The case of a Toronto renter who battled eviction attempts by a landlord who owned just one per cent of the house she rented out of may not be common in the city, but data shows that personal-use eviction applications in general are very much on the rise here.

Ontario’s Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) recorded a sharp rise in applications for two types of “no fault” evictions over four years, including a 77 per cent increase in attempts by landlords to take back apartments for personal use, data provided to the Star shows.

One such case was that of east-end Toronto renter Devon McKenzie, who fought for seven months to prevent a new landlord, who was sold a sliver of the property in midsummer, from using a section of rental law that allows landlords to apply to push out existing tenants if either the landlord, members of their immediate family, or a family member’s support worker plans to move in. McKenzie eventually decided to leave the city altogether.

The LTB data also showed a 149 per cent increase in Toronto landlords applying to remove tenants during renovations, reported over the same time period, between 2015 and the end of 2018.

Social Justice Tribunals Ontario provided the Star with raw data collected from applications submitted either through three Toronto offices of the Landlord and Tenant Board or online. Most of the applications were submitted electronically, the data shows.

The data shows there were 3,906 applications for N12-related cases between 2015 and 2018, and 488 applications for cases that include an N13 notice, over those same years.

Kenn Hale, director of legal services for the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, said the Star’s findings reinforced what the centre had found through an analysis of information collected by lawyers working at board locations as part of ACTO’s tenant duty council program, findings published in a November report.

That report found not only were tenants seeking out more help for those two types of cases but also that while landlords had some form of representation for about 80 per cent of cases, tenants had representation just three per cent of the time.

Hale reviewed portions of the Star’s findings that showed how cases were managed — including withdrawn and contested applications — and highlighted that for both the N12- and N13-related cases there was an increase in the volume contested by tenants, up 46 per cent and 35 per cent, respectively.

“People need legal help. Tenants are questioning these. They are fighting these,” Hale said. Also of note, he said, was the difference in volume between the two types of cases and said he suspected that one factor keeping a tighter lid on applications related to renovations is because a building permit from the city is required to move ahead with that process.

“There are no numbers that show the kind of turmoil that this throws people’s lives into,” Hale said. “It is not about a marginal part of your life. It not about not getting a refund on your vacation. It is about your life.”

Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government has been reviewing the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) and potential legislative changes are expected to be announced before spring, a spokesperson for Housing Minister Steve Clark confirmed by email.

Provincewide data and trends in the use of applications, including the use of the N12 and N13 process, factor into that review, the spokesperson wrote.

In November, McKenzie spoke before the city’s protection of affordable rental housing subcommittee, whose mandate includes finding ways the city can support tenants facing no fault evictions.

“What they don’t tell you about fighting an eviction is that it takes over your life,” said McKenzie, who eventually struck a deal with her landlord to drop the N12 fight and move out at the end of May if her landlord agreed to forgive rent she owed from when she and her roommates, who have since moved on, withheld payment while trying to navigate the process.

As for N13 cases, tenants removed during renovations are entitled under the law to move back in after the work is done and pay close to their previous rent. However a loophole in existing housing law means that if a landlord can get current renters out and find new ones willing to pay a higher price and move them in, those new tenants are entitled to protection under the law. That gap in protection was spelled out in a written decision by a board adjudicator in March 2018, following a mass eviction at 795 College St.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Their legal right to return was then ignored. When they saw new tenants being moved in they applied for and were granted an order to stop the owners from renting their homes but that order did little good, records submitted to the board show.

The company that owns the building, 795 College Inc., for which Evan Johnsen and Neil Spiegel are listed as directors, was later found to have violated the RTA and ordered to pay $75,000 in fines in February 2019. That money goes straight to the board and not the tenants, who can apply for some compensation. Neither did the $48,000 fine and $12,000 victim surcharge the building owner was ordered to pay by the Ontario Court of Justice in May, after pleading guilty to violating the RTA, under charges laid by Ontario’s Rental Housing Enforcement Unit.

Back in 2018, former 795 College renter Carolyn Taylor told the Star that multiple attempts to convince board adjudicators that the new property owners intended to ignore the law and keep them were basically ignored.

“We were told that we were crystal balling ... that we were imagining things,” said Taylor. “The loss of our homes was never treated with any urgency.”

Correction: An original version of this story reported a 150 cent rise in the number of applications from landlords seeking to take back units for personal use, between 2015 and 2018, and a 77 per cent increase in the number of cases when landlords sought to evict during renovations. Those numbers were incorrect. The Star regrets the error.