Public Letter to Sarnia City Councillor Bill Dennis
Kayla Andrade, Ontario Landlords Watch
I am responding publicly to Sarnia City Councillor Bill Dennis’s decision to share and editorialize a CTV News segment involving a lawful N13 renovation notice issued to tenants in a Sarnia townhouse complex, as well as to comments he directed at me personally.
The CTV story involved a tenant required to temporarily relocate due to asbestos remediation, a serious health and safety issue. 13 of 41 units are impacted by the work. Based on publicly available information, the landlord issued proper notice under the Residential Tenancies Act, offered lawful compensation and alternatives, and complied with provincial requirements. Some tenants may choose a cash-for-keys agreement; others may not. Tenants are adults and capable of making informed decisions.
Despite this, Councillor Dennis shared the story with the headline:
“This type of greed cannot be tolerated. My motion to create a bylaw to protect tenants from renovictions will be presented at Monday’s Regular Meeting.”
That framing matters. Words from elected officials carry weight - and accuracy is not optional.
The Facts the Public Rarely Hears.
Under Ontario law, issuing an N13 is not an eviction. It is only a notice. Key facts:
Landlords must apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board.
Tenants do not have to move out upon receiving a notice.
Tenants can dispute the notice and seek legal advice.
Landlords must prove vacant possession is required.
Only the LTB can issue an eviction order.
Only the Sheriff can enforce it.
Tenants have the right of first refusal to return at the same rent.
Yes - the same rent. That is the law.
Tenant Protections Already Exist.
The Residential Tenancies Act already provides strong protections, including:
120 days’ notice for N13s.
A full LTB hearing.
Mandatory compensation or alternative accommodation.
A high evidentiary burden on landlords.
The right to return at the same rent.
The right to file a bad-faith application for up to two years.
There are also serious penalties for abuse - up to $100,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations.
Tenant rights are written clearly and word-for-word on the N13 notice itself.
Jurisdiction Matters.
Councillor Dennis publicly characterized lawful property maintenance as “greed” without evidence and without an LTB ruling. It is not within municipal jurisdiction to stop housing providers from maintaining their properties or to prejudge intent.
Asbestos remediation and similar work are not optional. They are legal obligations. Framing safety compliance as greed misleads the public and undermines confidence in lawful housing operations.
This raises a basic question: Is this proposed bylaw meant to address proven bad actors -or to block lawful renovations altogether?
Municipal Bylaws Don’t Fix Provincial Processes.
Proposed renoviction bylaws:
Add costs, delays, and uncertainty.
Discourage necessary repairs in aging housing stock.
Penalize landlords for addressing mould, leaks, rodents, asbestos, and structural issues.
Interfere with redevelopment needed to increase housing supply.
We’ve already seen this elsewhere. In Waterloo, only 34 LTB applications over five years led to a bylaw costing $365,000 upfront and $450,000 annually, despite staff advising council not to proceed. That is not tenant protection - it is taxpayer-funded political theatre.
On Professional Conduct.
After I commented publicly as a housing advocate, Councillor Dennis responded with the following remark, which he later deleted after widespread criticism:
“I was a top producing Real Estate Broker for 30 years. I witnessed some of the most deceitful crooked practices. As a matter of fact I could write a book on it. This particular ‘landlord’ has done this with 5 different buildings in 5 different Cities in the last two weeks. Don’t try to school me, junior, on how the Act works. I was dealing with income properties when you were crapping yellow.”
Housing providers are held to professional standards. Municipal councillors should be as well.
Why I’m Speaking Up.
I have been a housing provider for 24 years, a housing advocate for 15 years, and I have also been a tenant myself. I’ve had my boots on the ground, navigating the Residential Tenancies Act from every angle.
My role is to educate so decisions are based on facts, not fear, and so policies protect good tenants, good landlords, and taxpayers’ hard-earned money.
For these reasons, I am formally requesting a public apology from Councillor Dennis for his remarks and for publicly mischaracterizing lawful housing providers without evidence.
I’ve now watched the City of Waterloo Council meeting from January 19, 2026 , and today I sent an email to the Mayor and Members of Council regarding the renovation licensing bylaw that was passed that night - with Mayor Dorothy McCabe being the only vote against it.
