In my opinion they did not get it right. The owner of the house bought the house for his daughter. Another reason not to rent your house or condo out to someone.
My take of this situation is the landlord treated this property as an “income property” with all the tax and legal benefits. Now he wants it to be treated as a family home. The tenants should have been aware of this situation when they signed the lease with a finite date of ending the lease. It is a business deal and should be treated as such. Definitely a cautionary note for anyone thinking of all the benefits of owning a rental property and not considering the downside.
Imagine making payments on a car for 13 years than the dealership saying their daughter will drive that car. Renters get screwed as they pay someone's mortgage. You say the home owners hard earned money paid for the house like being a landlord is hard work, lol.
This court has chosen to prioritize the needs of tenants and potential housing issues over the rights of property owners. It would be prudent to obtain the full text of the court's decision for a more in-depth analysis. In my view, this ruling should be escalated to a higher court and appealed. It is not uncommon for judges to have their rulings revised by more experienced and competent colleagues. In any case, given the existing rental shortages in Nova Scotia, imposing additional burdens on landlords is likely to exacerbate the challenges already present in this difficult rental market. What would be next? Can't evict a "tenant" who is unable or not willing to pay? Don't you wish it worked for property tax or mortgage payments?😅 Some landlords may choose not to rent out at all or screen tenants far beyond reasonable.
All good points. The more controls put in place and the more hurdles there is, the more those property investors will look to alternative options. People can blame the “big bad landlords” all they want, and I get it, but we need them right now and we need them to continue to invest in building more housing!
I was chatting with my lawyer about this case when I was looking at another deal. He mentioned the judge in this case was actually well seasoned and one of the more prominent judges in the province so the point about being experienced is moot. That doesn't quite fit in with competence though since it seems he has decided to go with feelings on how the housing crisis should be dealt. It definitely needs to be escalated and appealed. My other feeling is that he is probably vying for a more prominent position like the Supreme Court. Maybe.
I disagree. When you own a property then rent it out to someone, you are entering into a contract with said party, and its no longer just yours. You cant just do what you want when other ppls lives are involved especially with the housing market.
Tough one, but I do think they should be allowed to move them in. Maybe just with the requirement that they stay in it for X amount of time, just to make sure that they were indeed acting in good faith. Also, giving an extended move-out period, like 6 months or something. It does seem like the courts decided to completely toss the law out the window on this one and use subjective numbers to rationalize the argument to let them stay. Doesn’t make much sense. Wouldn’t be surprised if this gets escalated, especially knowing that there’s going to be more cases like this popping up.
Extended move out period is for sure necessary in the cases like this where they're paying an insanely low rent relative to current market values. I could see more of these hitting the news. Really.. It's unfortunate for all parties involved.
I don’t think they got it right for all of the reasons already stated. This is completely different than landlords reno-victing people en masse to crank up the rent. This is a one-of situation as it sounds. I do think landlords should be able to use their property for their personal use as they own it…they pay the tax, the insurance, the mortgage. Blocking this will not have an impact on the current housing crisis.
Definitely different than renovictions for sure. This is a more one-off type of situation but I think with the current housing situation it will continue to happen more and more. Especially like this with parents putting kids into units they have or elderly parents as well since the alternative are sky high rents in other buildings. I agree, blocking this has no real impact on the situation. Need way more supply and most of the “solutions” put forth by the government are just bandaids
@@AndrewStephens and…if it is used for down-sizing, wouldn’t it makes sense for the landlord to potentially give up the ‘big old house’ that they aren’t using fully and move to a smaller place, more appropriate for their needs? And the ‘big old house’ can be sold to more fully be utilized by a larger family? Isn’t this what we would want to be striving for? Maximizing current housing space?
@@tanyaldutton You have to consider the situation the family is in as well. Some elders don't want their children moving in and vice-versa. Sometimes a separate dwelling space is needed for mental health reasons. Maybe there is literally no space because of "stuff". Consider a situation where you are told that you now have to house a random stranger into your "big old house" for a pittance in compensation by the government. Or you now have to move from your "big old house" to the side by side duplex you also own. The issue here is that a judiciary body set this in motion rather than a property owner.
