normal.

Oh, wait.  With that last line, I guess I tipped my hand.

“….a few of the inquiries were totally normal.”

Which means that I believe the above inquiries are not normal, and thus somewhere in the city right now, a TRB-reader is angrily ripping off that Toronto Realty Blog belly-top, and replacing it with a Raptors/Mastercard giveaway t-shirt that was shot out of a cannon in 2015.

Well, crap.

If it makes you feel any better, I would actually call the five inquiries above “the new normal,” because they represent most of what we see out there these days.

And I’m not saying what I would or wouldn’t do if I were the landlord.  But I will say that most of my landlords are looking for the proverbial “perfect tenant,” whatever that means to them.  You can throw accusations here all you want – suggest the sex, race, age, employment status et al of the “perfect tenant,” but this is the entire point of this blog!

What does society out there, today, in an ever-changing sociopolitical and socio-economic climate, think of the way our rental market works?

You guys are anonymous, so tell me what you think.  Would you spend $500,000 on a rental property, to turn around and rent to an 18-year-old who has no job, no income, no references, no credit score, no guarantor, and no family on this continent?

And further to the point, is my even asking this considered “racist” by today’s standards?

Fifty-dollar follow-up question: for those that are taking the defensive position here, do you think that the government should somehow mandate, or regulate, what types of tenants “qualify,” and where?  Is there a scenario in which the above candidate, with no job, no income, no references, no credit history, and no guarantor, would be considered a “suitable” tenant, by law, and whereby a property owner couldn’t refuse them?

Because I think that’s where all this may be headed.

The PC Party in power throughout the Province might not get us there right away, but there’s an incredible housing shortage in the city of Toronto, rents have skyrocketed and show no signs of levelling off, let alone going down, builders are price-fixing (as per my blog post from last month, HERE), and something has to give.

I meant what I said above: it’s a sad state that the rental market is in, and I won’t pretend to have the answers.

But the other side of the equation here that we have yet to explore is expectations.

Is it realistic for a group of four people to rent a 1-bed, 1-bath condo?

Does a family of four truly expect to rent a 1-bedroom condo?

Some will be quick to point out that there are places across the globe where three full families can live in 600 square feet!  But if that’s not the norm here, then what do we make of similar expectations?

Should the unemployed expect to encounter little to no resistance from a landlord?

What’s realistic anymore?

It’s worth noting here, since the question will undoubtedly be raised, that in response to all five of the inquiries above, as well as every other inquiry I ever receive, I say the following: “I can’t speak for the landlord, it’s their decision to make.  They would need an offer and all accompanying documentation in order to make a decision.”

What else would I say?

Because it’s not my decision.  I can advise, and I can opine, but the decision isn’t up to me, so when somebody asks “Would your client, A, B, and C,” I have to check with the landlord-client first.

Some agents get upset, and respond, “Well I don’t want to waste my time showing the condo if your clients wouldn’t accept my tenant.”  And then we’re right back in a bind, aren’t we?  The landlord and the tenant; the chicken and the egg.  The landlord can’t make a decision without actually receiving an offer and supporting documentation, but the tenant and/or agent doesn’t want to spend time looking at the condo without an answer in advance.

Blame the landlord and/or listing agent (ie. me) for not being more forthcoming.  Blame the tenant for being lazy.  Take your pick.

It’s lose-lose, either way.

And I’m seeing a lot of loosing in today’s Toronto rental market.  People almost come to expect failure, which once again, can only be described as sad.

So give me your two cents on the scenario’s above, and let’s try not to hit below the belt…

Written By David Fleming

David Fleming is the author of Toronto Realty Blog, founded in 2007. He combined his passion for writing and real estate to create a space for honest information and two-way communication in a complex and dynamic market. David is a licensed Broker and the Broker of Record for Bosley – Toronto Realty Group

Find Out More About David Read More Posts

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

62 Comments

  1. Ralph Cramdown

    at 6:57 am

    Is employment status a prohibited ground of discrimination? If it isn’t, and if your client has no desire to rent to unemployed people, and if you tell unemployed prospective tenants that the decision isn’t yours and you’d like them to fill in an application that you’ll sit on for a few days or a week before declining, then you’ve just invented a brand new way of wasting everyone’s time. What’s the point? So you can show your client thirty poorly qualified applicants instead of five well qualified ones?

