2. RESPONSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCY REFORM CONSULTATION PAPER

Réponse au Document de consultation sur la réforme de la location résidentielle

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

That Council:

1. Endorse the Ottawa Tenancy Reform Movement (OTRM) response to the Residential Tenancy Reform Consultation Paper, to ensure that a balanced perspective is provided in the consultation process.

2. That the submission from Action Logement be added as part of the OTRM response to the Residential Tenancy Reform Consultation Paper.

3. That there be an increase in the number of days allocated for hearings in French at the OTRM in Ottawa to one day a week from the one day every two weeks; and,

That the documents issued by the OTRM be in English and French on the same document and not on separate documents as is the present practice.

RecommandationS MODIFIÉES du Comité

Que le Conseil municipal :

1. souscrive à la réponse du Mouvement de la réforme de la location résidentielle d’Ottawa (MRLRO) faisant suite au Document de consultation sur la réforme de la location résidentielle, afin d’assurer un juste équilibre dans le processus de consultation.

2. Que la demande d’Action Logement soit ajoutée à la réponse du MRLRO faisant suite au Document de consultation sur la réforme de la location résidentielle;

3. Que le nombre de journées attribuées aux audiences tenues en français au MRLRO (à Ottawa) soit augmenté à une journée par semaine au lieu d’une journée toutes les deux semaines;

Que les versions anglaise et française des documents diffusés par le MRLRO soient regroupées en un seul document et non séparées (présentation actuelle).

For the Information of Council

The following direction was referred to staff :

That Property Standards be directed to provide to the tenant any report on a property standards inspection that is being provided to the landlord;

And that staff report back on the ability of property standards to address mould issues.

Pour la gouverne du Conseil

Les directives suivantes ont été données au personnel :

Que l’on enjoigne le personnel de la Division des normes de biens-fonds de fournir au locataire tout rapport sur l’inspection des normes de biens-fonds remis au propriétaire;

Que le personnel fasse rapport sur la capacité de la Division des normes de biens-fonds à traiter les questions de moisissures.

Documentation

1. Councillor A. Cullen report dated 17 May 2004 (ACS2004-CCS-HRS-0011).

2. Action Logement letter dated 3 June 2004.

3. Extract of Draft Minutes, 3 June 2004.

4. The following submissions were received and are held on file:

a. P. Sweetnam, Relocatable Homes

b. L. Browne, Alliance to End Homelessness

c. B. Macdonald, Ottawa Tenant Reform Movement

d. J. Dickie, Eastern Ontario Landlord Organization

e. Mary Garrett, West End Legal Services

Report to/Rapport au :

Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee

Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux

and Council / et au Conseil

17 May 2004 / le 17 mai 2004

Submitted by/Soumis par : Councillor Alex Cullen, Bay Ward

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Councillor Alex Cullen, Bay Ward

(613) 580-2477, alex.cullen@ottawa.ca

Ref N°: ACS2004--CCS-HRS-0011

SUBJECT:	RESPONSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCY REFORM CONSULTATION PAPER

OBJET :	Réponse au Document de consultation sur la réforme de la location résidentielle

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend that Council endorse the Ottawa Tenancy Reform Movement response to the Residential Tenancy Reform Consultation Paper

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux recommande au Conseil d’appuyer la réponse du mouvement de la réforme de la location résidentielle d’Ottawa concernant le Document de consultation sur la réforme de la location résidentielle.

BACKGROUND

On April 18, 2004 the Government of Ontario released the Residential Tenancy Reform Consultation Paper (available at Access Ontario or via www.rentreform.ontario.ca), beginning a much needed discussion on a fairer system for tenants and landlords. The Government is currently in the midst of holding town hall meetings across the province to hear from landlords and tenants. The deadline for submissions to the Government (through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing) is June 15, 2004.

Ottawa has always had a strong voice for landlords and developers through lobbying groups such as the Ottawa Regional Landlords Association, the Eastern Ontario Landlords Association, and the Fair Rental Policy Organization. Unfortunately there has not been a united voice for tenants in Ottawa and there are concerns there will be an imbalance in this consultation process as a result. It is for these reasons that Ottawa's community health centres, legal clinics, tenant associations and housing providers in Ottawa founded the Ottawa Tenant Reform Movement to give voice to tenant concerns in this important consultation process. OTRM has developed a position paper to be submitted to the Government's consultation process, and is seeking City Council's endorsement.

