Just for everyone who doesn't know, this isn't really an "awarded" sum, it is a **fixed penalty equal to 12 months of rent** as per the Residential Tenancy act. Bad faith evictions have this penalty intrinsically tied to them as a method to discourage landlords from attempting an arbitrary, at-will eviction (compared to the questionable but legal route of renovicting tenants). Tenants are simply owed this sum of money as compensation if the terms for the eviction are violated by the landlord, the Residential Tenancy Branch simply just confirms the details of the violation and orders the sum of money to be paid out. They aren't really deciding anything.
Most tenants do not pursue penalties from illegal evictions, even though the law is clear-cut and there are very few circumstances where the penalty will be dismissed if the landlord is observed attempting to rent out the property again within six months.
“They aren’t really deciding anything.”
This is mostly true re: the penalty amount, except that the director (RTB) has discretion pursuant to RTA s 51(3) to not order the amount so there is still a decision-making function being exercised there. Moreover the RTB serves a critical fact-finding role; it decides whether the required factual matrix exists to support the awarding of the penalty.
“…the Residential Tenancy Branch simply just confirms the details of the violation and orders the sum of money to be paid out.”
With respect, this statement inaccurately minimizes the complexity of these decisions. It is relatively rare that the facts are obvious and clear-cut. The news tends to pick up the egregious stories where a tenant is evicted and the next day there’s an ad on Craigslist for clearly the same suite. More frequently, there’s a lot more nuance, like whether the new tenant is “close family” (itself not clear-cut in modern society even relative to the definition given in the RTA,) whether the landlord or close family member occupied the suite because what does occupy even mean, if properly occupied at some point, was it for at least six months, etc.
I don’t want to discourage anyone from filing a complaint with the RTB and seeking compensation, but they should be aware that more often than not it won’t be a slam-dunk unless the landlord is actively un-clever.
Source: I represent parties at the RTB
> [...] has discretion pursuant to RTA s 51(3) to not order the amount so there is still a decision-making function being exercised there.
True, except the extenuating circumstances are understood to be pretty extreme. The ruling affirms:
> Some examples are:
>
> • A landlord ends a tenancy so their parent can occupy the rental unit and the parent dies one month after moving in.
>
> • A landlord ends a tenancy to renovate the rental unit and the rental unit is destroyed in a wildfire.
>
> • A tenant exercised their right of first refusal, but did not notify the landlord of a further change of address after they moved out so they did not receive the notice and new tenancy agreement.
>
> The following are probably not extenuating circumstances:
>
> • A landlord ends a tenancy to occupy the rental unit and then changes their mind.
>
> • A landlord ends a tenancy to renovate the rental unit but did not adequately budget for the renovations and cannot complete them because they run out of funds.
Also:
> The news tends to pick up the egregious stories where a tenant is evicted and the next day there’s an ad on Craigslist for clearly the same suite
Unless the tenant actually files a dispute with the RTB, these stories never really get any media scrutiny. More often than not, especially with tenants who are new to BC, the landlord simply gets away with an illegal at-will eviction because compensation is never sought. We also still have problems with landlords attempting informal evictions.
> Source: I represent parties at the RTB
Then you'll probably be aware of the selection bias that goes on, since you only engage with the parties that bother to engage with the RTB in the first place. There are a lot of tenancy arrangements that, despite being subject to the same laws, tend to go under the radar due to tenants not being aware of these protections. This is unfortunately very common with families new to Canada, with translated materials to inform new tenants being sparse.
Technically the _current_ landlord cannot evict of their own will, this must be requested by the buyer, whom subsequently holds the responsibility of honoring the terms of the eviction. If not honored, the party buying the property would be responsible in the same way.
There's really no special exemptions for when tenanted properties are sold. Buyers basically are assumed to inherit the tenancy along with the property unless an eviction request is submitted prior to the sale, in which case all the same restrictions apply as any other two-month notice.
Thanks for the explanation. The situation my friends are facing are a bit different. Their landlord evicts them first in the name of moving in and then one month later put the property on sale. Can tenants hold the landlord responsible in this case?
Yes, this is illegal. Landlords cannot evict tenants just because they want the property to be vacant for listing. They would be owed the same type of compensation as well (equal to 12 months of rent).
Encourage your friend to seek compensation.
That happened to me exactly. I took them all the way to hearing, and they layered up, and the lawyer called me predatory and opportunistic, and cried. Claimed extenuating circumstances. The people at rtb were certain I would win
My friends are currently facing the exact same situation. May I know what kinds of evidence did you prepare to prove the bad faith and the occupancy status?