I strongly encourage residents, housing providers, and anyone concerned about housing affordability to email Council as well.
Silence is how bad policy becomes permanent.
City Of Waterloo Council Emails : Mayor@Waterloo.ca, Sandra.hanmer@waterloo.ca,Royce.bobaly@waterloo.ca, Hans.roach@waterloo.ca , Diane.freeman@waterloo.ca,Jen.vasic@waterloo.ca , Marylou.roe@waterloo.ca, julie.wright@waterloo.ca
For transparency, I have also forwarded my email to Premier Doug Ford, Minister of Housing Rob Flack, and Associate Minister Graydon Smith, along with the YouTube link to the Council meeting, so the Province can see firsthand what unfolded.
It is honestly embarrassing that a city would move forward with an expensive new program without clear evidence that it’s addressing a real problem, especially when it comes at the expense of taxpayers, housing supply, and necessary renovations.
This is not just a Waterloo issue. Cities across Ontario are watching each other - and copying each other - which is exactly why this matters.
Join me tomorrow night Jan 22 at 7:00 PM EST on our Ontario Landlords Watch YouTube channel, where I’ll be joined by Jason Pittelli. We’ll break this down in detail and talk about why this trend is spreading - and why it should concern everyone, not just landlords.
My Letter to City of Waterloo Council below:
Dear Mayor, Members of Waterloo City Council and Staff, My name is Kayla Andrade, and I am writing on behalf of Ontario Landlords Watch (OLW).
Ontario Landlords Watch is a grassroots housing organization founded in 2010 in the City of Cambridge. Our members span across Ontario and include small and mid-sized housing providers, housing professionals, and tenants. We advocate for fair, balanced, and evidence-based housing policy at both the provincial and municipal levels-policy that protects good tenants and good landlords.
I became aware of the January 19, 2026 Council meeting regarding the renovation licensing bylaw after the fact and was therefore unable to attend in person. That said, after listening to the meeting, I felt it was important to follow up-particularly after hearing staff and delegate comments acknowledging uncertainty about whether this bylaw is needed, whether it addresses a real issue, and whether it will be effective.
I can state clearly: N13 evictions are not an issue in Waterloo. Based on available data, only 34 N13 notices in Waterloo have gone to a Landlord and Tenant Board hearing over the past five years. Five years. This does not point to a systemic problem; it points to a provincial process that is already functioning as intended.
The Residential Tenancies Act already provides strong tenant protections:
Landlords must issue an N13 notice with at least 120 days’ notice. Tenants are not required to move out upon receiving the notice.
Tenants have the right to dispute the notice at the LTB.
Landlords must prove at a hearing that vacant possession is required.
Landlords must provide significant compensation or an alternative unit.
Tenants have the right of first refusal to return at the same rent.
Importantly, tenants have up to two years after vacating under an N13 to file an application if the landlord does not complete the renovation or does not allow them to move back in as required.
Tenant rights are not unclear or hidden. They are clearly outlined word-for-word on the N13 notice itself, including timelines, dispute rights, compensation, and hearing procedures. I will be attaching a copy of the N13 form for Council’s reference.
I find it concerning-and frankly insulting to tenants-that groups such as ACORN continue to suggest tenants are unaware of their rights. Tenants are well-informed and supported by free legal aid, tenant advocacy groups, municipal property standards enforcement, and the LTB.
Adding a municipal licensing layer does not enhance protection-it duplicates existing safeguards.
What this bylaw does do is:
Add costs, delays, and uncertainty for compliant housing providers. Discourage necessary renovations in aging housing stock.
Penalize landlords addressing serious issues such as mould, leaks, rodents, and structural safety.
Interfere with demolition and redevelopment projects that both the City and Province acknowledge are needed to increase housing supply.
Waterloo has many aging properties. In many cases, tenants must temporarily vacate to complete renovations safely. Surprise damage can also occur, requiring urgent action to protect tenants and neighbouring units. Municipal expectations that landlords work around tenant belongings, repeated refusals of entry, or constant 24-hour notice requirements are simply not realistic for major repairs.
