The Legality of Refusing to Bake a Wedding Cake Because of Sexual Orientation By: Michelle Cook, Summer Law Student In Canada, it is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, especially in the case of commercial business services available to the public. However, a legal case challenging the ability to discriminate against individuals for their sexual orientation because of religious reasons is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. With Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointment of Neil Gorsuch, who is clearly pro-religion, anti-LGBT rights, swinging the majority of the Supreme Court to conservative-leaning judges, it appears the U.S. may return to an era where LGBT individuals can be openly discriminated against in the name of “religious freedom.” The Colorado case involves a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for two men. Colorado is one of a few states that have anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT individuals. The bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, was charged with violating the state’s discrimination laws. The state’s civil rights commission ordered the baker to provide wedding cakes on an equal basis for same-sex couples. Instead of complying with the commission’s order, the owner, Jack Phillips, refused to comply with it. Instead, he brought an appeal of the decision based on the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. Phillips will also argue that as a baker, he should have artistic freedom that is not regulated by the state. The Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the case, prompting Phillips to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Masterpiece Cakeshop has received a mixture of backlash and support for his decision. Interestingly, Phillips has noted that he has never strayed from his biblical teachings, even refusing to make cakes to celebrate Halloween, “anti-American or anti-family” themed cakes or ones that have a profane message. This is occurring in the U.S. while Toronto gains recognition as one of the top three most LGBT-friendly cities in the world. That is not to say that discrimination against LGBT individuals does not occur in Canada. In fact, this year a Montreal photographer named Premiere Productions refused to photograph a gay couple’s wedding. While no lawsuit was brought against them, it is clear that this conduct was illegal. This shows that while support for LGBT rights is increasing in both Canada and the U.S., there is still a fight to be made for true equality. What will be interesting to see is how the new conservative U.S. Supreme will delineate the ability to be able to discriminate against individuals based on religious values. Despite the rhetoric of American politicians, homosexuality is not a choice; someone is genetically born with a sexual orientation. Why is it still acceptable to openly discriminate against someone for who they love (an inherently personal matter) but unacceptable to openly discriminate against someone for their skin tone? At Devry Smith Frank LLP we have experienced lawyers in all areas of law. If you are looking for a lawyer or have general questions, please feel free to contact one of our lawyers today, or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawJuly 4, 2017June 22, 2020
National Light Bulb Disposal Strategy to be Introduced By: Nicolas Di Nardo The federal government is looking to guide Canadians on how to properly dispose of light bulbs that contain mercury. Bill C-238, The National Strategy for Safe and Environmentally Sound Disposal of Lamps Containing Mercury Act, was given the royal assent on June 22nd, 2017. The Bill will introduce the following: Commits the government to identify ways to dispose light bulbs safely Establish guidelines for disposal facilities Promote the program to Canadians Environment minister must table the national strategy within 2 years of the Act receiving the royal assent Prior to Bill C-238, there were no regulations outlining mercury light bulb disposal, which led many Canadians to simply dispose of them in their regular garbage. The impact the above practice has on the environment is staggering. Dartmouth-Cole Harbour MP Darren Fisher explains that, “about 1,150 kilograms of mercury end up in Canadian landfills each year, and can contaminate the environment.” Considering that mercury is listed as a toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and knowing the impact these mercury light bulbs have had on our environment, it comes as a surprise that there has not been an Act in place outlining disposal practices. Aside from the federal ban in 2014 on incandescent bulbs, there have not been any additional acts taken to educate Canadians and to lessen the impact of light bulbs on the environment. Currently, Fisher is encouraging Canadians to hold on to their mercury light bulbs until the new law is introduced, so that they may be disposed of properly. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlogJuly 4, 2017June 22, 2020
