Three-bedroom madness

[tomh009]

I didn't realize that condos could enforce such a rule.

Renting until I get back from sabbatical. The previous condo I was at had a "no students" rule. Student status isn't a protected grounds under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and neither is family status, I believe. Couples are OK but not unrelated parties.

OHRC would likely consider students as a protected group--and it also disallows discrimination based on family status.

[tomh009]

I don’t see how they can enforce “no students”, regardless of whether there is a human rights violation problem. What if I rent to somebody and then they start taking a course? Who is violating the rule? Can I really ask prospective tenants whether they are students? What if I rely on their false assertion that they are not?

The condo corporation will make rules (whether declaration, bylaws or condo rules), hopefully legal ones, and then the responsibility of the owners is to comply with these. In some cases they are very clear, in other cases not so clear, like your examples above. You can always fight them in court but most people would not want to get involved in a legal battle.

There needs to be a blanket rule that a landlord cannot be held liable for actions done by a tenant which they cannot themselves control. Specifically, if I am unable to evict a tenant based on their actions because of the RTA, then I should not be able to held liable for their activity.

I have never seen such a rule. Having a damaging tenant is a risk you take when renting your property, whether it's a condo unit or a single-family dwelling.

[ijmorlan]

I don’t see how they can enforce “no students”, regardless of whether there is a human rights violation problem. What if I rent to somebody and then they start taking a course? Who is violating the rule? Can I really ask prospective tenants whether they are students? What if I rely on their false assertion that they are not?

The condo corporation will make rules (whether declaration, bylaws or condo rules), hopefully legal ones, and then the responsibility of the owners is to comply with these. In some cases they are very clear, in other cases not so clear, like your examples above. You can always fight them in court but most people would not want to get involved in a legal battle.

My point is, let’s ignore whatever feelings I might have about the rule. I rent out my place, and put in the rental advertisement, “condo rule: no students”. I rent to somebody who isn’t a student (let’s just suppose they’re not a student, and ignore the question of what I might do to establish that fact). A few months later they register with the University to take a course, making them a student. The condo finds out about it. Now what?

Clearly, either they have violated the condo rule, or I have. If they have, then what should the condo corporation do? Is there a procedure for a condominium corporation to evict a tenant of a unit owner, or to fine an occupant? If I have, then can I go to the LTB and have the tenant evicted? I’m pretty sure I couldn’t if it was my own rule rather than a condominium rule. What about fines? If I have to pay a fine because my tenant registered as a student, that is flagrantly contrary to justice.

Anyway, “no students” should be considered a human rights violation, and I hope the other poster is correct that the OHRC would consider it so.

[danbrotherston]

The condo corporation will make rules (whether declaration, bylaws or condo rules), hopefully legal ones, and then the responsibility of the owners is to comply with these. In some cases they are very clear, in other cases not so clear, like your examples above. You can always fight them in court but most people would not want to get involved in a legal battle.

My point is, let’s ignore whatever feelings I might have about the rule. I rent out my place, and put in the rental advertisement, “condo rule: no students”. I rent to somebody who isn’t a student (let’s just suppose they’re not a student, and ignore the question of what I might do to establish that fact). A few months later they register with the University to take a course, making them a student. The condo finds out about it. Now what?

Clearly, either they have violated the condo rule, or I have. If they have, then what should the condo corporation do? Is there a procedure for a condominium corporation to evict a tenant of a unit owner, or to fine an occupant? If I have, then can I go to the LTB and have the tenant evicted? I’m pretty sure I couldn’t if it was my own rule rather than a condominium rule. What about fines? If I have to pay a fine because my tenant registered as a student, that is flagrantly contrary to justice.

Anyway, “no students” should be considered a human rights violation, and I hope the other poster is correct that the OHRC would consider it so.

Condo corporations cannot evict tenants (or owners). They can only fine owners (or lien their unit). Also, owners are liable for costs including fines and damages incurred to common property. They can try to recover this from their tenants, but this will probably come down to lease terms and their luck at the Tribunal. This is no different than any landlord (plenty of landlords in KW have been fined by the city for failure to clear sidewalks). And I strongly suspect a request for eviction would fail here.