This bylaw does nothing to stop bad actors. Instead, it forces good landlords to pay a fee to renovate their own property, despite already complying with provincial law.
Council should also be very mindful of taxpayer dollars when creating new programs that are not supported by evidence of need. Licensing regimes, enforcement frameworks, and tenant liaison roles require costly municipal staff, administration, and oversight, all funded by taxpayers-without delivering measurable improvements in tenant protection or housing supply.
It is also important to note that many landlords avoid attending municipal meetings on this topic-not due to lack of interest, but because ACORN has repeatedly demonstrated hostility and intimidation toward private housing providers, including members of the Federation of Rental Housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) at recent events. This environment discourages balanced participation and silences key stakeholders.
ACORN has long advocated at the provincial level to: Freeze or eliminate rent increases. Stop evictions altogether.
They are now shifting this advocacy to municipalities in an attempt to circumvent provincial authority. This approach does not result in good policy.
The message this bylaw is already sending-circulating widely across Ontario and Canada-is that Waterloo is a high-risk city for housing investment. When investors and housing providers leave, the outcomes are predictable:
Less housing.
Higher rents.
Increased reliance on shelters, healthcare, and emergency services.
Greater cost to taxpayers.
I do want to note that I was very pleased with the comments made by the Mayor during this discussion. The Mayor’s acknowledgement of jurisdictional concerns, effectiveness, and unintended consequences demonstrated thoughtful leadership and should be commended. Well done, Mayor.
If municipalities were serious about housing stability, efforts would be better focused on:
Speeding up LTB timelines.
Enforcing existing laws against actual bad actors.
Incentivizing maintenance, reinvestment, and new supply Instead, we are seeing duplicative bylaws, additional bureaucracy, and symbolic policy that worsens the housing crisis.
Housing is a provincial responsibility, and the Province already has processes in place. Municipal overreach in this area has resulted in too many cooks in the kitchen-and nothing getting cooked. The municipal government must stay in its lane.
I strongly encourage Council and staff to conduct independent research, critically assess the sources advocating for this policy, and reconsider whether this bylaw serves the majority of tenants and housing providers-or simply a vocal minority seeking political gain.
If Council or staff have questions, I am available to speak further.
Let’s talk about Non-Profit housing and transparency 🚨
The Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association (ONPHA) says they stand for building, protecting, and supporting affordable housing so people can thrive. Every year, they host their flagship conference - this year called Housing at the Heart - bringing together hundreds of housing providers, policymakers, and sector leaders. Sounds amazing, right? But here’s the pause button for me:
👉 $1,695 to attend if you’re a non-member 👉 $1,395 if you’re a member
Now, I’d love to attend -sharing ideas and solutions is critical. But honestly, who can afford this? My guess? Other non-profits will. Then on the books, it looks like they don’t make a profit… clever, right?
And let’s be real: many staff are reimbursed through tax dollars meant for affordable housing. That’s why there needs to be more oversight on how non-profits spend the funding they receive.
If a for-profit is connected to a non-profit that’s receiving government funding, then both should be fully transparent to taxpayers. If there’s nothing to hide, this shouldn’t be an issue… right?
💡 On one hand: • Conferences like this create valuable networking, new ideas, and collaboration that could improve housing. • Training and knowledge-sharing are essential if we want solutions that actually work.
⚠️ On the other hand: • The cost makes it inaccessible for grassroots advocates and smaller organizations. • Using taxpayer-funded dollars for pricey conferences raises real questions about accountability. I’m not here to attack, but as someone who advocates for landlords, tenants, and housing solutions, I have to ask the tough questions.
💬 What do you think? Would you spend $1,700 to attend a housing conference?
Comment below -I really want to hear your take on this one.
Sounding the Alarm on Municipal Renoviction Bylaws : Adding Red Tape, Hurting Housing, and Misleading the Public!
I sent a letter to Minister Rob Flack, the Associate Minister, and senior staff, making it clear: these bylaws are not municipal jurisdiction and only add red tape, costs, and delays for landlords.
Be loud. Be bold. Never stop asking questions. Join the fight for fairness for landlords and tenants.
The Honourable Rob Flack, Minister of Housing The Honourable Graydon Smith, Associate Minister of Housing
Government of Ontario Re: Municipal Renoviction Bylaws - A Growing Concern for Housing Providers.