The City of Brampton is Looking To the Future By: Nicolas Di Nardo The city of Brampton has hired a world-renowned urban planner to make the suburb of Toronto future-ready. Larry Beasley, urban planner, has been involved in the development of urban landscapes like Vancouver, Abu Dhabi, Dallas, and Moscow. Brampton is a rapidly growing suburb, and has one of the youngest demographics in the GTA. Currently, Brampton’s population of 600,000 is expected to grow to 1,000,000 in the next 20 – 25 years. This realization has caused the city to seek some direction from Beasley, by hopefully reinventing the city centre, and neighbourhood developments. A tough task for Beasley, considering Brampton has never had a master plan. There are certain things Beasley must put some focus on, as Brampton does lack: Alternative transportation infrastructure Business hubs A university A white collar market for residents to work in No “downtown” Beasley noticed all of the above, and also found that the city does not know what direction it needs to go, they lack a sense of how it needs to change, and hopefully he can guide them in the direction they want to go. This is evident through the residents’ comments about local councillors, saying “there has been a steady decline in the conduct, passion, and professionalism…people are beginning to lose hope that change is even possible.” By enlisting Beasley, change is possible, but it is up to the city to take his recommendation and vision, and implement it. The public will be heavily involved and informed through the process, with “community-wide conversation” and public outreach campaigns, which Beasley says they will “craft their dream in front of them.” Beasley is hoping to have the vision for Brampton’s future completed by May 2018. Suburbs have been through constant struggles, being in the shadow of big core cities like Toronto in the current landscape doesn’t help much either. A number of factors effect suburbs, such as soaring home prices, employment, and overall lifestyles of city inhabitants, which trends have shown more and more Canadians seeking suburb living over the hustle and bustle of the big city. This prompts a need for improvement to Toronto suburbs, and Brampton is looking to benefit greatly by improving their city for the future, to help it flourish. Being situated between Toronto and Waterloo, within Ontario’s planned innovation corridor, it is surprising that Brampton hasn’t called for improvements earlier. It’s time for Brampton to dream big and prepare themselves for a bigger, better future. If you need assistance navigating Ontario’s provincial policies regarding development and growth, are considering developing a piece of land, or have concerns about a development near you, Devry Smith Frank LLP’s Planning and Development Group can provide you with the guidance and support that you require. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Planning and Development LawJuly 4, 2017June 22, 2020
Ken Pagan granted Conditional Discharge over Beer Can Toss Incident By: Nicolas Di Nardo Ken Pagan, known as the Toronto Beer Can Thrower was sentenced last week. If you are not caught up with the incident, please look to our previous blogs: Toronto Beer-Tosser Charged With Mischief Ken Pagan: Toronto Beer Tosser Pleads Guilty Pagan was granted conditional discharge which includes: No criminal record (if he complies with probation) 12-month probation At least 10 hours of community service a month Barred from attending any MLB games (already banned from the Rogers Centre) 200 hours of community work (already has done 100 hours this year) Must stay 500 metres away from the Rogers Centre Since the incident, Ken has been delivering pizzas and working as a janitor. He does not believe he will be able to return as a journalist as a result of the incident. If you require representation for any reason, please contact our firm at 416-449-1400, or visit our website to find the lawyer that best suits your needs. If you require a criminal law lawyer, please visit our criminal law page and contact lawyer David Schell. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Criminal LawJuly 4, 2017June 22, 2020
Legally Bound to be Faithful During the Marriage? By: Katelyn Bell, Summer Law Student Celebrities Justin Timberlake and wife Jessica Biel made headlines a couple years back when word spread that they had an “infidelity clause” contained within their marriage contract. The clause allegedly stipulates that if Timberlake is unfaithful to Biel, he owes her $500,000.00. This type of clause is known as a “lifestyle clause,” which are more common than you would think. The clauses address non-financial aspects of a marriage, and the range of things in which they can outline is quite vast. While some clauses may stipulate how many times the in-laws are allowed to visit per year, others may set out body-weight requirements (woah), and then of course, there’s the ones that speak to extra-marital affairs. Ultimatums about infidelity are among the most popular lifestyle clauses in domestic agreements. And though infidelity clauses are quite common for celebrities – consider also Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas, or Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie – it isn’t only celebrities who choose to include these types of clauses in their relationship agreements. The general public is making use of lifestyle clauses as well, especially those relating to infidelity. Reason being: (1) These types of clauses are a way to ensure