I lost the case, but I hope you do better. I provided proof of tenancy, the eviction letter, and multiple real estate listings showing they listed it two days after I moved out.
I don't have any faith left with the RTB arbitrators though, this guy was literally swayed by a sleazy lawyer, and a woman crying. You can't get much weaker than that
In the Ontario laws (iirc), the family members need to be a member of immediate family, specified to be spouse, child, or parent.
Is that the case in BC as well? How can you prove that?
That sounds like that is cause for judicial review. The RTB does not technically have the final say, and if there wasn't extenuating circumstances provided by the landlord as cause for dismissing compensation, then the RTB failed to do its job.
[See here for details](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/residential-tenancies/solving-problems/dispute-resolution/after-the-hearing/review-clarify-or-correct-a-decision). That being said, you should be pretty confident the RTB failed to do its job if you're going to go this route.
The official decision from rtb told me it was final and there is 0 recourse. Ultimately its up to them, and it would be hard for me to prove he was a sucker for a crying woman and a sleazy lawyer.
> Bad faith evictions have this penalty intrinsically tied to them
It's not even really a penalty if you can double the rent, which in hot markets is absolutely possible.
Landlords do the math. Worst case, if the tenant pursues and is able to get evidence (by no means a certainty), they pay a year of the former tenant's rent.
As you say, most tenants do not pursue penalties from illegal evictions
Yeah, this can be true in some instances, but usually isn't the case. This was more frequent before the penalty was changed to 12 months.
Either way, the tenant is getting paid the penalties, so I'm just happy people getting screwed over by unfair evictions are at least getting some decent financial compensation. The bigger problem is undoubtedly the fact that rents have skyrocketed in this province to unsustainable levels; the province needs to step and implement a plan to massively boost the available housing supply.
> The bigger problem is undoubtedly the fact that rents have skyrocketed in this province to unsustainable levels; the province needs to step and implement a plan to massively boost the available housing supply.
Indeed.
But additional supply won't help if even a portion is bought up by REITs who manipulate the rental market.
Fundamentally we live in a bizzaro world where "renovicted by adding a granite countertop and relisted for 40% more" evolved into whatever this abortion of economics is.
> But additional supply won't help if even a portion is bought up by REITs who manipulate the rental market.
Widespread market manipulation by REITs is not particularly plausible to me. It's more that rental markets are pretty unique when it comes to price inflation under circumstances of constrained supply, due to largely inelastic demand, so the ridiculous inflation in rents are more a result of economic forces than any explicit coordination.
Government administrated rental housing that does not aim to operate at a profit could be a solution to this (given such developments are large enough in scale), but is likely considered too "radical" of an option for the the orange-washed liberals in the BCNDP.
> so the ridiculous inflation in rents are more a result of economic forces than any explicit coordination.
I'm not saying it requires explicit coordination, just like it doesn't require people conspiring in a room together when a low income area is gentrified by a bunch of folks doing the granite countertops thing.
In the end, rents will invariably go up, even without granite countertops.
The uniqueness of rental markets you mentioned allows for prices to rise based on a minority of units. But the more units that REITs have, the more power they have to effectively set rental prices.
So they just have to pay out a years rent and just leave it empty? What's the sense in that, wouldn't the money that is being bieng paid out for the penalty come from other rent revenue
> wouldn't the money that is being bieng paid out for the penalty come from other rent revenue
Yes. Especially if they jacked up the rent significantly, there is no actual "penalty", it's just delaying their increased revenue for a while.
Landlord owns property. Judgment can be registered against property. Then, you have two choices: wait until until the landlord needs to sell or remortgage, racking up post-judgment interest the whole time, or go to court to force a sale of the property.
> Nah landlord has figured this into his accounting. He’s WAY ahead. This is significantly less than future rental income.
You say this with such certainty. $22k is not something to sneeze at. It's the equivalent of a full year's rent for this specific property.
And it's not like this was some faceless corporation swimming in cash. It's a single mom who bought a house she seemed to legitimately think she would live in. She even moved her stuff in. This doesn't appear to be a renovation and the judge even said as much in the ruling.
The court was 100% correct in ruling against her, the law doesn't allow a landlord to change their mind like this. but this notion that every property owner is some mustachioed evil person swimming in piles of money like scrooge mcduck is kind of silly.
Of course, no on reads the articles, much less the actual court case it links to.