Dear Minister Flack and Associate Minister Smith, As the founder of Ontario Landlords Watch, representing over 10,000 members, I am reaching out to express serious concerns about the spread of municipal renoviction bylaws across Ontario.
Background on Municipal Bylaws
Hamilton and Toronto have already introduced renoviction bylaws, and now municipalities like Kitchener, Ottawa, Mississauga, and Guelph are considering similar measures. These bylaws typically include:
Licensing: Requiring landlords to obtain a license from the city before issuing an N13 notice.
Compensation Plans: Mandating temporary accommodation or rent gap payments for tenants.
Registries: Some cities, such as Toronto, even require a public registry of building permits.
While these bylaws are presented as a way to curb “bad faith” renovictions, they duplicate existing provincial protections and create unnecessary financial and administrative burdens for housing providers.
Existing Provincial Protections Already Cover This Under the Residential Tenancies Act, the N13 process already provides:
120 days’ notice before termination.
Right of first refusal for tenants to return at the same lawful rent.
Compensation requirements (1–3 months’ rent or a comparable unit).
Penalties under Bill 97, which raised maximum fines for bad faith evictions to $100,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations.
The Landlord and Tenant Board’s own data shows that bad faith evictions are not a widespread issue - in 2023, only 23 fines were issued across the entire province. This demonstrates that the provincial framework is already sufficient to address genuine cases of abuse.
Why Municipal Bylaws Are Problematic Not Their Jurisdiction: Municipalities openly acknowledge they cannot stop evictions but are creating new fees, licensing, and staffing costs that duplicate provincial authority.
Cash Grab & Red Tape: These bylaws generate revenue for municipalities at the expense of housing providers, while wasting taxpayer dollars on redundant processes.
Discouraging Renovations: Added costs and red tape discourage landlords from maintaining and upgrading aging housing stock, which undermines safety, energy efficiency, and long-term housing supply.
Hurting Small Landlords: Mom-and-pop landlords lack the resources to navigate expensive and complex municipal rules, which may push them to sell, reducing available rental housing.
Politics Over Policy: It is also important to acknowledge that many elected officials are using renoviction bylaws for political gain. By framing themselves as “protectors of tenants” and pushing these measures into the media spotlight, municipal politicians are presenting the illusion of taking strong action - while knowing these bylaws do not address the root causes of the housing crisis.
This political theatre not only misleads the public but unfairly vilifies landlords, further dividing housing providers and tenants at a time when cooperation is needed most.
I was pleased to see that Sudbury rejected this approach in October 2024, recognizing that it would hinder economic growth. Other municipalities should follow their lead.
The Bigger Picture: Housing providers are already stretched thin by: Soaring property taxes and insurance costs.
Landlord licensing schemes.
Responsibility for tenant water arrears.
A slow and backlogged Landlord and Tenant Board.
Municipal renoviction bylaws are smoke and mirrors - they give the appearance of tenant protection but ultimately harm both landlords and tenants by discouraging investment, reducing rental supply, and letting housing quality deteriorate.
What I’m Asking From You
I respectfully urge you to:
Publicly affirm provincial jurisdiction over eviction matters under the Residential Tenancies Act.
Direct municipalities to avoid duplicating provincial legislation with costly and unnecessary bylaws.
Defend property owners’ ability to maintain and upgrade their units without facing redundant fees, licensing, and administrative burdens.
Ontario’s housing crisis is multifaceted. No single level of government can solve it, but piling on misguided municipal rules will only make things worse. The province must send a clear message: focus on building housing supply, not on creating red tape that drives landlords out of the market.
I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this matter further, along with other pressing issues facing housing providers and tenants across Ontario.
Thank you for your time and leadership on this important file.
Ontario Landlords Watch
Public Letter to Sarnia City Councillor Bill Dennis
Kayla Andrade, Ontario Landlords Watch
I am responding publicly to Sarnia City Councillor Bill Dennis’s decision to share and editorialize a CTV News segment involving a lawful N13 renovation notice issued to tenants in a Sarnia townhouse complex, as well as to comments he directed at me personally.