Nearly 40% of Ottawa's residents are tenants (118,735 rental units in Ottawa, according to the 2001 Census), representing nearly 300,000 people. There is a need to ensure that their interests are fully represented in this consultation process.

CONSULTATION

The position paper was developed by OTRM in consultation with Ottawa's 16 community health centres, 5 area legal clinics, tenants associations and housing service providers.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications for the City of Ottawa.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Attachment 1 - ORTM position paper: Response to the Residential Tenancy Reform Consultation Paper.

Attachment 2 - Action Logement letter dated 3 June 2004.

DISPOSITION

Upon approval by Council, the City Clerk will transmit Council's resolution plus the attached position paper to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

ATTACHMENT 1

The Ottawa Tenant Reform Movement:

A Coalition of Community Health Centres, Legal Clinics, Tenants Associations and Housing Service Providers

Response to the Residential Tenancy Reform Consultation Paper

Position Paper to the Health, Recreation, and Social Services Committee

June 3, 2004

Background:

In the last provincial election the Ontario Liberal Party ran on a platform that included significant changes to the Tenant Protection Act. The newly-elected Government of Ontario promised to eliminate vacancy decontrol (which allows a landlord to raise rents without any form of control), changes to the rent increase guidelines, changes to the dispute resolution system, and legislation to stop conversions and demolitions of rental housing. How the Ontario Government brings about this legislation will have a significant impact on tenants and affordable housing for years to come.

On April 18, 2004, the Government released the Residential Tenancy Reform Consultation Paper (available at www.rentreform.ontario.ca), beginning a much needed discussion on a fairer system for tenants and landlords. The Government is currently in the midst of holding town hall meetings across the province to hear from landlords and tenants. The deadline for submissions to the Government through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing is June 15, 2004.

The Government has also announced that the rent increase guideline will be reduced by 2% for the year 2005. This is the ‘bonus’ amount that is allotted each year to landlords on top of the inflationary rent increase. The Government is also investing ten million dollars in a province-wide Rent Bank and a further two million dollars to assist struggling tenants with their utility costs. These are interim measures that recognize the economic hardships tenants have experienced under the current system. The real change will come through legislative reform.

Ottawa has always had a strong voice for landlords and developers through lobbying groups such as the Ottawa Regional Landlords Association, the Eastern Ontario Landlords Association, and the Fair Rental Policy Organization. Unfortunately, there has not been a united voice for tenants in Ottawa and there are concerns there will be an imbalance in this consultation process as a result. It is for these reasons that Ottawa’s community health centres, legal clinics, tenants associations and housing providers in Ottawa founded the Ottawa Tenant Reform Movement to give voice to tenant concerns in this consultation process.

The Ottawa Tenant Reform Movement:

The Ottawa Tenant Reform Movement (OTRM) is a coalition of Community Health Centres, Legal Clinics, Tenant Associations and Housing Service Agencies. Our purpose is to protect the interests of tenants in the consultation process around proposed changes to the Tenant Protection Act (TPA). Our goal is to educate tenants about proposed changes and to help them participate fully in the consultation process. Our activities include:

· Education of tenants through community information sessions, letter writing campaigns, and workshops;

· Education of municipal and provincial politicians;

· Advocating for fair rents and a fair tribunal process;

· Respond to the Residential Tenancy Reform Consultation Paper.

Why is Tenant Law Reform Necessary?

The Tenant Protection Act (in place since 1998) is unfair to tenants, has resulted in a rash of evictions over the past 5 years, and is putting continual upward pressure on rents that particularly penalizes low income tenants and those on fixed incomes.

It was based on the theory that making rental housing more responsive to the market would result in increased supply of rental housing. This has not happened. In fact there has been a rash of conversions of rental accommodation to condominiums, which are far more lucrative to developers than maintaining rental housing. Although renters make up 40% of Ottawa’s population, only 7% of new housing development has provided rental housing – and little of it is affordable. Further, for every new apartment built, there are 1.5 apartments lost through conversion.

The current legislation allows continual upward creep of rents due to rent increase guidelines that are too high and amount to an annual bonus for landlords. As a result rents have escalated 26% between 1998 and 2003 for a three-bedroom apartment. Ottawa has the second highest average rents in the country for one-bedroom units.