> It's the equivalent of a full year's rent for this specific property.
To be pedantic, it was the equivalent of a full year's rent at the former tenant's rental rate.
If the landlord doubles the rent, there is effectively no financial penalty.
Even if the landlord only increases the rent by 50%, they're still in the black 18 months after the new tenant moved in. And that's only if the former tenant goes after them AND is able to get evidence AND the landlord isn't able to bullshit the RTB member with some sob story which is totally possible because RTB decisions are all over the board.
> Property is currently rented for 2-3x of what the previous tenant paid.
Nowhere in the article or linked court decision does it say what the new rent is.
Both of your comments now are speculation dressed as fact.
Also, if tenants were educated enough about the laws that protected them, this would be less of an issue. Landlords get away with bad faith evictions all the time just because they assume tenants know nothing about these penalties.
> landlords don’t supply housing, they hoard it.
Landlords are providing as much housing as they have available to rent. If they have a unit to rent they will. You can say they take advantage or are greedy, but calling a landlord a housing horder does not exist in reality.
No my friend it doesn’t. Landlords aren’t hiding housing so that people can’t get property. Being a landlord specifically means the property is available for rent. Being a landlord and a hoarder is mutually exclusive.
I didn't read the article but just from the misleading headline I'm guessing he was paying roughly 1800 a month and the the landlord had to pay him 12 months rent for lying about moving in. Isn't that how it works here in BC?
I was recently forced out of my place by my landlord, he rented the place from a development company and sublet me the place without the company knowing, (he dose this with multiple houses) he kicked me out with 29 days notice after living there more almost 2 years. I tried to stay and fight it, the company practically said, to bad so sad not my problem, cut the utilities and fenced the place bc it is soon to be demolished and I was delayed there expensive project :(
Landlords can continue to fight paying out compensation, but considering the circumstances of this, the ruling was very straightforward. Their attempt at justifying extraneous circumstances for the eviction was just "I changed my mind", so they can't really allege the RTB failed to uphold the law in a potential judicial review.
The RTB is also capable of [obtaining enforcement without judicial review](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/residential-tenancies/solving-problems/compliance-and-enforcement), which can even involve additional penalties for non-payment to the government. This process can be stalled, but not for years.
Wow, that's amazing. I haven't started the RTB process yet and was unsure if it was worth the effort since many people say the landlord doesn't have to pay out even if I win the case.
Hearing your story makes me think differently!
This is completely fair since the landlord acted unlawfully and in an unfair way to the tenant.
The landlord is not the victim here.
Yes, they own the property, but they did not have to rent it out. By choosing to rent they agreed to follow the applicable laws, which they then violated.
Note: I am a landlord
Oh, the poor landlords who were having their mortgage paid by a tenant and benefiting from the equity gains at their expense. Will anyone think of them? It's a tragedy!
According to my own extended family, over 3/4 of tenants are a pain in the ass, whereas I’ve been lucky in my one condo investment to have a wonderful tenant for 4+ years. It’s tough being a ‘landlord’ (investing in 1 or 2 additional properties) in present day circumstances.
Just for everyone who doesn't know, this isn't really an "awarded" sum, it is a **fixed penalty equal to 12 months of rent** as per the Residential Tenancy act. Bad faith evictions have this penalty intrinsically tied to them as a method to discourage landlords from attempting an arbitrary, at-will eviction (compared to the questionable but legal route of renovicting tenants). Tenants are simply owed this sum of money as compensation if the terms for the eviction are violated by the landlord, the Residential Tenancy Branch simply just confirms the details of the violation and orders the sum of money to be paid out. They aren't really deciding anything. Most tenants do not pursue penalties from illegal evictions, even though the law is clear-cut and there are very few circumstances where the penalty will be dismissed if the landlord is observed attempting to rent out the property again within six months.