The CTV story involved a tenant required to temporarily relocate due to asbestos remediation, a serious health and safety issue. 13 of 41 units are impacted by the work. Based on publicly available information, the landlord issued proper notice under the Residential Tenancies Act, offered lawful compensation and alternatives, and complied with provincial requirements. Some tenants may choose a cash-for-keys agreement; others may not. Tenants are adults and capable of making informed decisions.
Despite this, Councillor Dennis shared the story with the headline:
“This type of greed cannot be tolerated. My motion to create a bylaw to protect tenants from renovictions will be presented at Monday’s Regular Meeting.”
That framing matters. Words from elected officials carry weight - and accuracy is not optional.
The Facts the Public Rarely Hears.
Under Ontario law, issuing an N13 is not an eviction. It is only a notice.
Key facts:
Landlords must apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board.
Tenants do not have to move out upon receiving a notice.
Tenants can dispute the notice and seek legal advice.
Landlords must prove vacant possession is required.
Only the LTB can issue an eviction order.
Only the Sheriff can enforce it.
Tenants have the right of first refusal to return at the same rent.
Yes - the same rent. That is the law.
Tenant Protections Already Exist.
The Residential Tenancies Act already provides strong protections, including:
120 days’ notice for N13s.
A full LTB hearing.
Mandatory compensation or alternative accommodation.
A high evidentiary burden on landlords.
The right to return at the same rent.
The right to file a bad-faith application for up to two years.
There are also serious penalties for abuse - up to $100,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations.
Tenant rights are written clearly and word-for-word on the N13 notice itself.
Jurisdiction Matters.
Councillor Dennis publicly characterized lawful property maintenance as “greed” without evidence and without an LTB ruling. It is not within municipal jurisdiction to stop housing providers from maintaining their properties or to prejudge intent.
Asbestos remediation and similar work are not optional. They are legal obligations. Framing safety compliance as greed misleads the public and undermines confidence in lawful housing operations.
This raises a basic question:
Is this proposed bylaw meant to address proven bad actors -or to block lawful renovations altogether?
Municipal Bylaws Don’t Fix Provincial Processes.
Proposed renoviction bylaws:
Add costs, delays, and uncertainty.
Discourage necessary repairs in aging housing stock.
Penalize landlords for addressing mould, leaks, rodents, asbestos, and structural issues.
Interfere with redevelopment needed to increase housing supply.
We’ve already seen this elsewhere. In Waterloo, only 34 LTB applications over five years led to a bylaw costing $365,000 upfront and $450,000 annually, despite staff advising council not to proceed. That is not tenant protection - it is taxpayer-funded political theatre.
On Professional Conduct.
After I commented publicly as a housing advocate, Councillor Dennis responded with the following remark, which he later deleted after widespread criticism:
“I was a top producing Real Estate Broker for 30 years. I witnessed some of the most deceitful crooked practices. As a matter of fact I could write a book on it. This particular ‘landlord’ has done this with 5 different buildings in 5 different Cities in the last two weeks. Don’t try to school me, junior, on how the Act works. I was dealing with income properties when you were crapping yellow.”
Housing providers are held to professional standards.
Municipal councillors should be as well.
Why I’m Speaking Up.
I have been a housing provider for 24 years, a housing advocate for 15 years, and I have also been a tenant myself. I’ve had my boots on the ground, navigating the Residential Tenancies Act from every angle.
My role is to educate so decisions are based on facts, not fear, and so policies protect good tenants, good landlords, and taxpayers’ hard-earned money.
For these reasons, I am formally requesting a public apology from Councillor Dennis for his remarks and for publicly mischaracterizing lawful housing providers without evidence.
The public deserves facts - not talking points.
3 days ago | [YT] | 1
View 1 reply
Ontario Landlords Watch
I’ve now watched the City of Waterloo Council meeting from January 19, 2026 , and today I sent an email to the Mayor and Members of Council regarding the renovation licensing bylaw that was passed that night - with Mayor Dorothy McCabe being the only vote against it.
I strongly encourage residents, housing providers, and anyone concerned about housing affordability to email Council as well.
Silence is how bad policy becomes permanent.