    1. JL

      at 12:08 pm

      Agreed. Having a short discussion with the client to determine their preferences, and then applying that as a general screening criteria would narrow down the list to those who are actually going to be considered.

  2. Pete

    at 7:49 am

    I see no issue with a landlord wanting a tenant to be employed (though that’s a false sense of security as the tenant could lose their job the day after signing the lease). Nor do I think a certain income level is out of the question. Perhaps even references to show that they aren’t horrible people who’ll trash the place (though really, references are again more of a false sense of security).
    But who cares if it’s 2 couples in a one bedroom? Or a family of four? A single mother, or a woman with 3 boyfriends who all live together? As long as the tenant is respectful to the property and pays their rent on time, the rest should be off limits. Otherwise, Toronto WILL turn into a seething pit of racism and bigotry .

    1. KD

      at 8:49 am

      I strongly disagree. There’s nothing wrong with having a preference that a group of people do NOT turn a 1-bedroom condo into a rooming house!!

      1. Numberco Owner of Real Estate

        at 2:27 pm

        Just something more basic: a unit is more likely to go through wear & tear with more people living in it, all things being equal.

      2. Ralph Cramdown

        at 3:03 pm

        Put a number on it. How much extra rent would you accept to rent a unit to four people rather than two? An extra $500/month covers a LOT of wear and tear… and two slobs will put more wear on your unit than four fastidious people anyway.

        Note 1: Whether you want it for your unit or not, your more enterprising fellow landlords will likely take the extra tenants and the extra cash, leading to more wear and tear on common elements, longer waits for elevators, clogged visitors’ and neighbourhood parking, &c &c. Maybe get some unenforceable condo bylaws passed?

        Note 2: I suspect it may be illegal to charge more for more tenants on a common lease. But your fellow landlords are probably doing it anyway, and their tenants are probably more-or-less grateful and unlikely to complain. Cap rates are set according to this equivalent of “highest and best use” as it were.

        1. Jimbo

          at 11:44 pm

          Can they sleep in the den if it doesn’t have a window? Are you in breach of a by-law if you let 4 people stay in a one bedroom if they all are not sleeping in the bedroom?

          1. Condodweller

            at 12:57 am

            some condos have passed bylaws to limit the number of occupants based on the size of the unit. Don’t know if it’s enforced though.

  3. Ed

    at 8:35 am

    And I’m seeing a lot of loosing in today’s Toronto rental market.-TRB

    Oh no David, not you too!

    1. Libertarian

      at 9:59 am

      I saw that too and thought the same thing. Spellcheck can’t fix everything!

      1. RPG

        at 11:56 am

        Wow, what a gotcha moment!!

        The guy writes three blogs a week and films a video, and only then goes and works a full time job.

        You’re giggling like schoolgirls over a typo.

        1. Ed

          at 3:37 pm

          That was not the point.
          I see ‘loosing’ used more often then ‘losing’, we may as well all use that as the official spelling.
          Oh and ‘He He He”.

        2. ChT

          at 8:04 am

          Exactly…

        3. Mr Smith

          at 1:01 pm

          how does he FILM a Video ?

  4. Kelly

    at 9:14 am

    I have a question: why is it okay to consider housing an “investment” in the first place? Why are individuals allowed to gamble with the livelihood of others? Why not invest in kidneys and livers then too? Maybe in a city with a housing shortage, people shouldn’t be allowed to own more than one property.

    1. Libertarian

      at 10:07 am

      I’ve brought up the same point on here numerous times. If the Ford years are a complete disaster, I could see the NDP winning and then implementing something along those lines. I’m surprised the NDP in BC hasn’t tried this yet. They’ve done almost everything else possible.