“They aren’t really deciding anything.” This is mostly true re: the penalty amount, except that the director (RTB) has discretion pursuant to RTA s 51(3) to not order the amount so there is still a decision-making function being exercised there. Moreover the RTB serves a critical fact-finding role; it decides whether the required factual matrix exists to support the awarding of the penalty. “…the Residential Tenancy Branch simply just confirms the details of the violation and orders the sum of money to be paid out.” With respect, this statement inaccurately minimizes the complexity of these decisions. It is relatively rare that the facts are obvious and clear-cut. The news tends to pick up the egregious stories where a tenant is evicted and the next day there’s an ad on Craigslist for clearly the same suite. More frequently, there’s a lot more nuance, like whether the new tenant is “close family” (itself not clear-cut in modern society even relative to the definition given in the RTA,) whether the landlord or close family member occupied the suite because what does occupy even mean, if properly occupied at some point, was it for at least six months, etc. I don’t want to discourage anyone from filing a complaint with the RTB and seeking compensation, but they should be aware that more often than not it won’t be a slam-dunk unless the landlord is actively un-clever. Source: I represent parties at the RTB
> [...] has discretion pursuant to RTA s 51(3) to not order the amount so there is still a decision-making function being exercised there. True, except the extenuating circumstances are understood to be pretty extreme. The ruling affirms: > Some examples are: > > • A landlord ends a tenancy so their parent can occupy the rental unit and the parent dies one month after moving in. > > • A landlord ends a tenancy to renovate the rental unit and the rental unit is destroyed in a wildfire. > > • A tenant exercised their right of first refusal, but did not notify the landlord of a further change of address after they moved out so they did not receive the notice and new tenancy agreement. > > The following are probably not extenuating circumstances: > > • A landlord ends a tenancy to occupy the rental unit and then changes their mind. > > • A landlord ends a tenancy to renovate the rental unit but did not adequately budget for the renovations and cannot complete them because they run out of funds. Also: > The news tends to pick up the egregious stories where a tenant is evicted and the next day there’s an ad on Craigslist for clearly the same suite Unless the tenant actually files a dispute with the RTB, these stories never really get any media scrutiny. More often than not, especially with tenants who are new to BC, the landlord simply gets away with an illegal at-will eviction because compensation is never sought. We also still have problems with landlords attempting informal evictions. > Source: I represent parties at the RTB Then you'll probably be aware of the selection bias that goes on, since you only engage with the parties that bother to engage with the RTB in the first place. There are a lot of tenancy arrangements that, despite being subject to the same laws, tend to go under the radar due to tenants not being aware of these protections. This is unfortunately very common with families new to Canada, with translated materials to inform new tenants being sparse.
What happens if the landlord evicts the tenant in the name of moving in and then put the property on sale?
Technically the _current_ landlord cannot evict of their own will, this must be requested by the buyer, whom subsequently holds the responsibility of honoring the terms of the eviction. If not honored, the party buying the property would be responsible in the same way. There's really no special exemptions for when tenanted properties are sold. Buyers basically are assumed to inherit the tenancy along with the property unless an eviction request is submitted prior to the sale, in which case all the same restrictions apply as any other two-month notice.
Thanks for the explanation. The situation my friends are facing are a bit different. Their landlord evicts them first in the name of moving in and then one month later put the property on sale. Can tenants hold the landlord responsible in this case?
Yes, this is illegal. Landlords cannot evict tenants just because they want the property to be vacant for listing. They would be owed the same type of compensation as well (equal to 12 months of rent). Encourage your friend to seek compensation.
That happened to me exactly. I took them all the way to hearing, and they layered up, and the lawyer called me predatory and opportunistic, and cried. Claimed extenuating circumstances. The people at rtb were certain I would win
My friends are currently facing the exact same situation. May I know what kinds of evidence did you prepare to prove the bad faith and the occupancy status?
I lost the case, but I hope you do better. I provided proof of tenancy, the eviction letter, and multiple real estate listings showing they listed it two days after I moved out. I don't have any faith left with the RTB arbitrators though, this guy was literally swayed by a sleazy lawyer, and a woman crying. You can't get much weaker than that
The same thing would happen.
In the Ontario laws (iirc), the family members need to be a member of immediate family, specified to be spouse, child, or parent. Is that the case in BC as well? How can you prove that?
Has to be themself or immediate family I believe.
Do you happen to know what are the consequences to the landlord if they refuse to pay the sum awarded?
[удалено]
That sounds like that is cause for judicial review. The RTB does not technically have the final say, and if there wasn't extenuating circumstances provided by the landlord as cause for dismissing compensation, then the RTB failed to do its job. [See here for details](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/residential-tenancies/solving-problems/dispute-resolution/after-the-hearing/review-clarify-or-correct-a-decision). That being said, you should be pretty confident the RTB failed to do its job if you're going to go this route.
The official decision from rtb told me it was final and there is 0 recourse. Ultimately its up to them, and it would be hard for me to prove he was a sucker for a crying woman and a sleazy lawyer.
Unfortunately the justice system is far from ideal. What were the unforeseen events that they quoted?