financial stability, and (2) Having a clause of this type may be an effort on the part of one spouse to prevent (or at least try to prevent) their partner from cheating. But do they work? With regards to point (1) above, in order for the clause to afford the wronged spouse any money, the clause must be enforceable in the courts. If the domestic contract is contrary to public policy, despite its validity at the time, the court will not enforce such an agreement. In Canada, “fault-based divorce” has been eliminated from the legislation. Though the Divorce Act originally provided two grounds for divorce – cruelty/adultery and no-fault – today there is only one ground, which is marriage breakdown (s. 8 of DA). Marriage breakdown is a no-fault ground to divorce. Because Canada’s divorce legislation is “no-fault,” including a clause in a contract which explicitly puts a spouse at fault (i.e.: “If you cheat on me you owe me $60,000.00”) is most likely unenforceable. Our system is not meant to punish individuals for misbehaviour, and as such, adultery is not a determining factor in asset distribution. Though an infidelity clause has yet to be challenged in a Canadian court, the D’Andrade v Schrage (2011) decision provides some insight as to how Canadian courts are likely to respond to an infidelity clause in a pre-nuptial agreement. In this decision, the court rejected the argument that an affair during the negotiations of a marriage agreement (being negotiated after the parties were already married) would void the agreement. The court stated: “In recognition of the fact that marriages are complicated institutions, whose failure can rarely be attributed to one party or the other, the law has evolved in a fashion that by and large eliminates conduct from the analysis of financial entitlement…” “…it is important to consider the purpose of the contract in question. It is not to enforce personal obligations such as the duty to remain faithful or the commitment to remain in the relationship. While people may feel that these obligations are part of the marriage “contract”, these are not the obligations that domestic contracts are meant to deal with.” In the United States, in a case which challenged an infidelity clause, the court found that the clause in the domestic agreement was not enforceable because it was contrary to the public policy underlying California’s no-fault divorce laws. Based on the above, it’s highly improbable that an infidelity clause would be enforced by a Canadian court. So with regards to the question of “But do they work?”, the answer to point (1) is most likely no, but what about point (2)? Will the inclusion of such a clause in a domestic agreement work to keep your spouse faithful? Reportedly, when Tiger Woods was rumored to be seeking back with ex-wife Elin Nordegren, Nordegren wanted an infidelity clause contained within their pre-nup with a $350 million financial penalty for Woods if he were to ever cheat again. Of course, whether or not the clause will work as a deterrent depends on each individual. While some spouses argue that these types of clauses are the antidote to adultery, many others may disagree. Ultimately, every relationship is different and spouses will have to decide which, if any, lifestyle clauses make sense for their relationship. If a couple chooses to insert an infidelity clause in their domestic agreement, as long as the contract has a severability clause, the rest of the contract will remain enforceable (so long as it remains legally valid), even if the adultery clause is not. If you are in need of a Family lawyer, please contact the family lawyers of Devry Smith Frank LLP for assistance, or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawJune 30, 2017June 22, 2020
Am I Liable For My Ex-wife’s RRSP Losses? Toronto Family Lawyer John Schuman was recently asked the following question: Is there any case law that would show I am not liable for any of the following losses? When applying for a divorce, you must fill out a financial statement. Before we were married my wife had RRSP’s that were called labour-sponsored funds. They subsequently lost 90% of their value after we were married. I contend that I should not be liable for any of these losses. Answer: On the breakdown of a marriage (but not a common-law relationship), spouses “equalize” their assets and liabilities and share, with some exceptions, the growth in their net worth during the marriage. This video explains “Equalization of Net Family Property” in greater detail. Many separating spouses can feel that the equalization process can be unfair – particularly where one spouse has spent money on stupid things, gambled it away, is getting a windfall due to the division of the matrimonial home, or it has been a very short marriage. In these and other situations, dividing up all property “50/50” can seem unfair. Section 5(6) of Ontario’s Family Law Act does allow a Court (or Family Arbitrator) to deviate from the usual equalization of Net Family Property and divide the family’s wealth another way. It accommodates all of the scenarios above and a few others. However, the test that the Family Court (or an arbitrator) has to use is not whether the normal “equalization” would be unfair. Section 5(6) says that to deviate from the normal equalization, the