As well the legislation makes it easy for landlords to get increases above these guidelines, and includes a dispute resolution process under the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that is intimidating to tenants, costly, and inaccessible. Last year more than 62,000 tenant households faced evictions hearings at the Tribunal and 60% of these were ordered evicted by the Tribunal without a hearing.

In his June 2003 Annual Report, the Ombudsman of Ontario was highly critical about the practices and procedures of the Tenant Protection Act. He described the current regulations as “unreasonable and improperly discriminatory”. He urged the Government to take all steps within its power to have the legislation amended to correct the current inequity.

Almost one in four tenant households in Ontario is paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing - these are households at risk of becoming homeless. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation indicates there are 51,000 households in Ottawa facing significant housing problems.

Currently Ottawa has 11,500 households on the Social Housing waiting list, waiting an average of five to ten years for affordable rent-geared-to-income housing (this does not represent the total number since many households feel discouraged from applying when they learn of the long waiting list).

Key Positions of the Ottawa Tenant Reform Movement:

· Full rent control that is not connected to vacancy rates or empty units;

· Elimination of the 2% ‘bonus’ allotted to landlords;

· Changes to Above Guideline Increases;

· Eliminate the current Dispute Resolution System;

· Eviction should be the remedy of last resort;

· Preserve affordable existing housing stock.

Rent Regulation:

Consultation Paper OTRM Recommendation

Annual Guideline Rent Increases

· When the Government is setting the limits for a rent increase, it is comprised of 2% (base amount) of the rent plus an amount for increases in building operating costs. Discussion centers on how much of the base amount a landlord should receive. Options are to keep it the same, lower it, or eliminate it.

Our Position

· The 2% bonus should be removed in the new legislation. Rent increases have outstripped the rate of inflation. Landlords should not be entitled to increases beyond what is justified by actual increases in maintenance and operating costs.

Above Guideline Rent Increases

· Landlords can apply to raise the rent if they experience extraordinary utility costs. However if the utility costs decrease there is no requirement to reduce the increased rent.

· Landlords can apply to raise the rent for capital expenditures. These are defined as repairs that have the life expectancy of a year or more. The rent does not decrease after the repair has been paid for through the increased rent. (“Costs No Longer Borne”).

Our Position

· Landlords should not be allowed to apply for rent increases based on extraordinary utility costs since the increase is already calculated into the building operating costs which are passed on to tenants in the guideline increase.

· Approved capital expenditures should have an ‘expiry date’ with a corresponding rent reduction. Tenants should be notified when the expiry date has been reached and of the resulting cost reduction.

Vacancy Decontrol

· Currently, when a rental unit becomes available, there is no limit to the amount of rent that the new tenant can be charged. Concerns have been raised that vacancy decontrol leads to unfair rent increases being charged to new tenants and that current tenants are at risk of eviction so landlords can raise their rents.

Our Position

· Eliminate vacancy decontrol. There should be no cases where rents are not under the protection of legislation. A rent registry should be established to allow tenants and prospective tenants to know what the legal rents are.

· It was posited that removing rent control would provide incentive for landlords to build affordable units. Supply has not increased, since condominiums are a far more lucrative investment for developers.

Rent Regulation (continued):

Consultation Paper OTRM Recommendation

Regional Decontrol

· In order to stimulate the production of new rental housing and to encourage landlords to invest in the maintenance of existing rental units, rent controls could be removed in regions with sustained vacancy rates.

· Vacancy rate data does not include 40% of the market known as the secondary market. This includes accessory apartments, rented condominiums, rented houses and duplexes.

Our Position

· Vacancy rates are determined by numerous factors including migration, economy and employment opportunities. Rent control has no bearing on the vacancy rate and does not address the most critical factor, which is affordability.

· As the market tightens up, landlords will have incentive to raise rents even higher since it may be a last chance to do so.

· Administrative nightmare to enforce regionally.

Maintenance:

Consultation Paper OTRM Recommendation

Breach of Obligations

· Landlords are required to keep their rental buildings in a good state of repair and they must comply with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.

· The Government is considering whether or not landlords should be allowed to raise rents if buildings are inadequately maintained and what penalties should be imposed on landlords who are negligent in their responsibilities.