City Of Waterloo Council Emails : Mayor@Waterloo.ca, Sandra.hanmer@waterloo.ca,Royce.bobaly@waterloo.ca, Hans.roach@waterloo.ca , Diane.freeman@waterloo.ca,Jen.vasic@waterloo.ca , Marylou.roe@waterloo.ca, julie.wright@waterloo.ca
For transparency, I have also forwarded my email to Premier Doug Ford, Minister of Housing Rob Flack, and Associate Minister Graydon Smith, along with the YouTube link to the Council meeting, so the Province can see firsthand what unfolded.
It is honestly embarrassing that a city would move forward with an expensive new program without clear evidence that it’s addressing a real problem, especially when it comes at the expense of taxpayers, housing supply, and necessary renovations.
This is not just a Waterloo issue. Cities across Ontario are watching each other - and copying each other - which is exactly why this matters.
Join me tomorrow night Jan 22 at 7:00 PM EST on our Ontario Landlords Watch YouTube channel, where I’ll be joined by Jason Pittelli. We’ll break this down in detail and talk about why this trend is spreading - and why it should concern everyone, not just landlords.
My Letter to City of Waterloo Council below:
Dear Mayor, Members of Waterloo City Council and Staff,
My name is Kayla Andrade, and I am writing on behalf of Ontario Landlords Watch (OLW).
Ontario Landlords Watch is a grassroots housing organization founded in 2010 in the City of Cambridge. Our members span across Ontario and include small and mid-sized housing providers, housing professionals, and tenants. We advocate for fair, balanced, and evidence-based housing policy at both the provincial and municipal levels-policy that protects good tenants and good landlords.
I became aware of the January 19, 2026 Council meeting regarding the renovation licensing bylaw after the fact and was therefore unable to attend in person. That said, after listening to the meeting, I felt it was important to follow up-particularly after hearing staff and delegate comments acknowledging uncertainty about whether this bylaw is needed, whether it addresses a real issue, and whether it will be effective.
I can state clearly: N13 evictions are not an issue in Waterloo.
Based on available data, only 34 N13 notices in Waterloo have gone to a Landlord and Tenant Board hearing over the past five years. Five years. This does not point to a systemic problem; it points to a provincial process that is already functioning as intended.
The Residential Tenancies Act already provides strong tenant protections:
Landlords must issue an N13 notice with at least 120 days’ notice.
Tenants are not required to move out upon receiving the notice.
Tenants have the right to dispute the notice at the LTB.
Landlords must prove at a hearing that vacant possession is required.
Landlords must provide significant compensation or an alternative unit.
Tenants have the right of first refusal to return at the same rent.
Importantly, tenants have up to two years after vacating under an N13 to file an application if the landlord does not complete the renovation or does not allow them to move back in as required.
Tenant rights are not unclear or hidden. They are clearly outlined word-for-word on the N13 notice itself, including timelines, dispute rights, compensation, and hearing procedures. I will be attaching a copy of the N13 form for Council’s reference.
I find it concerning-and frankly insulting to tenants-that groups such as ACORN continue to suggest tenants are unaware of their rights. Tenants are well-informed and supported by free legal aid, tenant advocacy groups, municipal property standards enforcement, and the LTB.
Adding a municipal licensing layer does not enhance protection-it duplicates existing safeguards.
What this bylaw does do is:
Add costs, delays, and uncertainty for compliant housing providers.
Discourage necessary renovations in aging housing stock.
Penalize landlords addressing serious issues such as mould, leaks, rodents, and structural safety.
Interfere with demolition and redevelopment projects that both the City and Province acknowledge are needed to increase housing supply.
Waterloo has many aging properties. In many cases, tenants must temporarily vacate to complete renovations safely. Surprise damage can also occur, requiring urgent action to protect tenants and neighbouring units. Municipal expectations that landlords work around tenant belongings, repeated refusals of entry, or constant 24-hour notice requirements are simply not realistic for major repairs.
This bylaw does nothing to stop bad actors. Instead, it forces good landlords to pay a fee to renovate their own property, despite already complying with provincial law.