      The investor commentators on this site will reply, “Somebody has to own the apartments. After all, where will a renter live if they can’t afford to own.” However, that doesn’t mean owners have to be individuals. Apartment buildings run by REITs are one option.

      It would be interesting to see what happens to the prices of condos if people could own only one property.

      1. David (Not the David who runs this website)

        at 12:13 pm

        We better hope that Ford doesn’t mess up, we’ve already had the NDP in Ontario. If they get in again, it will be the final nail in the coffin for this province. Just look at BC, stick a fork in it, it is done …

        If individuals are only allowed to own one property, then general housing prices will come down for sure, which will also kill the small landlords.

        As for apartment buildings owned and run by REITS, most of them are dumps and good luck if you have any problems. They don’t care about tenants, just the bottom line.

      2. Rachelle

        at 12:20 pm

        I want to point out that the first rent control act was brought in by a PC government and did not include vacancy decontrol. Which means when you turn over the unit you get to set a new rent.

        Secondly the PC’s have set a hiring freeze and the Landlord & Tenant Board is taking over 2 months to set a court date because of a shortage of Adjudicators to hear cases.

        Finally what’s good for tenants is generally good for landlords because they are our customers and pay us. But take for example the cancellation of the Basic Income Pilot, those tenants pay rent but could afford more rent, now they will get 50% of the money, how will they pay rent? What if they signed a one year lease?

        1. David (Not the David who runs this website)

          at 1:02 pm

          Yes, that’s true but the NDP would only make things worse for everyone.

          Things must be really bad if there’s a 2 month back log of cases. To me that means that the system isn’t working well for both landlords and tenants.

          “…what’s good for tenants is generally good for landlords because they are our customers and pay us”

          That’s good that you see it that way but what if you’re a good tenant (there are good tenants out there) and your landlord isn’t? If you’re locked into a 1 year leash, you’re stuck until it expires. It’s not much better if you’re on a month to month lease either. There should be a way for a good tenant to leave a bad landlord.

          1. Jonathan

            at 2:37 pm

            Don’t bring basic income into this. You’ll lose any argument involiving basic income.

            First, Basic income was a program in Lindsay, Thunder Bay, and Hamilton. This article is talking about Toronto real estate here.

            Secondly, the basic income program was exposed to be something that as hard as this is to believe didn’t actually encourage people to seek work but actually encouraged people to quit their jobs. And spend their basic income on concert tickets.

            https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-taxpayers-shouldnt-be-paying-for-free-rides

          2. Ralph Cramdown

            at 3:13 pm

            “[…] what if you’re a good tenant (there are good tenants out there) and your landlord isn’t?”

            Check before you sign the lease. Look at the condition of the unit and the overall property. Pull the landlord’s credit. Pull his mortgage charge at the land office to see a) what he paid b) when c) how much equity he has d) his interest rate and lender. Talk to some of his other tenants. Talk to the neighbours. Google him. Pull building permits and any violations at City Hall. It’s pretty easy to figure out whether you’re dealing with an old “get rich slow” style conscientious landlord or a levered up REIN wunderkind. The same goes for corporates, some of whom specialize in good service to good tenants, while others focus on other areas of the market.

    2. GORGON

      at 1:05 pm

      Because property rights and freedom are inextricably linked. You need property rights and economic freedom to enjoy human freedom.

      It’s an investment because it requires capital to build and maintain. The best allocator of capital is the market.

    3. Numberco Owner of Real Estate

      at 2:26 pm

      Well, why not?

      Real estate has always been recognized as an asset class. In theory, real estate ownership is a hedge against inflation.

      I do not see how this is a gamble with the livelihood of others. If owning does not work for you, you can always rent. If you cannot find suitable housing in a city with shortage, you can always move… and you can also do either without having to sacrifice your kidneys and livers.