· Currently, the Housing Tribunal can order various remedies for breach of maintenance obligations, such as ordering a landlord to do the repairs or refunding part of the rent.

Our Position

· No rent increases should be allowed for properties that violate municipal property standards. In business, stricter regulatory penalties generally have the effect of encouraging early compliance. Under the current rules, there is little or no downside for a landlord failing to maintain a building. Where landlords know they may not be able to raise the rent, prompt repairs and regular maintenance are more likely to occur. This results in an overall improvement in the condition of rental properties, while responsible landlords still receive their statutory rent increases.

· The Government should expand the power of the Tribunal to include items such as a prohibition of rent increases or a permanent rent reduction in extreme cases.

Dispute Resolution:

Consultation Paper OTRM Recommendation

The Default Process

· The Tribunal will issue a default order if the tenant does not file a written dispute within five days. A default is an order that is issued without a hearing and can be issued immediately after the five days have elapsed.

· Approximately 70% of tenants do not file the written dispute and a default order is issued.

· Eighty-four per cent of eviction applications are for rent arrears and the amounts owing are usually small – the median amount is less than $800- but most applications result in an eviction order without the tenant having had a hearing or the opportunity to pay the amount.

· The Ontario Ombudsman and tenant groups have stated that tenants are not given a fair opportunity to participate because the process is too confusing and the five day dispute deadline is too short. Denying tenants a hearing is unfair.

Our Position

· Eliminate the default system. Many tenants do not understand the system, which leads to unnecessary evictions.

· With the current shortage of affordable housing, eviction should be a last resort.

· If a tenant receives an eviction order they can bring an application to the Tribunal to set aside the order. The tenant is then required to demonstrate that he or she was not ‘reasonably able’ to participate. This means the Tribunal does not set aside the order if a tenant did not understand the requirement to file a dispute. This set aside test must be amended so the criteria is not as stringent.

· The best way to address the imbalance would be to schedule all evictions for a preliminary hearing with mediation without the requirement to file a written dispute within 5 days. An order can be issued if the tenant doesn’t appear or does not file a notice of non-appearance.

Preserving Affordable Housing:

Consultation Paper OTRM Recommendation

Demolitions and Conversions

· The Government has stated it plans to ensure that municipalities with low vacancy rates are able to protect existing housing stock from unreasonable demolition or conversion to condominiums.

Our Position

The Government should bring in laws requiring cities and towns to have an approval process for demolition or conversion, based on rules set out by the Government. Demolitions and conversions should not be based on vacancy rates. Vacancy rates may fluctuate, but the loss of an affordable unit is permanent.

RESPONSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCY REFORM CONSULTATION PAPER / RÉPONSE AU DOCUMENT DE CONSULTATION SUR LA RÉFORME DE LA LOCATION RÉSIDENTIELLE

ACS2004-PEO-HOU-0004

Sherine Attia and Anne Smith, Action-Logement supported the report regarding the residential tenancy reform. They explained that Action Logement assists and informs tenants of their rights and obligations regarding housing. Half of their affected clients are francophone and they were concerned about the difference of opinion of the policies and procedures. They stressed the importance of the proceedings being bilingual including the mediation and submitted the following recommendations:

- eliminate the default process, notably the obligation to file a written dispute within 5 days; Francophone tenants receive notices of hearings in English, making it difficult to get translation in time. This is a generalized problem not only concerning francophones. Between June 1988 and March 2004, the Ontario Rental and Housing Tribunal (ORHT) issued default eviction orders without a hearing or mediation against 189,942 tenant households who failed to file a written dispute with the 5-day period.

- there has to be an increase in the number of days allocated for hearings in French at the ORHT in Ottawa.

- the documents issued by the ORHT should be English and French back-to-back or in any other format where both official languages are in the same document.

- it should be mandated in the law that if an adjudicator realizes that a tenant suffers a prejudice because the hearing is in English, even if the tenant did not ask for a hearing in French, the adjudicator should order for an interpreter to be made available.

In response to comments from Councillor Doucet regarding a response from the Province on the 5-day warning, Mr. Mawby, Director of Housing indicated that groups such as Action Logement and Housing Help are in the best position to understand the impacts of the inefficiencies and poor service that currently exist within the tribunal system. The issues being raised by Action Logement are understood by the Province, including the issue of francophone services. Mr. Mawby felt that the primary area the Province needs to pay attention to is the 5-day matter and that would be the point of the consultation process. A fair and equitable system to both landlords and tenants is significant in order to mediate and resolve disputes before they get to the formal quasi-judicial process.