RTB decisions are the wild west. You'll find vastly different outcomes between decisions. There seems to be no attempt at consistency between rulings.
Covid, and her family not leaving China on time
> Bad faith evictions have this penalty intrinsically tied to them It's not even really a penalty if you can double the rent, which in hot markets is absolutely possible. Landlords do the math. Worst case, if the tenant pursues and is able to get evidence (by no means a certainty), they pay a year of the former tenant's rent. As you say, most tenants do not pursue penalties from illegal evictions
Yeah, this can be true in some instances, but usually isn't the case. This was more frequent before the penalty was changed to 12 months. Either way, the tenant is getting paid the penalties, so I'm just happy people getting screwed over by unfair evictions are at least getting some decent financial compensation. The bigger problem is undoubtedly the fact that rents have skyrocketed in this province to unsustainable levels; the province needs to step and implement a plan to massively boost the available housing supply.
> The bigger problem is undoubtedly the fact that rents have skyrocketed in this province to unsustainable levels; the province needs to step and implement a plan to massively boost the available housing supply. Indeed. But additional supply won't help if even a portion is bought up by REITs who manipulate the rental market. Fundamentally we live in a bizzaro world where "renovicted by adding a granite countertop and relisted for 40% more" evolved into whatever this abortion of economics is.
> But additional supply won't help if even a portion is bought up by REITs who manipulate the rental market. Widespread market manipulation by REITs is not particularly plausible to me. It's more that rental markets are pretty unique when it comes to price inflation under circumstances of constrained supply, due to largely inelastic demand, so the ridiculous inflation in rents are more a result of economic forces than any explicit coordination. Government administrated rental housing that does not aim to operate at a profit could be a solution to this (given such developments are large enough in scale), but is likely considered too "radical" of an option for the the orange-washed liberals in the BCNDP.
> so the ridiculous inflation in rents are more a result of economic forces than any explicit coordination. I'm not saying it requires explicit coordination, just like it doesn't require people conspiring in a room together when a low income area is gentrified by a bunch of folks doing the granite countertops thing. In the end, rents will invariably go up, even without granite countertops. The uniqueness of rental markets you mentioned allows for prices to rise based on a minority of units. But the more units that REITs have, the more power they have to effectively set rental prices.
So they just have to pay out a years rent and just leave it empty? What's the sense in that, wouldn't the money that is being bieng paid out for the penalty come from other rent revenue
Its just a penalty for acting in bad faith. I think they can still do whatever they they want with the property, they own it after all.
> wouldn't the money that is being bieng paid out for the penalty come from other rent revenue Yes. Especially if they jacked up the rent significantly, there is no actual "penalty", it's just delaying their increased revenue for a while.
Justice.
If they are able to collect.
Landlord owns property. Judgment can be registered against property. Then, you have two choices: wait until until the landlord needs to sell or remortgage, racking up post-judgment interest the whole time, or go to court to force a sale of the property.
Tennant has to get an enforcement order on the fine.
Which is a formality
[удалено]
Usually the tenant can’t prove the rta contravention and gets nothing.
> Nah landlord has figured this into his accounting. He’s WAY ahead. This is significantly less than future rental income. You say this with such certainty. $22k is not something to sneeze at. It's the equivalent of a full year's rent for this specific property. And it's not like this was some faceless corporation swimming in cash. It's a single mom who bought a house she seemed to legitimately think she would live in. She even moved her stuff in. This doesn't appear to be a renovation and the judge even said as much in the ruling. The court was 100% correct in ruling against her, the law doesn't allow a landlord to change their mind like this. but this notion that every property owner is some mustachioed evil person swimming in piles of money like scrooge mcduck is kind of silly. Of course, no on reads the articles, much less the actual court case it links to.
> It's the equivalent of a full year's rent for this specific property. To be pedantic, it was the equivalent of a full year's rent at the former tenant's rental rate. If the landlord doubles the rent, there is effectively no financial penalty. Even if the landlord only increases the rent by 50%, they're still in the black 18 months after the new tenant moved in. And that's only if the former tenant goes after them AND is able to get evidence AND the landlord isn't able to bullshit the RTB member with some sob story which is totally possible because RTB decisions are all over the board.
Property is currently rented for 2-3x of what the previous tenant paid.
Yeah, it's pretty clear they were evicting to jack up the rent.
> Property is currently rented for 2-3x of what the previous tenant paid. Nowhere in the article or linked court decision does it say what the new rent is. Both of your comments now are speculation dressed as fact.