    4. Jennifer

      at 4:19 pm

      Exactly. There are so many other places people can invest and make money. Single family housing should not be one of them. There are offices, strip malls, small apartment buildings, etc. on top of other investment opportunities. I’m not sure I would say a person can’t own more than one home because people own cottages etc, but there should be a high speculators tax because that activity I think was the main cause of the increase in the last two years. Also, New Zealand recently banned foreign ownership aside from new housing and maybe something else. We should implement the same immediately.

      1. Numberco Owner of Real Estate

        at 12:29 pm

        Point taken, but are you 100% sure that speculation is behind the price increase? The last time I checked, one can speculate on Fort Mac real estate as much as one wants but the prices are going nowhere.

        The “one home per” proposition is in line with a socialist point of view. Socialist systems have never proven to be prosperous in the long run.

        As for NZ, quite a different market there… foreign ownership ban is exempt for Australians (which account for a lot of the foreign purchases) and Singaporeans. The home ownership rate in NZ is also nowhere close to the rate in Canada.

    5. Kyle

      at 5:36 pm

      If people are not allowed to buy more than one property, Developers will immediately stop building properties. Supply of new housing will stop or go in reverse as most of the multi-unit low rise will get converted back to single family homes. Prices will fall in the short term, but eventually will stabilise and then resume rising if the number of households continue to increase. So great, for a few who are able to take advantage of the short term price dip, but anyone who doesn’t get in then will be utterly screwed.

      Rentals will only be available from an oligopoly of REIT’s (i.e. less competition amongst landlords, less choice for renters). Anyone who thinks this is in societies’ best interests is a complete fool.

    6. Chris

      at 6:43 pm

      It’s a couple years old, and focused on England, but here’s an interesting debate on the topic:

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/live/2016/may/25/should-the-government-ban-second-home-ownership-live-debate

      Personally, I’m ok with the system as it is. Second properties (and additional) are subject to taxation of capital gains, so they are already treated differently than a primary residence. Maybe CRA could do more to enforce this, penalizing attempted work arounds, like people putting children, spouses, etc as the owner and designating the property as their primary residence, when in fact, they do not reside there. But who knows, maybe CRA are already cracking down on this.

      1. Libertarian

        at 10:04 am

        That’s the $64,000 question – if the CRA tracked landlords as closely as it does shareholders, would the mom & pop landlords continue?

        If the CRA knew when you bought the property, for how much, how much rent you received, and expected you to file your taxes every year based on that information, could mom & pop landlords justify their real estate investment?

  5. Pk007

    at 11:18 am

    An investor owner is taking all the risk and paying a mortgage on a property which can be a NPA anytime if a tenant stops paying rent and then there is this whole process of eviction that can drag on. All in all an investment property can make you lose a chunk of change if things go awry with tenant. So all for condo owners to take a call on whom they want to rent their property. Choice should be theirs and theirs alone.

  6. David (Not the David who runs this website)

    at 12:02 pm

    “You guys are anonymous, so tell me what you think. Would you spend $500,000 on a rental property, to turn around and rent to an 18-year-old who has no job, no income, no references, no credit score, no guarantor, and no family on this continent?

    And further to the point, is my even asking this considered “racist” by today’s standards?”

    No, I wouldn’t bother when I could just invest that $500,000 in blue chip dividend paying stocks. And no, it’s not racist to ask these questions, just common business sense. If you don’t allow landlords to check out prospective tenants and rent to who they’re most comfortable with, then most of the smaller ones will just get out of the game.

    “I also believe there is far too much government intervention in our lives, “`

    David, I fully agree with you but everyone knows that government intervention is just going to get worse until it chokes the life out of society. Clearly there’s a need for more housing but that problem isn’t going to be fixed by more government intervention. We need to make it easier for landlords to get rid of bad tenants and also for good tenants to leave bad landlords. Right now it’s hard for both landlords and tenants to get away from a bad situation. Fix that for a start, then encourage small landlords by simplifying the rules. Otherwise we’re going to end up with mostly government housing, which is never a good thing.