Mary Truemner, Community Legal Clinic Lawyer, University of Ottawa and Mélanie Chénier, Law Student supported the report of the OTRM, stating it provides important recommendations to establish rent control. They have seen clients lose their housing and even their possessions because they did not understand they had to contest the request within five days. The tribunal does not accept a “not understood” defense. They stressed that the reality is not acceptable, but Council can change the situation by supporting the report today. Ms. Chénier provided her impressions of the Housing Tribunal, stating that the legislation does not care about tenants who do not have many resources or those without any legal experience. She too agreed that the default process must be eliminated because it is hard to understand and leads to many unexcused evictions.

Phil Sweetnam, Chief Executive Officer, Relocatable Homes distributed copies of his submissions, including an extract from the Rental Market Report of the CMHC, October 2003. From a landlord’s perspective on the issue, he stated that endorsing any new legislation that targets shelter allowance would be more beneficial and effective than trying to restrict rents for all parties. He asked that the committee’s position be one of endorsing some sort of a minimum, the tradition being a 2% allowance for capital costs that are not really accounted for. A reasonable base level would be appropriate in terms of allowing rental increases. His believed there was a need for a companionate side in society, where it agrees to look after those who simply cannot afford the kind of rents that the market needs. It is important not to tilt the balance of power in favour of the tenants because it will eventually mean there will be fewer rental units built and everyone will have a tougher time trying to find units on affordable rent.

Councillor Cullen noted that one of the issues being covered in the government’s consultation paper are increases for capital expenditures and whether or not there should be an expiry date. Right now, when rents are increased to cover the cost of capital expenditures they stay up even after the capital expenditure has been paid for. When asked if he agreed that once those have been paid off that the rent should be reduced to what it was before the capital expenditure, the delegation agreed.

A copy of his submissions are held on file.

Lynne Browne, Alliance to End Homelessness highlighted the following comments from her written brief:

- the Alliance supports the recommendations in the OTRM because under the current Tenant Protection Act, the 20% of Ottawa renters who earn under $20,000 are always potentially at risk of homelessness;

- affordable housing means social housing or rentals in the private market and there is a tremendous need for affordable rental units in the city;

- higher vacancy rates have not brought much relief in the shrinking low end of the rental market;

- the Alliance believes that following recommendations would bring immediate relief in the affordable rental market:

· the end of vacancy decontrol.

· the permanent removal of the extra 2% base in the annual rent increase guideline.

· the default system in the current eviction process is truly punative when when 70% of the current default applications lead to immediate evictions. Therefore, eviction should only be used as a last resort.

- the current system does not promote rental housing development; only 7% of new housing development has provided rental housing, and little of that is affordable;

- rents have increased by 26% since 1998 for a three-bedroom apartment;

- over 80% of households on the social housing waiting list have incomes at or below $20,000;

- social housing is critical to ending homelessness and building affordable housing is a priority.

A copy of her submission is held on file.

Kim McLeod, President Bayshore Community Association gave an example where the Association went to tribunal on behalf of many renters who were faced with above-guideline increases. It was a costly and overwhelming process and took 10 months to complete. However, a short time after they received final settlement, they discovered the building owner had processed another above-guideline increase for one of the buildings that was just settled for. This was a very defeating moment for the Association and for the tenants. She stressed that the playing field is not equal and there is minimal support for tenants at the tribunal. There are stressful situations when tenants are faced with eviction. There are a growing numbers of new Canadians in the community and she was concerned about the limitations they are faced with in these issues because of their limited understanding of English.

Margaret Watcher, tenant, Bayshore area explained the difficulties she has making ends meet on her fixed income when her rent is increased. It is difficult for individuals such as her to fight a rent increase because it requires having to go to someone to help and many of the capital expenses that were required and which necessited an increase were not carried out in her unit.