As for whether this is "contrary to justice" (flagrantly or not) is ENTIRELY a social construct, as is virtually all definitions of justice (hell, even "don't kill people" is not as universal as I would like...and even I don't think it should be fully universal (e.g., assisted suicide and self defence of a deadly threat are both exceptions) but for example, in many parts of the US, people (and governments) believe it is okay to kill someone to defend your property, or even just because they 'scare' you).

So you can argue that a tenant should be liable, but you can also argue that the property owner should be liable, and I don't think either are a particularly strong argument, liability, tenancy, and property are all fairly high-level social constructs themselves, so I think if you feel there's an obvious fundamental answer, it's probably time to question some preconceptions.

But either way, in a practical sense, whether a landlord could recover fines would depend a lot on the specifics of the rental agreement, and also the specifics of the situation, and the particular luck/legal sophistication of the parties involved.

As for the specifics of the "No students" rules...we of course know what this is...it is exactly an end run around human rights. They say "no students" because the goal is to forbid young, single, often transient people. in favour of more established, more permanent, traditional families. But those things are much more protected than "enrolled at a institute of higher education" is.

[ijmorlan]

Condo corporations cannot evict tenants (or owners). They can only fine owners (or lien their unit). Also, owners are liable for costs including fines and damages incurred to common property. They can try to recover this from their tenants, but this will probably come down to lease terms and their luck at the Tribunal. This is no different than any landlord (plenty of landlords in KW have been fined by the city for failure to clear sidewalks). And I strongly suspect a request for eviction would fail here.

The “tenant became a student” situation is entirely different from “tenant didn’t clear sidewalk”. It is by law the responsibility of the property owner to make sure the sidewalk is cleared. One way of discharging this responsibility could be to hire the tenant to do it, but it doesn’t extinguish the responsibility — it just makes the landlord an employer also, and means they need to monitor the quality of the employee’s work.

By contrast, the landlord has no way of even monitoring whether the tenant has become a student, and no way of forcing them to either cease being a student or cease being a tenant if they do become aware the tenant has become a student. So it is entirely unreasonable to in any way penalize the landlord in this situation.

It of course true that all of these concepts are social constructs, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t real. Our modern justice systems have all sorts of concepts deeply ingrained into them, such as the right to have the charges clearly stated and prohibitions on collective punishment. I’m not an expert in the philosophical foundations of justice, but I feel quite confident stating that punishing someone for the actions of another over whom they have no control is definitely fundamentally unjust.

[ijmorlan]

As for the specifics of the "No students" rules...we of course know what this is...it is exactly an end run around human rights. They say "no students" because the goal is to forbid young, single, often transient people. in favour of more established, more permanent, traditional families. But those things are much more protected than "enrolled at a institute of higher education" is.

Actually the goal is to maintain a quiet neighbourhood free of keg parties, which is a perfectly reasonable goal.

But it’s a ham-fisted and inappropriate way of doing so, and it is a deficiency in our human rights legislation if it works as the end run you correctly point out it is.

[Kodra24]

So happy I moved (sold) out of my condo and got into a SFH, dealing with a condo corp can be infuriating

[tomh009]

So happy I moved (sold) out of my condo and got into a SFH, dealing with a condo corp can be infuriating

All depends on your condo corporation. And one can always run for a board position, often there is not much competition for those.

[plam]

So happy I moved (sold) out of my condo and got into a SFH, dealing with a condo corp can be infuriating

All depends on your condo corporation. And one can always run for a board position, often there is not much competition for those.

I think that the other annoying thing can be the condo management. It's hard to find good condo management even if there is a good board. (I still prefer a condo to a SFH though!)

[Kodra24]

So happy I moved (sold) out of my condo and got into a SFH, dealing with a condo corp can be infuriating

All depends on your condo corporation. And one can always run for a board position, often there is not much competition for those.

No time to run or participate on a board, perhaps if you're retired you can swing it

To me, the benefits of owning SFH are evident:

- No Condo Fees!
- No Condo board (don't have to participate, listen, waste time etc, free to make your own decisions)
- No noise from next-door units
- No smells (good or bad) from within hallways
- Ability to garden
- Ability to grow your own food

To each their own of course but I don't mind shoveling and cutting the grass, it's good to be outside

[neonjoe]

We're really lucky in Canada that HOAs aren't a thing!

[danbrotherston]

All depends on your condo corporation. And one can always run for a board position, often there is not much competition for those.

