London's renoviction bylaw closer to reality but without the heft some tenants want
Bylaw excludes requirement for landlords to pay rent top-ups to displaced tenants
A London city council committee approved a new renoviction bylaw Monday that would see landlords pay fees ahead of construction projects to discourage unethical evictions.
The trouble is, tenant advocacy groups say the new rules don't go far enough to protect them from homelessness.
The bylaw would require landlords to obtain a $600 licence for renovations and they must start construction within six months of obtaining a permit. The must have a letter from a professional affirming that the work is necessary. Tenants must also be given an N13 notice that includes an information package explaining their rights.
The penalties for not complying with the rules range from $1,000 to $2,500.
Tenants' advocacy groups took issue at the meeting sitting in the public gallery with placards and flags, and staging a protest outside city hall.
They're upset that council didn't recommend rent top-ups to help offset the difference between current and future rents, something the City of Hamilton has included in its renovation licence and relocation bylaw. Provincial rules say a landlord is required to pay three months rent when a renovation is undertaken.
Tenants also wanted to see relocation requirements that task landlords with the job of finding tenants housing during the construction period.
"Having the landlord pay for us [to live] somewhere else while these renovations are happening are crucial. We don't have money for first and last month's rent, nor can we afford any of the rents that are currently being advertised," said tenant Michele Jollymore.
Jollymore and her son will be evicted from their apartment on Webster Street next month and believes they'll end up homeless given their limited options, she told councillors Monday.
City staff countered by saying rent top-ups may create a loophole where landlords can get exemptions, if they're unable to provide relocation due to a tight housing market. They also said compensation from the city will complicate the licensing process, and possibly delay it, which could impact funding from the multi-year budget in October.
"Needing a building permit is good and is an improvement but requiring rehousing is better. It disincentivizes the dishonest landlord," said Karen Andrews, a lawyer with Advocacy Centre Tenants' Ontario.
Councillors David Ferreira, Hadleigh McAlister and Sam Trosow introduced amendments to the bylaw, including increasing penalties, but their efforts were quashed by their colleagues.
"These are two tools [rent top-ups and accommodations] that we absolutely need to look at for this bylaw, and by not looking at these items, we're doing a disservice to our constituents," said McAlister. "We talk a lot about how we respond to homelessness, this is something that is integral to keeping people housed."
Orest Katolyk, the city's bylaw lead, explained the Municipal Act states that penalties can't be punitive or exceed an amount reasonably required to promote compliance.
"These administrative monetary penalties that civic administration are recommending are one of the highest of all the bylaws that we enforce. They are in fact much higher than Hamilton's," said Katolyk, comparing London's proposed $2,500 penalty for doing renovations without a licence to Hamilton's $400 penalty.
Councillors in favour of the staff-recommended bylaw said, while it's not perfect, some protection is better than none.
The matter will now go for a final vote at the next city council meeting on Sept. 24.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