Bob Macdonald, Ottawa Tenant Reform Movement expressed concern about rent supplements being proposed as a solution to rent control, especially when over 40% of renters have an affordability problem. Rather, he believed the answer was more social housing and rent control. The OTRM feel the 2% annual increase has been unfair to tenants and they support the freeze the government has put on that increase for 2004 and further recommend it become a permanent part of the legislation. The loss of rent control during high vacancy rates has been an incentive for landlords to evict tenants so they can raise the rent. They are concerned also that if rent control is tied into the vacancy rate, landlords would be encouraged to raise the rent as high as possible before rent control could be reinstated the following year. He disputed an earlier comment that vacancy rates are higher because of the current Tenant Protection Act, stating that only refers to units that are not affordable. The claim that rent increases were not dramatically different than the Ontario Consumer Price Index is not accurate because of the way it is measured; it has high-ended rents and rents that were brought up quite high and the CPI does not differentiate between smaller and larger units. Therefore, they encouraged following the statistics set out by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the true picture of the vacancy rate in Ottawa.

Valerie Wiseman, Ottawa Region Landlords Association (ORLA) stated that ORLA is a volunteer organization of landlords and property managers across Eastern Ontario focusing on education and information sharing. She explained that 50% of all rental units in Ottawa are supplied through the secondary rental market and by definition, are subject to all the rules governing rental housing. However, because they are so small they are not subject to the typical rules about removing units from the market. Typically these units are quite affordable and any change to rental laws will affect them if the results are overly restrictive. The OTRM has taken the government’s consultation paper and chosen the worst of every option presented by the government for landlords and is asking the City to support their position. However, many of the suggestions made here are overly punative to landlords, with almost no input being solicited from the industry. By way of example, she believed the vacancy decontrol has been helping the market and has allowed landlords to be able to improve their buildings and also gives jobs to contractors in repairing buildings. She added that since 1996, the proportion of the population in dire straights has not increased and she questioned therefore, why the entire tenant population is being targeted. Since affordable housing means using less than 30% of an individual’s gross income on housing, it is unfair to burden landlords with this equation and expect people to privately rent out two and three-bedroom apartments at ‘affordable’ rates.

John Dickie, Chair, Eastern Ontario Landlord Organization spoke on behalf of the owners and managers of over 30,000 rental units in Ottawa and Eastern Ontario. They maintain that since rent control is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, the City should not even be dealing with this issue. He referred to his submission dated 3 June which is in response to the Position Paper by the Ottawa Tenant Reform Movement and argued the following points:

- did not agree there was an imbalance of lobbying power between landlords and tenants; taxpayers in Ottawa pay for five community legal clinics and one of their functions is law reform;

- the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) acts as a strong voice for tenants and is funded by Legal Aid Ontario whereas the provincial landlord association is funded by voluntary contributions and has a much smaller budget than ACTO;

- the statement that rent levels have increased by 26% since 1998 only applies to three bedroom apartments which represent less than 5% of the rental market;

- the cost of rented accommodation in Ottawa went up by 24.3% and the overall consumer prices went up by 24.9%;

- the problem for low-income tenants is not that their rents are substantially higher than before, it is their incomes that have not increased;

- vacancy decontrol allows for a filtering through in the market and encourages people who can afford to pay a proper rent to move on into home ownership.

In conclusion, he stated that tighter rent controls are bad public policy and the committee and Council should not endorse the position of the OTRM.

Councillor Feltmate agreed with the comment made by a previous delegation that incomes have not kept pace with rents and a targetted shelter allowance is something that should be pursued and she wondered if landlord associations were advocating and joining with their tenants to increase shelter allowances for people on Ontario Works and ODSP. Mr. Dickie advised they have made known that is their public position and that they are in favour of broadly-based housing allowances as the appropriate solution to the housing affordability problem. As to incomes generally and as detailed in Appendix A of his paper, he noted that the median family income has increased by 250% during which time rents increased by 233% and consumer prices increased by 232%. The recommendations by the OTRM will mean that private money going to housing will evaporate and the City will have to solve the problem by building affordable housing.

A copy of his submission and his e-mail dated 1 June is held on file.

Mary Garrett, West End Legal Services stated that as Duty Counsel at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, she indicated the process does not work well for tenants. She indicated that the 5-day default rule was devised by the government because they wanted a minimum of 70% default. Under the old system there was a 70% default rate which meant an application was called to the court and 60% of tenants did not show up because they moved. The remaining 40% met with the Duty Counsel and on their behalf, negotiated with landlords and mediated settlement so that only 20% of the cases went on to the next stream where a judge would have to deal with the application. Under the new system, 70% of the tenants do not show up because they have been evicted before their hearing date. Those who do file a dispute within the five days get a hearing and there is a mediation system in place and a Duty Counsel helps to negotiate. She wanted to get rid of the default process because no tenant should have to give up their home without the benefit of a hearing.