No time to run or participate on a board, perhaps if you're retired you can swing it

To me, the benefits of owning SFH are evident:

- No Condo Fees!
- No Condo board (don't have to participate, listen, waste time etc, free to make your own decisions)
- No noise from next-door units
- No smells (good or bad) from within hallways
- Ability to garden
- Ability to grow your own food

To each their own of course but I don't mind shoveling and cutting the grass, it's good to be outside

Condo fees is not a benefit. Condo fees pay for maintenance of the property, you still have to pay for the maintenance of the property. Whether you pay 400 bucks a month or if you pay 30k every 15 years for a roof plus 7k every 15 years for a furnace, plus... .etc etc. It's a different mindset (you must save up yourself for these costs), but to say "it's a benefit" implies you are saving money somehow, which is simply not true.

Noise and smells has much less to do with the form of home than it does the construction of the home and the nature of your neighbours. The noisiest homes I've ever lived in have been single family homes, my neighbours growing up had a pool, every summery rowdy boisterous parties, in the back there were baseball fields, later my home in Kitchener had a noisy complex next door, and old windows which didn't block out the noise. On the other hand every apartment I've lived in has been filled with seniors who were quiet as a mouse, and built with significant noise proofing.

The others are valid points to be sure, and if you prefer a SFH, that's fine, but it's important to be realistic with why. Not every decision has to be objective, preferences are valid reasons.

[Kodra24]

No time to run or participate on a board, perhaps if you're retired you can swing it

To me, the benefits of owning SFH are evident:

- No Condo Fees!
- No Condo board (don't have to participate, listen, waste time etc, free to make your own decisions)
- No noise from next-door units
- No smells (good or bad) from within hallways
- Ability to garden
- Ability to grow your own food

To each their own of course but I don't mind shoveling and cutting the grass, it's good to be outside

Condo fees is not a benefit. Condo fees pay for maintenance of the property, you still have to pay for the maintenance of the property. Whether you pay 400 bucks a month or if you pay 30k every 15 years for a roof plus 7k every 15 years for a furnace, plus... .etc etc. It's a different mindset (you must save up yourself for these costs), but to say "it's a benefit" implies you are saving money somehow, which is simply not true.

Noise and smells has much less to do with the form of home than it does the construction of the home and the nature of your neighbours. The noisiest homes I've ever lived in have been single family homes, my neighbours growing up had a pool, every summery rowdy boisterous parties, in the back there were baseball fields, later my home in Kitchener had a noisy complex next door, and old windows which didn't block out the noise. On the other hand every apartment I've lived in has been filled with seniors who were quiet as a mouse, and built with significant noise proofing.

The others are valid points to be sure, and if you prefer a SFH, that's fine, but it's important to be realistic with why. Not every decision has to be objective, preferences are valid reasons.

Yup as I said to each their own and it depends quite a bit on your experiences as noted - both have their pro's and challenges, one thing I just thought of as a pro for condo's is if you travel alot, it's much easier to lock the door and not have to worry about daily/weekly maintenance as you would in a SFH

I did have the "one-time" reserve fund top-up fees come up when I owned a condo which I didn't appreciate, along with rising condo fees but that's standard I guess across the board

[ijmorlan]

We're really lucky in Canada that HOAs aren't a thing!

How different is an HOA from a condo corporation? Or the Beechwood West covenants?

That being said, I hear a lot more horror stories about HOAs than about Canadian condo corporations, so maybe there is something about the governing legislation and/or local culture that makes the concept work better here.

[danbrotherston]

We're really lucky in Canada that HOAs aren't a thing!

How different is an HOA from a condo corporation? Or the Beechwood West covenants?

That being said, I hear a lot more horror stories about HOAs than about Canadian condo corporations, so maybe there is something about the governing legislation and/or local culture that makes the concept work better here.

I don't think there's a meaningful practical difference (I'm sure there are legal differences). In Canada it is rare for single family homes to be under an HOA, where as in the US especially in certain cities/states it is very common.

I don't think it's necessarily to do with the specific regulations that make it work better here, I think it's simply that a condo corporation makes more sense in a building, and a bit of sense in a townhouse complex, there is a private domain that should be managed. Where as for SFH it's less about common management of private resources, and more about privatization of public spaces.

As for why they are common for SFHs in some US states/cities, I'm sure there are legal differences, and probably some cultural ones, but I'm unclear on the specifics.