    1. Ralph Cramdown

      at 3:30 pm

      David (TDWRTW) says: “I believe in the free market. I also believe there is far too much government intervention in our lives […]”

      This is a non-sequitur. As an investor, your belief in how the world ought to be is inconsequential. What matters is how the world is now and how you believe it is likely to evolve.

      As an investor, I’ve had big gains AND losses from government tax policy changes, currency moves due to government brilliance or stupidity, I’ve had an entire gold mine expropriated, &c &c. Crying about it would have gotten me nowhere, but diversification limited the damage (and sometimes the upside, of course). If you choose to have much of your net worth (or maybe even more than all of it, with leverage) at the whim of one government’s policies, that’s a risk that’s on you. Your banker may briefly commiserate with you about an adverse change to landlord tenant law, but he’s still going to need the money by the end of the month.

      This one goes out to all the landlords and all the tenants…
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–AvCsh48bk

  7. Juan

    at 12:08 pm

    The anecdotes in this article show just how f**ked up our housing market is.

  8. Rachelle

    at 12:28 pm

    This goes into all my rental ads

    Successful applicants will have decent credit, proof of /savings & rental history.

    I look at collectability as in if this person damages the place, skips out on the rent, leaves in the middle of their lease…can I pursue them using Small Claims and seize their bank accounts and garnish their wages?

    I do not tolerate bad tenant behaviour any more. I follow through and it take a couple years, but I’ve trained a bunch of tenants not to rip off their landlord.

    1. Jonathan

      at 2:50 pm

      You want “decent” credit. That’s your decision. A poor one at that but your decision.

      If a landlord wants “exceptional” credit then who is going to tell them otherwise?

      And while you might enjoy renting to misfits and trying to chase them through small claims, other people might try to avoid renting to the misfits in the first place. This could be considered a well thought out and rational decision.

      1. Ralph Cramdown

        at 9:40 am

        Why would someone with *exceptional* credit want to rent *your* merely upscale unit?

        Who sold you on the dumb idea that the road to riches in landlording lay through premium units rented to rare premium clients, with miniscule cap rates, long stretches of vacancy, and the occasional frisson of discovering your unit is being used as a bawdy house or a set for porn shoots? Whoever it was, I bet he collected a full commission…

  9. Condodweller

    at 3:02 pm

    David, how do you handle cosigning by a parent? Do you get a credit report from them and simply cosign the lease? I mean how much weight does cosigning carry really? If you don’t receive payment you are still stuck and have to waith months to evict the person and you might pursue it in small claims court. Or can it be treated like a loan and you can put a lien on the parent’s assetts to have a hope of collecting?

    Unfortunately, this is where it’s problematic for individual investors as they don’t know how to handle the situation properly. This whole scrutiny is necessitated by owners not having any protection against the bad apples who don’t pay their rent.

    In terms of screening, this only becomes the issue when these “abnormal” applicants are the only ones you have and you have to choose between them. If you have another 50 applicants who fully qualify then it’s too bad for the “abnormal” ones.

  10. Condodweller

    at 3:10 pm

    I agree totally as well. The problem is that for every person with this way of common sense thinking there are others who will cry discrimination/racism and threaten with a lawsuit the second you tell them up front that you wouldn’t consider them based on one of the requests David quotes above.

    1. Condodweller

      at 3:11 pm

      This was meant as a response to Ralph and JL at the top. Not sure what happened….

  11. Matthew

    at 4:56 pm

    Two things that caught my eye with those five comments. 1) doesn’t the RTA specify that 1 months rent is the maximum security deposit, along with a key deposit; 2) I would think that there are rules either in the condo by laws, fire or building code, or some other legislation limiting the amount of occupants in a unit/home.. my works lunchroom has occupancy limits, surely homes do too.

  12. Gloria

    at 9:11 pm

    Here’s what I don’t get, and David you’re the professional here so please indulge us. If you’re getting 20-50 prospective renters interested in a property, doesn’t that mean it’s underpriced? Why not increase the price to the point where you’re only getting 2-5 clients, and those clients are well heeled? With rent control, I would want to have my property locked in at the highest possible price I can get for it, instead of having a scrum of unemployed people with zero references and swingers.