When asked to comment on the statement made previously that it is an income problem not a rent problem, Ms. Garrett agreed that while some of it is an income problem, the other part is tenants do not feel they have to pay their rent if their unit is in a state of disrepair and the landlord does nothing.

Councillor Bédard suggested that for major repairs to a unit, such as a leaking roof, the tenant can go to the tribunal and complain and the landlord would receive an order to repair the problem. Ms. Garrett confirmed this process, but added that a lot of tenants do not realize they can do that and if they call Property Standards, they will come in and do a report and list all the things that have to be fixed and send the report to the landlord, but the tenant is not entitled to a copy. She recommended that those reports should be available to tenants.

She submitted a copy of “Faces of our Community” which details the comments of tenants who are unable to attend demonstrations to have their voices heard. A copy is held on file.

Evelyn Shore, OSAN spoke on behalf of the thousands of seniors in the city and across the province. She addressed the issue of the default process and supported the position held by the OTRM reflected under “Dispute Resolution” in Attachment 1 of the report.

Susi Gruda, Pinecrest-Queensway Health and Community Services works to help families and individuals to maintain their housing and to keep them out of shelters. She strongly supported the recommendation and believed there would be financial implications to the City if the committee does not support the report because families would have to be put through family shelters. In the last 6 months, nearly 4000 people came to their service that were at risk of losing their housing. People can become physically stressed from the possibility of losing their homes or because of the disrepair of their housing units, including extensive mould. They have also seen a significant increase in seniors coming to them for support and their fixed incomes are not able to keep up with increasing rents. She noted the various incentives such as tax breaks to benefit landlords with respect to repairs on their rental properties. She urged committee to request the province to change the serious errors in this act that are causing people to be homeless.

In response to a question posed by the Chair, Ms. Gruda confirmed that Property Standards staff are not writing and submitting reports about mould in rental units owned by the City as well as in privately held units.

In response to questions posed by Councillor Bédard about the City’s inability to do anything about mould, the Deputy City Manager for Community and Protective Services, Steve Kanellakos, advised that while City had been involved in some cases, he agreed the issue has been one that has been difficult to find where the responsibility lies because it is not included in the building code. Mr. Mawby indicated there has been mould in some of the City’s social housing units and often significant restitution of the unit is required. He recognized this as a difficult thing to mediate and is something that should be worked through with the Property Manager.

Following the public presentations, Councillor Cullen indicated that while the Tenant Protection Act was originally intended to promote and increase housing supply, it has failed to do this and tenants have been left with a system that is more difficult to access and to accept. This report gives voice to a significant portion of the population and the intent is not to harm rentals in the community, but where there are disputes in the system that there will be a fair means of dealing with them. He felt the submission from Action Logement could be treated as an amendment to the report. With respect to this latter comment, Councillor Bédard indicated he had two recommendations which respond to their request.

When asked for staff’s position on the report and what implications there were for the City if it endorsed the position of the OTRM, the Director advised that staff fully respect and endorse the intent of the resolution to ensure there is a balance set of perspectives in the provincial consultation. Council must recognize there is more balance that is necessary in terms of the actual legislation and staff would continue to monitor the legislation and report on any issues that arise.

Councillor Feltmate recognized that property standards is an issue in all areas of the city and Mr. Kanellakos stated that as part of the budget approval process, Property Standards was realigned with By-law Services and it has become evident there are not enough officers to respond to the need. With regards to rent control, she believed there needs to be protections for the tenant, but that the issue of free market also has to be taken into consideration. She recognized the need to also address the issue of income and rental needs and was in support of the report recommendations.