@@ValkyrieStryker Real estate is quite a peculiar asset. In reality, you can't do much to protect it from the government if it has a different view on how the property should be used. Unlike gold or cash, there is no way easily hide it or move real estate in order to protect your rights. Just consider cases when property was nationalized for various reasons with minimal compensation. When landlords have to pay taxes, mortgages, and utilities at market prices, while tenants benefit from rent controls and cannot be evicted, it's a step closer to the property being effectively nationalized.
Interesting case and we will definitely see many more cases like this. I think the judgement was intentional so as to set a precedent to deter other landlords to do the same and to prevent the housing crisis from spiralling even further out of control. There are many people who if they lose their current rental unit, will have their lives significantly affected negatively. Its not just those paying $900 rent per month. Even if you are paying double that and have been in the unit for 3 years or more you are looking at paying another $1k+ on top of that and it will very likely be a downgrade and thats assumming you'll actually be able to find a vacant rental. Apart from the crazy property and rent increase the cost of living in HRM has increased drastically over the past 5 years so much so that many people struggle to make ends meet every month. Its nog like current tenants and those paying "lower" rent are living life easily with extra money. Everyone is at risk and the option to rather buy is not attainable for most in the current market.
Renting should never be looked at as a permanent situation. This family had 13 years of low rent to save up for a down payment for a home of their own.
Read the SCC decision and you may find this landlord is a role model for a good landlord. According to reports, the landlord has still not raised the rent.
Possession is 9/10th of the law. Meaning there is a natural bias in our legal system. Resulting in people who tend to have more to get more and more - and those who have less tending to have less and less. The question is what are our values?
You didn't even read the decision and made a video with your own bias and opinions. Every case is different so the legitimacy of everything is taken into account. The reality is it was a duplex with long term tenants and sporadic tenants. Everyone is stating good faith. The tenants had no representation, if they did and pressed it, I'm not sure it would have been good faith. No one answered why couldnt the daughters move next door temporarily? It's because they wanted the low rent tenant out.. thats just my logical opinion. I understand you demand property rights though. They should get to decide where to go but honestly landlords need to understand peoples lives are affected and the court is there to balance justice. Especially ending contracts and i hope you can respect that.
He who owns the gold makes the rules. If the gold is used to buy property, he sets the rules. If you don't want to deal with any of that, buy your own. The other issue with the long-term tenants is that there is no longer any recourse for the property owner should things go wrong the moment tenure is activated. Fixed Terms, as much as everyone hates it and is used currently, is currently the only way landlords can protect themselves from tenants on periodic leases. The tenancy board isn't enforcing breaches done by the tenant on tenure so the landlords have to use other legal tools to protect their property. Kicking out the low-rent tenant because they are on the periodic lease is the only way out of that. For some reason we have somehow entered a time where property owners have less rights than a tenant.
@@ValkyrieStryker I see your point but it doesn't represent the history of how our rights exist and what happened in our common law to create a balance. After all the government controls everything and can change ownership. Before automatic tenure, landlords would evict before people got to that point. That wasn't fair so they had to step in. In this case I made my points. They could have moved into the other side temporarily but chose this route. Happy for the family who doesn't have to go. I was fraudulently evicted and didn't bother going after my landlord, it sucks
I talked about the situation and gave my opinion, yes. Like most of the videos on my channel. I did read the decision. It did not change my views of whether a property owner should be able to move into their own property or use for family use. It's not like I don't feel bad for tenants. It's an overall very crappy situation for all (the general NS housing situation that is).
@@AndrewStephens They can move into the other side, It's a duplex. Almost 14 year tenure should mean something though. In my opinion the landlords were trying to pull a fast one and didn't get called on it. There Is a delicate balance needed and this one was a good decision.
Did they get this right by denying the eviction?
In my opinion they did not get it right. The owner of the house bought the house for his daughter. Another reason not to rent your house or condo out to someone.
My take of this situation is the landlord treated this property as an “income property” with all the tax and legal benefits. Now he wants it to be treated as a family home. The tenants should have been aware of this situation when they signed the lease with a finite date of ending the lease. It is a business deal and should be treated as such. Definitely a cautionary note for anyone thinking of all the benefits of owning a rental property and not considering the downside.
