City’s New Bylaw Proposal Aims to Curb “Renovictions,” But Will It Backfire?

In an effort to address the ongoing issue of “renovictions” — evictions where landlords claim renovations as a reason to displace tenants, only to raise rents later — the City has introduced a proposed bylaw aimed at increasing accountability for landlords undertaking substantial renovations. However, this initiative has sparked significant debate, with questions about its fairness, its impact on rental supply, and whether it will genuinely protect tenants.

Under the proposed bylaw, landlords seeking to evict tenants for renovations would be required to apply for a special license within seven days of issuing the eviction notice. Priced at $700, this license would necessitate that landlords:

  • Already hold their building permits,
  • Provide a report from a licensed engineer or architect to confirm that the renovations are indeed extensive and necessitate a vacant unit.

This rigorous verification process aims to prevent landlords from using renovations as a pretext to displace tenants in bad faith.

The new bylaw also includes a transparency measure that enables tenants to monitor the progress of renovation work online. This step provides a layer of public accountability, reducing the likelihood of drawn-out projects or incomplete renovations.

Moreover, landlords would need to submit a detailed accommodation plan for tenants who wish to return post-renovation. This plan could include covering costs for a comparable unit during the renovation period or paying for tenants’ moving expenses. For added protection, this plan would need to be signed by the tenants and become part of the landlord’s official application.

To deter rule-breaking, the proposed bylaw enforces substantial penalties. Landlords who fail to comply could face tickets, court summons, and fines reaching up to $100,000. This level of consequence aims to strengthen tenant protections, as past penalties were seen as insufficient by many tenants who felt that landlords could skirt rules with minimal financial risk.

Notably, public and supportive housing sites would be exempt from these new requirements. This exception has raised questions about equity: why are private landlords being held to a higher standard than public housing, especially when some city-owned properties are reportedly in worse condition? Critics argue that holding private landlords more accountable than public housing providers seems inconsistent, especially given that the city itself is not subject to the same level of scrutiny.

While the bylaw is grounded in tenant advocacy and accountability, some argue that these regulations are overly punitive and risk disincentivizing private landlords. Critics claim that the bylaw targets a small percentage of “bad actors” while imposing burdensome regulations on all landlords, including those who adhere to ethical standards. The concern is that these requirements may discourage landlords from staying in the rental business, ultimately reducing the housing supply rather than protecting tenants.

Supporters of the bylaw emphasize its potential to address the systemic problem of “renovictions,” where tenants are evicted under the guise of renovations, only to find the unit re-rented at a much higher price shortly after. Yet, opponents suggest that these rules, while well-intentioned, could drive landlords to reconsider their involvement in the rental market, which may ultimately have unintended consequences for both landlords and tenants.

The City will need to increase its staffing to meet the administrative demands of this bylaw, especially considering the detailed oversight required. Hamilton, another Ontario city, has implemented similar rules to regulate “renovictions,” which could serve as a model for what might unfold here.

If approved, these new rules would take effect on July 31, 2025, giving landlords and tenants some time to prepare for the changes. However, as debate continues, stakeholders will be watching closely to see if this bylaw moves forward and, if it does, how it will ultimately impact Toronto’s housing market.

This proposed bylaw is part of a broader attempt to tackle housing challenges in the city. However, questions remain about whether it strikes the right balance between tenant protections and the viability of private rental businesses. While aimed at curbing unfair practices, the potential fallout could extend to well-intentioned landlords and, by extension, the renters they serve.