Court must be “of the opinion that equalizing the net family properties would be unconscionable.” “Unconscionable” is much more than just unfair. The case law says that it means that the usual result must be “shocking to the conscience of the court.” That is much more than just unfair. One spouse spending a lot of money on an affair is not enough. A spouse spending too much is not enough. Justice Jennings put it this way: The result must be more than hardship, more than unfair, more than inequitable. There are not too many words left in common parlance that can be used to describe a result more severe than unconscionable. Specifically, on the issue of investment losses, the Courts have held that improvident (stupid) investing is not enough to justify an unequal division of net family properties. The investment must have been made recklessly or in bad faith. That means the spouse must have known or should have known, that the investment would become worthless. Risky investing is not enough. The spouse must have acted deliberately to lose money or knowing that he or she was likely to lose money. That can definitely seem unfair – especially when one spouse is a conservative investor and one spouse is a high-risk investor, or where one spouse’s savings have done really well and the other spouse’s investments have done poorly. But, fairness is not the test. Different opinions on finances can cause stress in, or event the end of, a lot of marriages. Where spouses have significant differences of opinion about money, they should consider getting a marriage contract. Spouses can get a marriage contract at any point during the marriage. They can keep a marriage together if one spouse wants to do something risky and the other one wants financial protection. This video explains how to protect yourself and save your marriage with a marriage contract. But, if you are separated now, it is likely too late for a marriage contract, and you have made one of the common family law mistakes. You should speak to an excellent Family Law Lawyer as the only way to correct this may be through spousal support, as section 15.2(6)(a) of the Divorce Act allows a judge to address the economic consequences of the marriage and its breakdown through spousal support. That can be through either awarding spousal support or reducing an amount of spousal support to reflect how the marriage affected the spouses financially. You can get a lot more information about Ontario Family Law issues, including support and property division, and most other common family law issues by downloading this $9.99 e-book for Kindle, Kobo, or iPad/iPhone/Mac, or ordering the paperback version. But, to keep out of trouble, it is always best to speak with a good family law lawyer. John Schuman is a Certified Specialist in Family Law. He is the partner managing the Family Law Group at Devry Smith Frank LLP, a full-service law firm located near Eglinton and the Don Valley Parkway in Toronto. Learn more about John! Call him at 416-446-5080 or 416-446-5847 or email john.schuman@devrylaw.ca Listen to the Ontario Family Law Podcast! By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawJune 30, 2017June 24, 2020
Am I Liable For My Ex-wife’s RRSP Losses? Toronto Family Lawyer John Schuman was recently asked the following question: Is there any case law that would show I am not liable for any of the following losses? When applying for a divorce, you must fill out a financial statement. Before we were married my wife had RRSP’s that were called labour sponsored funds. They subsequently lost 90% of their value after we were married. I contend that I should not be liable for any of these losses. Answer: On the breakdown of a marriage (but not a common law relationship), spouses “equalize” their assets and liabilities and share, with some exceptions, the growth in their net worth during the marriage. This video explains “Equalization of Net Family Property” in greater detail. Many separating spouses can feel that the equalization process can be unfair – particularly where one spouse has spent money on stupid things, gambled it away, is getting a windfall due to the division of the matrimonial home, or it has been a very short marriage. In these and other situations, dividing up all property “50/50” can seem unfair. Section 5(6) of Ontario’s Family Law Act does allow a Court (or Family Arbitrator) to deviate from the usual equalization of Net Family Property and divide the family’s wealth another way. It accommodates all of the scenarios above and a few others. However, the test that the Family Court (or arbitrator) has to use is not whether the normal “equalization” would be unfair. Section 5(6) says that to deviate from the normal equalization, the Court must be “of the opinion that equalizing the net family properties would be unconscionable.” “Unconscionable” is much more than just unfair. The case law says that it means that the usual result must be “shocking to the conscious of the court.” That is much more than just unfair. One spouse spending a lot of money on an affair is not enough. A spouse spending too much is not enough. Justice Jennings put it this way: The result must be more than hardship, more than unfair, more than inequitable. There are not too many words left in common parlance