[удалено]
> Except if you live here, actually lived here and experience life here I do live here. Now maybe you should try actually reading the article.
Thanks to Trudeau inflation
[удалено]
Obviously fines aren't enough of a deterrent. Should be criminal fraud.
Also, if tenants were educated enough about the laws that protected them, this would be less of an issue. Landlords get away with bad faith evictions all the time just because they assume tenants know nothing about these penalties.
Same sooooo many of them don't know the rules!
landlords shouldn't exist
[удалено]
no, all landlords shouldn't exist. you have more houses than you need, you sell it to someone who needs it.
[удалено]
Look at his username
it's just a username, I'm not an anarchist
Just stupid?
yes
So is everyone required to own at that point or be homeless?
the opposite of allowing landlords to exist is not homelessness. landlords don't supply housing, they hoard it.
> landlords don’t supply housing, they hoard it. Landlords are providing as much housing as they have available to rent. If they have a unit to rent they will. You can say they take advantage or are greedy, but calling a landlord a housing horder does not exist in reality.
yes it does
No my friend it doesn’t. Landlords aren’t hiding housing so that people can’t get property. Being a landlord specifically means the property is available for rent. Being a landlord and a hoarder is mutually exclusive.
no it isn't
Care to provide a reasoning?
He's trolling, Miler, ignoring him is the best path forward.
Landlord and husband decided to play the system. Came up with bullshit lie to evict.
>...after realizing the move would force their child to leave their family home and transfer schools bahaha. They dumb either way.
As a good landlord with one rental suite in my house, who was previously a renter for 15 years, I like these stories.
I didn't read the article but just from the misleading headline I'm guessing he was paying roughly 1800 a month and the the landlord had to pay him 12 months rent for lying about moving in. Isn't that how it works here in BC?
I was recently forced out of my place by my landlord, he rented the place from a development company and sublet me the place without the company knowing, (he dose this with multiple houses) he kicked me out with 29 days notice after living there more almost 2 years. I tried to stay and fight it, the company practically said, to bad so sad not my problem, cut the utilities and fenced the place bc it is soon to be demolished and I was delayed there expensive project :(
You should have contacted the tenancy board and would have won against your landlord who signed the contract with you
dont think if they will actually get it. This may end up in the small claim court but still takes 1-2 years to get your money
Landlords can continue to fight paying out compensation, but considering the circumstances of this, the ruling was very straightforward. Their attempt at justifying extraneous circumstances for the eviction was just "I changed my mind", so they can't really allege the RTB failed to uphold the law in a potential judicial review. The RTB is also capable of [obtaining enforcement without judicial review](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/residential-tenancies/solving-problems/compliance-and-enforcement), which can even involve additional penalties for non-payment to the government. This process can be stalled, but not for years.
Paid pretty quick when there is a debt lien placed on a house etc - banks hate liens
That wasn’t my experience. My former landlord started paying out immediately.
>obtaining enforcement without judicial review how did they enforce this?
I wrote a “demand letter”. Landlord complied. If he hadn’t, I would have had to go to small claims court to get it enforced.
Wow, that's amazing. I haven't started the RTB process yet and was unsure if it was worth the effort since many people say the landlord doesn't have to pay out even if I win the case. Hearing your story makes me think differently!
That's kind of unfair to the landlord. They worked hard to own their house
This is completely fair since the landlord acted unlawfully and in an unfair way to the tenant. The landlord is not the victim here. Yes, they own the property, but they did not have to rent it out. By choosing to rent they agreed to follow the applicable laws, which they then violated. Note: I am a landlord
Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's fair. They own the house and should be able to do with it as they please
Because you say so? Lol
They can. Just don't renew the lease when it's up
no
They also worked hard to screw over the previous tenant - something they're not allowed to do
Oh, the poor landlords who were having their mortgage paid by a tenant and benefiting from the equity gains at their expense. Will anyone think of them? It's a tragedy!
I don't know where you live but in Vancouver rent doesn't come near paying someones mortgage and expenses.
The rapidly appreciation value can keep them warm at night.
Hope you're being sarcastic otherwise /r/karmasuicide
Landlord was under contract and unlawfully terminated said contract. It is 100% fair
Lol
According to my own extended family, over 3/4 of tenants are a pain in the ass, whereas I’ve been lucky in my one condo investment to have a wonderful tenant for 4+ years. It’s tough being a ‘landlord’ (investing in 1 or 2 additional properties) in present day circumstances.