Imagine making payments on a car for 13 years than the dealership saying their daughter will drive that car. Renters get screwed as they pay someone's mortgage.
You say the home owners hard earned money paid for the house like being a landlord is hard work, lol.
@@FreeJulianAssange23 Are these two situations even comparable?
If you own the property- you should be able to do what you want with it . PERIOD!
What kind of contract is this? Evergreen? Does it not have an end date? Is the owner under any obligation to renew it forever?
This court has chosen to prioritize the needs of tenants and potential housing issues over the rights of property owners. It would be prudent to obtain the full text of the court's decision for a more in-depth analysis. In my view, this ruling should be escalated to a higher court and appealed. It is not uncommon for judges to have their rulings revised by more experienced and competent colleagues. In any case, given the existing rental shortages in Nova Scotia, imposing additional burdens on landlords is likely to exacerbate the challenges already present in this difficult rental market. What would be next? Can't evict a "tenant" who is unable or not willing to pay? Don't you wish it worked for property tax or mortgage payments?😅 Some landlords may choose not to rent out at all or screen tenants far beyond reasonable.
All good points. The more controls put in place and the more hurdles there is, the more those property investors will look to alternative options. People can blame the “big bad landlords” all they want, and I get it, but we need them right now and we need them to continue to invest in building more housing!
I was chatting with my lawyer about this case when I was looking at another deal. He mentioned the judge in this case was actually well seasoned and one of the more prominent judges in the province so the point about being experienced is moot. That doesn't quite fit in with competence though since it seems he has decided to go with feelings on how the housing crisis should be dealt. It definitely needs to be escalated and appealed.
My other feeling is that he is probably vying for a more prominent position like the Supreme Court. Maybe.
Sounds like the safest way is to evict tenants every few years.
I feel badly for the tenants but yes the owner should be able to use the property as they see fit.
I feel bad for a lot of tenants right now. The housing situation is awful but I agree with you
I disagree. When you own a property then rent it out to someone, you are entering into a contract with said party, and its no longer just yours. You cant just do what you want when other ppls lives are involved especially with the housing market.
@@Dougie-ex1ov clearly you aren't a homeowner
Tough one, but I do think they should be allowed to move them in. Maybe just with the requirement that they stay in it for X amount of time, just to make sure that they were indeed acting in good faith. Also, giving an extended move-out period, like 6 months or something.
It does seem like the courts decided to completely toss the law out the window on this one and use subjective numbers to rationalize the argument to let them stay. Doesn’t make much sense. Wouldn’t be surprised if this gets escalated, especially knowing that there’s going to be more cases like this popping up.
Extended move out period is for sure necessary in the cases like this where they're paying an insanely low rent relative to current market values. I could see more of these hitting the news. Really.. It's unfortunate for all parties involved.
I don’t think they got it right for all of the reasons already stated. This is completely different than landlords reno-victing people en masse to crank up the rent. This is a one-of situation as it sounds. I do think landlords should be able to use their property for their personal use as they own it…they pay the tax, the insurance, the mortgage. Blocking this will not have an impact on the current housing crisis.
Definitely different than renovictions for sure. This is a more one-off type of situation but I think with the current housing situation it will continue to happen more and more. Especially like this with parents putting kids into units they have or elderly parents as well since the alternative are sky high rents in other buildings. I agree, blocking this has no real impact on the situation. Need way more supply and most of the “solutions” put forth by the government are just bandaids
@@AndrewStephens and…if it is used for down-sizing, wouldn’t it makes sense for the landlord to potentially give up the ‘big old house’ that they aren’t using fully and move to a smaller place, more appropriate for their needs? And the ‘big old house’ can be sold to more fully be utilized by a larger family? Isn’t this what we would want to be striving for? Maximizing current housing space?
Let's wait how the situation unfolds. There is a good chance we will see some homeless landlords who couldn't evict their tenants😂
@@tanyaldutton You have to consider the situation the family is in as well. Some elders don't want their children moving in and vice-versa. Sometimes a separate dwelling space is needed for mental health reasons. Maybe there is literally no space because of "stuff". Consider a situation where you are told that you now have to house a random stranger into your "big old house" for a pittance in compensation by the government. Or you now have to move from your "big old house" to the side by side duplex you also own.