that can be used to describe a result more severe than unconscionable. Specifically on the issue of investment losses, the Courts have held that improvident (stupid) investing is not enough to justify an unequal division of net family properties. The investment must have been made recklessly or in bad faith. That means the spouse must have known, or should have known, that the investment would become worthless. Risky investing is not enough. The spouse must have acted deliberately to lose money or known that he or she was likely to lose money. That can definitely seem unfair – especially when one spouse is a conservative investor and one spouse is a high risk investor, or where one spouse’s savings have done really well and the other spouse’s investments have done poorly. But, fairness is not the test. Different opinions on finances can cause stress in, or event the end of, a lot of marriages. Where spouses have significant differences of opinion about money, they should consider getting a marriage contract. Spouses can get a marriage contract at any point during the marriage. They can keep a marriage together if one spouse wants to do something risky and the other one wants financial protection. This video explains how to protect yourself and save your marriage with a marriage contract. But, if you are separated now, it is likely too late for a marriage contract, and you have made one of the common family law mistakes. You should speak to an excellent Family Law Lawyer as the only way to correct this may be through spousal support, as section 15.2(6)(a) of the Divorce Act allows a judge to address the economic consequences of the marriage and its breakdown through spousal support. That can be through either awarding spousal support or reducing an amount of spousal support to reflect how the marriage affected the spouses financially. You can get a lot more information about Ontario Family Law issues, including support and property division, and most other common family law issues by downloading this $9.99 e-book for Kindle, Kobo, or iPad/iPhone/Mac, or ordering the paperback version. But, to keep out of trouble, it is always best to speak with a good family law lawyer. John Schuman is a Certified Specialist in Family Law. He is the partner managing the Family Law Group at Devry Smith Frank LLP, a full service law firm located near Eglinton and the Don Valley Parkway in Toronto. Learn more about John! Call him at 416-446-5080 or 416-446-5847 or email john.schuman@devrylaw.ca Listen to the Ontario Family Law Podcast! “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawJune 30, 2017June 22, 2020
Anticipated Vaping Bill S-5 By: Nicolas Di Nardo Vaping products have been available in Canada for over five years now, and even still in the current landscape, there doesn’t exist very many regulations around vaping. There are many different vaping devices, one example being the e-cigarette that produces vapour for inhalation and can be purchased in different flavours, and even with or without nicotine. In order to catch up, the government has introduced Bill S-5 which has passed a first reading in the House of Commons which took place on June 15. The bill is embraced by advocates, as it creates a regulatory framework for products including quality control provisions and banning sales to minors. However, there is a clause with which they are concerned about. The clause in question restricts the promotion of vaping products that will compare the health effects to those of tobacco products. Industry advocates say that the consumer benefits from being given the comparative information at the point of sale, and if the bill is passed, it will limit the amount of phrases vaping companies can use when comparing their products with tobacco. Essentially, the companies may have to provide somewhat of a information pamphlet educating consumers on the risks of vaping and smoking without promoting one over the other. With more support after the bill is passed, vaping may be able to overtake tobacco and become a less harmful replacement. Bill S-5 will allow for regulation, safer products, and that even the manufacturers of these vaping products are providing proper products to consumers and following proper practices. If the bill receives the Royal Assent, Health Canada will still need to develop specific vaping regulations. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlogJune 29, 2017June 22, 2020
Failure to Pay an ESA Order Resulted in Jail Time and a $20,000 Fine By: Michelle Cook, Summer Law Student On June 6, 2017, a Mississauga employer received a jail sentence of 30 days plus an additional fine of $20,000 after failing to pay an order issued by a Ministry of Labour employment standards officer. The order required him to pay about $140,000 in outstanding wages to his 43 workers, many university students. While jail time is rare for Employment Standards Act (ESA) violations, this case shows that the courts are beginning to take a stronger punitive approach to large violators of workplace laws. This comes just after the Ministry of Labour has promised to ramp up enforcement last week, when Premier Kathleen Wynne and Labour Minister Kevin Flynn proposed updates to Ontario’s labour and employment laws, including increased fines for workplace