    1. BillyO

      at 6:59 am

      I was thinking this too, David please reply! I’ve heard of some real estate agents that are also landlords doing the ‘ol NYC trick of ‘one month free’ in order to get a higher monthly rent (so instead of renting for $2000 a month for 12 months ($24K annually) , they’ll say rent is $2200/mo but one month free (still works out to $24K annually), recognizing that with rent control, it’s more likely tenants will stick around longer (in which case their rent can only be increased by 1.8% annually thereafter).

  13. Alex

    at 10:54 pm

    As an investor/landlord I want to have control over who lives in my property, how much they are paying and ability to get rid of the tenants within reasonable time frame. None of those conditions are met in Ontario – tenants can have non-permanent “visitors “, boyfriends, relatives, pets, etc., there are limits on how much I can increase rent annually and with new 2017 Liberal Party policies you can forget about asking someone to move. Tenants are becoming the same as the trees with diameter over 30 cm – they are impossible to remove in city of Toronto. I feel that I do not own my property any more – then why I am taking those investment risks ? I am selling and good luck to everyone with this mess – I am sure than NDP will make it even worse given the chance, hopefully I will be free at that time.

    1. carol belding

      at 10:15 pm

      I’m a renter in Toronto, and a landlord in the US.
      I’m in a landlord forum, and the owners in Ontario have always said they have it the worst.
      We rented a condo downtown, sight unseen. We had a floor plan, photos, a video, had visited two other apartments in the building, and the agent said the key provided to show the apartment didn’t work. She happened to be there when the tenant who was leaving, was home.
      We took the apartment, at the listed price, and will stay as long as we can.

    2. that guy

      at 10:08 am

      Thinking of a young single professional, high salary, better prospects.

      You want a say over who my girlfriend is or even if I have one? I can’t have a brother or my parents over?

      This is a commercial transaction between adults. It sounds like you want to act as a camp counsellor.

      Should you also be able to approve of what church I go to? That I go every Sunday? Or Mumbai style vegetarian only buildings?

      Sure the LTB is overly solicitous of tenants and getting rid of truly bad ones is a PITA. But there are truly horrible landlords who don’t repair, go back on agreements, lie to evict, or like yourself want to control minute details of a tenant’s life. Which is why we end up with overly tenant friendly laws and processes!

  14. Nota Landlord

    at 11:18 pm

    The simplest answer is REITs. Most of the profit, none of the trouble. Being a newly minted landlord in Toronto these days doesn’t appear to have much of an upside.

    It would be much easier for landlords to give a chance to riskier applicants if the eviction process was easier. If non-payment was grounds for eviction by police within 14 days, the downside for the landlord would be limited and it would be easier for such applicants to secure housing. The current situation of strong tenant protections (that are on occasion abused) leads to landlords making safe choices.

    As for the five scenarios… three out of five would be better served by larger properties further away from the city center. They are simply not a match for this apartment.

    If the student could adequately explain where will the other 13 months of rent come from, they could be OK. Loans, parents, employment, etc. The couple who just moved into town can demonstrate savings that will last them a while, or they can find a job first and their application would be strengthened considerably.

    1. Bonnie

      at 8:29 pm

      “It would be much easier for landlords to give a chance to riskier applicants if the eviction process was easier.”

      THIS. 100%. We’re renting to a real estate agent and he has not paid us in MONTHS and we’re coming up to our second tribunal hearing.

  15. Batalha

    at 2:12 pm

    And people wonder why people like my wife and I (both in our mid-sixties) aren’t selling our million-dollar houses (ours is a modest three-bedroom near Broadview and Danforth) and renting for the remainder of our relative healthy years? In this crazy rental market? Can you say “vicious circle”?