Councillor Stavinga stated that approving the report recommendation would mean that the City fully believes in everything outlined in the OTRM paper. She understood the OTRM is going to be advocating this position throughout the consultation process so that alternative perspective is already being advocated by that group. Therefore, the intent of the report before committee is to strengthen that work by having the endorsement of Council. She was concerned about the City providing it’s own comments about the changes that are required under the Act, noting it would be a unique perspective the City could bring forward. Mr. Mawby advised they will have opportunities to communicate to the province on the perspective of a service manager and their message was that balance was needed in the system. He stated that there is a recognized need to fix the tribunal process and to provide a fair and equitable process for access for both landlords and tenants. There is also the need for regulatory control that is acceptable to both landlords and renters. And, while Ottawa has not established a position on rent control, staff would be willing to take on that direction if so desired.

The councillor emphasized that she supported the vast majority of positions being advocated, but the only position where there is some controversy in on rent control. She was reluctant, therefore, to give a full endorsement to the position of the OTRM because of that and would dissent on that particular element in the report. Councillor Brooks echoed these concerns and believed that it was very important that tenants have a process that they understand. He too supported the bulk of the report, but not the portion that dealt with rent control.

When asked whether acceptance of the recommendation in the report would be interpreted as Council’s position on the issue, including rent control, or whether it is a way to provide more weight behind the tenant perspective, Mr. Mawby felt more comfortable with the latter interpretation because there are a number of questions around the Act that need further consideration. Councillor Deans felt it was important that the balanced perspective be put forward and is why the City should support that in order to get that balance. She did not think Council has looked at the details of rent control issues and did not believe there was enough level of comfort at this time to take a specific position on that matter. She wanted to ensure it was clear that the intent of the recommendation is to put weight behind providing balance.

After some discussion on the intent of the amended recommendation, Chair Holmes ruled that the approval of the recommendation is the ‘endorsement’ of the position of the OTRM.

Councillor Cullen explained that the position paper talks about changing elements of an existing provincial program that the government is going to continue. The paper does not detail whether or not there ought to be rent control. He explained that he brought this forward to ensure that part of the consultation process heard from tenants and how best to make that voice heard.

Moved by D. Deans

That the recommendation be amended to add: “to ensure that a balanced perspective is provided in the consultation process.”

CARRIED

Moved by A. Cullen

That the submission from Action Logement be added as part of the OTRM response to the Residential Tenancy Reform Consultation Paper.

CARRIED

Moved by G. Bédard

That there be an increase in the numnber of days allocated for hearings in French at the OTRM in Ottawa to one day a week from the present one day every two weeks.

That the documents issued by the OTRM be in English and French on the same document and not on separate documents as is the present practice.

CARRIED

Moved by A. Cullen

That the following direction be referred to staff :

That Property Standards be directed to provide to the tenant any report on a property standards inspection that is being provided to the landlord;

And that staff report back on the ability of property standards to address mould issues.

CARRIED

1. That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend that Council endorse the Ottawa Tenancy Reform Movement response to the Residential Tenancy Reform Consultation Paper, to ensure that a balanced perspective is provided in the consultation process.

2. That the submission from Action Logement be added as part of the OTRM response to the Residential Tenancy Reform Consultation Paper.

3. That there be an increase in the numnber of days allocated for hearings in French at the OTRM in Ottawa to one day a week from the present one day every two weeks.

4. That the documents issued by the OTRM be in English and French on the same document and not on separate documents as is the present practice.

CARRIED as amended with councillors Brooks and Stavinga dissenting on the portion of the OTRM Position Paper that spoke to the issue of rent control..

In view of the fast approaching deadline for comments on the Residential Tenancy Reform Consultation (15 June), the committee agreed to forward this report to Council on 9 June 2004.

and Council / et au Conseil

ATTACHMENT 1

The Ottawa Tenant Reform Movement:

The Ottawa Tenant Reform Movement:

Currently Ottawa has 11,500 households on the Social Housing waiting list, waiting an average of five to ten years for affordable rent-geared-to-income housing (this does not represent the total number since many households feel discouraged from applying when they learn of the long waiting list).

Key Positions of the Ottawa Tenant Reform Movement:

Rent Regulation:

Consultation Paper OTRM Recommendation

Annual Guideline Rent Increases

Our Position

Above Guideline Rent Increases

Vacancy Decontrol

Our Position

Regional Decontrol

Our Position

Maintenance:

Consultation Paper OTRM Recommendation

Our Position

Consultation Paper OTRM Recommendation

The Default Process

Our Position

Consultation Paper OTRM Recommendation

Demolitions and Conversions

Our Position

ATTACHMENT 2

Le 3 juin 2004