Council should also be very mindful of taxpayer dollars when creating new programs that are not supported by evidence of need. Licensing regimes, enforcement frameworks, and tenant liaison roles require costly municipal staff, administration, and oversight, all funded by taxpayers-without delivering measurable improvements in tenant protection or housing supply.
It is also important to note that many landlords avoid attending municipal meetings on this topic-not due to lack of interest, but because ACORN has repeatedly demonstrated hostility and intimidation toward private housing providers, including members of the Federation of Rental Housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) at recent events. This environment discourages balanced participation and silences key stakeholders.
ACORN has long advocated at the provincial level to:
Freeze or eliminate rent increases.
Stop evictions altogether.
They are now shifting this advocacy to municipalities in an attempt to circumvent provincial authority. This approach does not result in good policy.
The message this bylaw is already sending-circulating widely across Ontario and Canada-is that Waterloo is a high-risk city for housing investment. When investors and housing providers leave, the outcomes are predictable:
Less housing.
Higher rents.
Increased reliance on shelters, healthcare, and emergency services.
Greater cost to taxpayers.
I do want to note that I was very pleased with the comments made by the Mayor during this discussion. The Mayor’s acknowledgement of jurisdictional concerns, effectiveness, and unintended consequences demonstrated thoughtful leadership and should be commended. Well done, Mayor.
If municipalities were serious about housing stability, efforts would be better focused on:
Speeding up LTB timelines.
Enforcing existing laws against actual bad actors.
Incentivizing maintenance, reinvestment, and new supply
Instead, we are seeing duplicative bylaws, additional bureaucracy, and symbolic policy that worsens the housing crisis.
Housing is a provincial responsibility, and the Province already has processes in place. Municipal overreach in this area has resulted in too many cooks in the kitchen-and nothing getting cooked. The municipal government must stay in its lane.
I strongly encourage Council and staff to conduct independent research, critically assess the sources advocating for this policy, and reconsider whether this bylaw serves the majority of tenants and housing providers-or simply a vocal minority seeking political gain.
If Council or staff have questions, I am available to speak further.
Sincerely,
Kayla Andrade
Founder, Ontario Landlords Watch
3 weeks ago | [YT] | 1
View 0 replies
Ontario Landlords Watch
Let’s talk about Non-Profit housing and transparency 🚨
The Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association (ONPHA) says they stand for building, protecting, and supporting affordable housing so people can thrive. Every year, they host their flagship conference - this year called Housing at the Heart - bringing together hundreds of housing providers, policymakers, and sector leaders.
Sounds amazing, right? But here’s the pause button for me:
👉 $1,695 to attend if you’re a non-member
👉 $1,395 if you’re a member
Now, I’d love to attend -sharing ideas and solutions is critical. But honestly, who can afford this? My guess? Other non-profits will. Then on the books, it looks like they don’t make a profit… clever, right?
And let’s be real: many staff are reimbursed through tax dollars meant for affordable housing. That’s why there needs to be more oversight on how non-profits spend the funding they receive.
If a for-profit is connected to a non-profit that’s receiving government funding, then both should be fully transparent to taxpayers. If there’s nothing to hide, this shouldn’t be an issue… right?
💡 On one hand:
• Conferences like this create valuable networking, new ideas, and collaboration that could improve housing.
• Training and knowledge-sharing are essential if we want solutions that actually work.
⚠️ On the other hand:
• The cost makes it inaccessible for grassroots advocates and smaller organizations.
• Using taxpayer-funded dollars for pricey conferences raises real questions about accountability.
I’m not here to attack, but as someone who advocates for landlords, tenants, and housing solutions, I have to ask the tough questions.
💬 What do you think? Would you spend $1,700 to attend a housing conference?
Comment below -I really want to hear your take on this one.
conference.onpha.on.ca/speakers/
4 months ago | [YT] | 1
View 0 replies
Ontario Landlords Watch
Sounding the Alarm on Municipal Renoviction Bylaws : Adding Red Tape, Hurting Housing, and Misleading the Public!
I sent a letter to Minister Rob Flack, the Associate Minister, and senior staff, making it clear: these bylaws are not municipal jurisdiction and only add red tape, costs, and delays for landlords.
Be loud. Be bold. Never stop asking questions. Join the fight for fairness for landlords and tenants.
