Editorial

Renoviction is a term that has gained traction in discussions about the housing crisis but remains poorly understood. Frequently referenced by politicians, non-profits, academics, and journalists, the term often lacks a coherent analysis. This gap in understanding has led to widespread misconceptions, ultimately harming the tenants who face renoviction. To address this, a recent report provides a detailed examination of renoviction, investigating the conditions that lead to it, the methods landlords use to carry it out, and how tenants have organized to resist it.

In Toronto and elsewhere, renoviction is commonly described as an “illegitimate” or “illegal” eviction. However, it is crucial to clarify that, in Ontario, evictions for extensive renovations are legally permissible. Landlords do not need to break any laws to renovict tenants. Common misunderstandings often focus on whether the proposed renovations are significant enough to justify displacement or whether landlords will follow through with their renovation plans. These misconceptions foster a misleading distinction between landlords who supposedly comply with the law and those who exploit it, misrepresenting the true nature of renoviction.

Renoviction is a strategic maneuver by landlords to displace tenants under the guise of needed renovations. The essence of renoviction is not the renovations themselves but the displacement of tenants. Landlords employ financial, physical, and legal pressures to force tenants out, aiming to close the rent gap—the disparity between current rent and the higher rent that can be charged for vacant units. In Ontario, while rent regulation applies to existing tenancies, landlords can set new, higher rents for vacant units through a process known as “vacancy decontrol.”

Landlords acquire properties where tenants pay significantly lower rents, anticipating that land values and rents will rise. By displacing existing tenants, landlords can boost rental revenue and increase the property’s value. Some landlords involved in renoviction maintain a low profile, while others, like Pulis Investments and Riley Real Estate Ventures, openly discuss their strategies.

In Toronto, renovictions are especially common when low-rise apartments change hands. Landlords often use numbered companies to hide their identities and avoid backlash. They typically inform tenants about planned extensive renovations and offer buyouts to encourage them to move out. These buyouts, sometimes several thousand dollars, are presented as the best possible offer, prompting many tenants to leave due to urgency or fear of inadequate legal recourse.

As tenants begin to be displaced, landlords frequently neglect property maintenance and repair requests. This neglect, coupled with disruptive construction work in common areas and vacant units, heightens tenants’ discomfort and stress. When landlords issue N13 eviction notices, formalizing the eviction process, tenants face significant pressure to vacate. Many tenants move out after receiving an N13 notice, either believing they must comply or feeling unable to contest the eviction.

If initial tactics like buyouts and neglect fail, landlords may resort to harassment and intimidation. Frequent communications, threats, and legal maneuvers are used to force tenants out. Landlords may also apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) to formalize the eviction, though few renovictions reach this stage. Even if an adjudicator dismisses the landlord’s case, new N13 notices can be issued for different renovations.

Although the law permits tenants to return to their units after renovations, this right is rarely honored. Landlords often prevent tenants from moving back, and the LTB does little to enforce this provision. This underscores that renoviction is primarily about displacement rather than actual renovation.

Tenant responses to renoviction can influence landlords’ strategies. In some cases, organized tenant resistance has forced landlords to back down. Successful examples include tenant groups at 12 Lansdowne Avenue and 2419 Keele Street in Toronto, who have halted renovictions through direct action and self-organization.

Recently, the Ontario government proposed increased fines for landlords who evict tenants in bad faith, and Toronto City Council approved a framework for a renoviction by-law aimed at ensuring proper procedures. However, these measures do not address the underlying issues that make renoviction profitable. As long as renoviction remains financially advantageous, fines and regulations alone will not deter landlords. Effective counteraction requires robust tenant organizing and a critical examination of the systemic issues enabling such practices.