The issue here is that a judiciary body set this in motion rather than a property owner.
@@ValkyrieStryker
Real estate is quite a peculiar asset. In reality, you can't do much to protect it from the government if it has a different view on how the property should be used. Unlike gold or cash, there is no way easily hide it or move real estate in order to protect your rights. Just consider cases when property was nationalized for various reasons with minimal compensation. When landlords have to pay taxes, mortgages, and utilities at market prices, while tenants benefit from rent controls and cannot be evicted, it's a step closer to the property being effectively nationalized.
Property owners paying the price because our irresponsible and incompetent governments arent ensuring housing for their constituents
Interesting case and we will definitely see many more cases like this. I think the judgement was intentional so as to set a precedent to deter other landlords to do the same and to prevent the housing crisis from spiralling even further out of control.
There are many people who if they lose their current rental unit, will have their lives significantly affected negatively. Its not just those paying $900 rent per month. Even if you are paying double that and have been in the unit for 3 years or more you are looking at paying another $1k+ on top of that and it will very likely be a downgrade and thats assumming you'll actually be able to find a vacant rental. Apart from the crazy property and rent increase the cost of living in HRM has increased drastically over the past 5 years so much so that many people struggle to make ends meet every month. Its nog like current tenants and those paying "lower" rent are living life easily with extra money. Everyone is at risk and the option to rather buy is not attainable for most in the current market.
Renting should never be looked at as a permanent situation. This family had 13 years of low rent to save up for a down payment for a home of their own.
900 rent? NO shot he was acting in good faith lol.
Read the SCC decision and you may find this landlord is a role model for a good landlord. According to reports, the landlord has still not raised the rent.
Thumbnail is 12 out of 10
Possession is 9/10th of the law.
Meaning there is a natural bias in our legal system. Resulting in people who tend to have more to get more and more - and those who have less tending to have less and less.
The question is what are our values?
You didn't even read the decision and made a video with your own bias and opinions. Every case is different so the legitimacy of everything is taken into account. The reality is it was a duplex with long term tenants and sporadic tenants. Everyone is stating good faith. The tenants had no representation, if they did and pressed it, I'm not sure it would have been good faith. No one answered why couldnt the daughters move next door temporarily? It's because they wanted the low rent tenant out.. thats just my logical opinion.
I understand you demand property rights though. They should get to decide where to go but honestly landlords need to understand peoples lives are affected and the court is there to balance justice. Especially ending contracts and i hope you can respect that.
He who owns the gold makes the rules. If the gold is used to buy property, he sets the rules. If you don't want to deal with any of that, buy your own.
The other issue with the long-term tenants is that there is no longer any recourse for the property owner should things go wrong the moment tenure is activated. Fixed Terms, as much as everyone hates it and is used currently, is currently the only way landlords can protect themselves from tenants on periodic leases. The tenancy board isn't enforcing breaches done by the tenant on tenure so the landlords have to use other legal tools to protect their property. Kicking out the low-rent tenant because they are on the periodic lease is the only way out of that.
For some reason we have somehow entered a time where property owners have less rights than a tenant.
Ban landlords unless they can commit to passive income until the tenants decide to leave.
@@ValkyrieStryker I see your point but it doesn't represent the history of how our rights exist and what happened in our common law to create a balance. After all the government controls everything and can change ownership. Before automatic tenure, landlords would evict before people got to that point. That wasn't fair so they had to step in.
In this case I made my points. They could have moved into the other side temporarily but chose this route. Happy for the family who doesn't have to go. I was fraudulently evicted and didn't bother going after my landlord, it sucks
I talked about the situation and gave my opinion, yes. Like most of the videos on my channel. I did read the decision. It did not change my views of whether a property owner should be able to move into their own property or use for family use. It's not like I don't feel bad for tenants. It's an overall very crappy situation for all (the general NS housing situation that is).
@@AndrewStephens They can move into the other side, It's a duplex. Almost 14 year tenure should mean something though. In my opinion the landlords were trying to pull a fast one and didn't get called on it. There Is a delicate balance needed and this one was a good decision.