    1. David (Not the David who runs this website)

      at 4:15 pm

      Batalha, if were in my mid 60’s, I’d sell, invest the proceeds, then leave Toronto and go rent a nice place in a small, quiet town, well away from Toronto. You could live nicely on income that your investments and CPP generate and not have to put up with the overcrowding, endless construction and noise of Toronto.

      Unless of course you really want to stay in Toronto, then yes, renting would be worse than hanging on to your house.

      1. Batalha

        at 4:27 pm

        No offense, but the thought of living in a “small, quiet town” gives me the chills. I was raised in the Montreal suburbs (hated it) and always wanted to live at least reasonably close to “downtown.” Now that I’m fortunate enough to do so in Toronto, I’m not giving that up. Ever (hopefully).

        1. David (Not the David who runs this website)

          at 5:10 pm

          None taken and I get what you mean. I also grew up in suburbia in Montreal and Toronto, but there’s a huge difference between suburbia and small towns.

          I used to love living in the city but it’s not nearly as enjoyable or affordable as it used to be.

  16. FreeMoney

    at 2:19 pm

    David, you do realize, I trust, that a many (most?) of the elements of “this new world we live in” are the antithesis of the so-called good old days when all societies, including ours, were places “where the racists, bigots, and haters [had] a voice, a platform, and support.”

  17. Batalha

    at 2:44 pm

    Okay, I’ll bite.
    “Would you spend $500,000 on a rental property, to turn around and rent to an 18-year-old who has no job, no income, no references, no credit score, no guarantor, and no family on this continent?”
    No.
    “Is my even asking this considered “racist” by today’s standards?”
    No.

  18. Rick Aurora

    at 10:14 am

    I don’t see the issue with a listing agent accepting bidding offers for the leasing property it benefits the owner of the property and that is who the listing agent is working for.
    Bank Foreclosures Toronto

  19. Daniel B

    at 9:59 pm

    David, the real comparison would be two young professionals, each employed in Bay Street with similar salaries and credit scores. One Caucasian and able bodied. The other a person of colour or disabled. Which one would you rent to, honestly? Because the basic idea of the charter and protections is that many people will select the able bodied white guy over an equally (or more) attractive candidate. I think the whole phrasing of the post is super ignorant of the realities that many people face in the rental market. I encourage you to educate yourself on the topic further.

    Putting aside the offensive and ridiculous narrative, the basic question of “can a landlord select tenants based on non protected characteristics” is easily answered with a yes.

  20. crazyegg

    at 2:55 pm

    Hi All,

    I actually have a preference to rent out rental units to the unemployed, underemployed, the self-employed or those on lower salaries. I find they generally pay the rent on time.

    Those in the “more desirable” middle management jobs have a higher chance of getting laid off. And they will generally not agree to grind it out a lower paying job, which means missed rent for the landlord…

    One of my tenants now is an female millennial earning $19,000. She was honest in her application. She has been there almost a year and is one my best tenants ever.

    Before her was a guy earning $22,000 working in retail. I remember choosing him over several other candidates earning over $80,000. My friends thought I was nuts.

    Regards,
    ed…

  21. kelly

    at 4:54 am

    The rental market is unacceptable . I am a previous homeowner, in my forties and successfully self employed solo parent to one child and had an extremely difficult time finding a rental unit because owners wanted a “couple” or didn’t want to have someone self employed. Let me note that I have been self employed for almost two decades and am well dressed , put together and respectful with a good credit score. I truly feel there has to be some regulations on the market .I’m unsure how people with a lower income are managing to be honest.

  22. Albert Gore

    at 4:34 am

    Really agree, it is really a tough situation for both landlord and tenant finding a genuine option while choosing home for you. As “there’s an incredible housing shortage in the city of Toronto, rents have skyrocketed and show no signs of leveling off”. Thanks for sharing, really interesting and helpful.
    http://calgaryofficespace.ca

  23. Pingback: In The News! - Toronto Realty Blog
  24. Praxis Studio

    at 5:57 am

    Very Nice post

Pick5 is a weekly series comparing and analyzing five residential properties based on price, style, location, and neighbourhood.

Search Posts