Letter sent below 👇
Kayla Andrade
Founder, Ontario Landlords Watch
olwlandlords@gmail.com
September 18,2025
The Honourable Rob Flack, Minister of Housing
The Honourable Graydon Smith, Associate Minister of Housing
Government of Ontario
Re: Municipal Renoviction Bylaws - A Growing Concern for Housing Providers.
Dear Minister Flack and Associate Minister Smith,
As the founder of Ontario Landlords Watch, representing over 10,000 members, I am reaching out to express serious concerns about the spread of municipal renoviction bylaws across Ontario.
Background on Municipal Bylaws
Hamilton and Toronto have already introduced renoviction bylaws, and now municipalities like Kitchener, Ottawa, Mississauga, and Guelph are considering similar measures. These bylaws typically include:
Licensing: Requiring landlords to obtain a license from the city before issuing an N13 notice.
Compensation Plans: Mandating temporary accommodation or rent gap payments for tenants.
Registries: Some cities, such as Toronto, even require a public registry of building permits.
While these bylaws are presented as a way to curb “bad faith” renovictions, they duplicate existing provincial protections and create unnecessary financial and administrative burdens for housing providers.
Existing Provincial Protections Already Cover This
Under the Residential Tenancies Act, the N13 process already provides:
120 days’ notice before termination.
Right of first refusal for tenants to return at the same lawful rent.
Compensation requirements (1–3 months’ rent or a comparable unit).
Penalties under Bill 97, which raised maximum fines for bad faith evictions to $100,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations.
The Landlord and Tenant Board’s own data shows that bad faith evictions are not a widespread issue - in 2023, only 23 fines were issued across the entire province. This demonstrates that the provincial framework is already sufficient to address genuine cases of abuse.
Why Municipal Bylaws Are Problematic
Not Their Jurisdiction: Municipalities openly acknowledge they cannot stop evictions but are creating new fees, licensing, and staffing costs that duplicate provincial authority.
Cash Grab & Red Tape: These bylaws generate revenue for municipalities at the expense of housing providers, while wasting taxpayer dollars on redundant processes.
Discouraging Renovations: Added costs and red tape discourage landlords from maintaining and upgrading aging housing stock, which undermines safety, energy efficiency, and long-term housing supply.
Hurting Small Landlords: Mom-and-pop landlords lack the resources to navigate expensive and complex municipal rules, which may push them to sell, reducing available rental housing.
Politics Over Policy: It is also important to acknowledge that many elected officials are using renoviction bylaws for political gain. By framing themselves as “protectors of tenants” and pushing these measures into the media spotlight, municipal politicians are presenting the illusion of taking strong action - while knowing these bylaws do not address the root causes of the housing crisis.
This political theatre not only misleads the public but unfairly vilifies landlords, further dividing housing providers and tenants at a time when cooperation is needed most.
I was pleased to see that Sudbury rejected this approach in October 2024, recognizing that it would hinder economic growth. Other municipalities should follow their lead.
The Bigger Picture: Housing providers are already stretched thin by:
Soaring property taxes and insurance costs.
Landlord licensing schemes.
Responsibility for tenant water arrears.
A slow and backlogged Landlord and Tenant Board.
Municipal renoviction bylaws are smoke and mirrors - they give the appearance of tenant protection but ultimately harm both landlords and tenants by discouraging investment, reducing rental supply, and letting housing quality deteriorate.
What I’m Asking From You
I respectfully urge you to:
Publicly affirm provincial jurisdiction over eviction matters under the Residential Tenancies Act.
Direct municipalities to avoid duplicating provincial legislation with costly and unnecessary bylaws.
Defend property owners’ ability to maintain and upgrade their units without facing redundant fees, licensing, and administrative burdens.
Ontario’s housing crisis is multifaceted. No single level of government can solve it, but piling on misguided municipal rules will only make things worse. The province must send a clear message: focus on building housing supply, not on creating red tape that drives landlords out of the market.
I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this matter further, along with other pressing issues facing housing providers and tenants across Ontario.
Thank you for your time and leadership on this important file.
Sincerely,
Kayla Andrade
Ontario Landlords Watch
4 months ago | [YT] | 2
View 0 replies