violations. If the legislation is passed, it will add up to 175 employment standards inspectors, enabling inspectors to award damages and interest on unpaid wages. The ministry has failed in the collections process in previous years. Ranging from 2009 to 2015 more than one-third of stolen wages were never recovered, meaning that the victims of wage theft across Ontario have lost out on $28 million. However, since 2015, Ontario employers facing prosecution for workplace violations have risen by more than 40 per cent. Peter David Sinisa Sesek ran Academic Montessori in Brampton and WISE Summer Camp in Mississauga. In addition to the 30-day sentence and an order to pay $127,000 in outstanding wages to former employees – most of which were university students whose individual claims ranged from $700 to $12,000— he was also fined $20,000 for failing to comply with the ministry’s order to pay, which was issued in 2015. The outstanding wages dated all the way back to 2014. His sentence is very uncommon. Over the past two decades there have been fewer than 10 jail sentences for ignoring orders to pay, with the most recent sentence in 2016 only imprisoning the accused boss for one day. The maximum penalty for ignoring orders to pay is one year of imprisonment. In summary, Sesek was convicted under the Employment Standards Act as well as the Provincial Offences Act. Any person who fails to comply or is convicted under the ESA can be: Fined up to $50,000 or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both; If a corporation, the fine may be up to $100,000; For a corporation with a previous conviction, the fine may be up to $250,000; and If there is more than one previous conviction the fine may be up to $500,000. Also noted in the court bulletin, the court imposes a 25 per cent victim fine surcharge, which is required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge goes to a provincial government fund that assists victims of crime. The Changing Workplaces review has hinted that the maximum penalties for violations of workplace laws will be increasing in the future. Employers should be careful to make sure that they are in compliance with the law and that ESA orders are dealt with seriously and promptly. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has an experienced group of lawyers within our employment and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawJune 29, 2017June 22, 2020
Rent Increase capped at 1.8% in 2018 By: Nicolas Di Nardo Under Ontario law, rent increases can not exceed 2.5 per cent. However, under the new housing reforms, the Liberal government extended their rent control to buildings since 1991 and landlords are required to apply to authorities if they are seeking to increase rent by more than 1.8 per cent next year. This will be done under what is known as The Rental Fairness Act, 2017. The Rental Fairness Act, 2017, will effect all privately-owned rental properties across the province, which is looking to help cities like Barrie from soaring rental prices. The Ontario Ministry of Housing has set the rate at 1.8 per cent, basing it on the provincial consumer price index, in the hopes of providing better housing to Ontarians. Barrie is in need of this cap. Based on data collected from PadMapper at the end of January, Barrie is the eighth most expensive city to rent in, when just three months prior it was sitting at 15th. It is now one of the most expensive cities in Canada to rent in. For example, recent rental rates have the average price of a two-bedroom unit sitting around $1,500 per month plus utilities. Renters are having trouble trying to find anything lower than that, even with a budget of $1,000 a month (inclusive), prospective renters are spending months searching for a place they can afford. With the new reforms in place, it will allow renters to afford to get into an apartment, and live there year after year, without the fear of rent being increased to an amount they will struggle to afford – it will be more predictable which can help renters get their finances in order. These protections come after a series of “unreasonable” rent increases and tenants being evicted from their units by their landlords. Landlords will now face a penalty if they evict tenants for personal reasons such as moving in a family member. Additionally, Premier Kathleen Wynne implemented this as part of their housing reforms in order to cool down the then-overheated housing market in April, when units built after 1991 were showing evidence of rent and sale price increases. There are exceptions to this cap. The cap does not apply to: Vacant units Social housing Nursing homes Commercial properties If a landlord makes improvements to their units, they have the option to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for increases (no more than 2.5 per cent). As a result, 250,000 tenants will be protected and 1.2 million private rental units will have to follow the new rent cap. If you are in need of a Barrie Real Estate lawyer, please visit our website and contact one of our Barrie Real Estate lawyers today. If you are in need of any other services or have any questions, you may also contact our Barrie office directly at 705-812-2100. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateJune 27, 2017June 22, 2020