Hello Residents of 1840 and 1850 Bloor Street, Mississauga ON,
This is in reference to the Landlord and Tentant Board file number CEL-71486-17.
Did you know that you are currently paying rent above guidelines even though the legal process for that increase has not been completed and is being challenged ? ?
The reason for that is that the landlord (rep by Ranee Management) has completed repairs that qualify them to request this increase. It is important to note however, that the landlord and tenant board has yet to approve this increase even though you are currently paying for it.
We are a group of tenants that are trying to help out. We want to ensure that the repairs were required and that the costs are correctly represented. However, to do that we require your consent on forms related to this matter.
If you would like us to fight against this increase for you, please sign this petition. By signing the petition you are providing this consent in writing and it will help us help you ensure that you are not paying for what you shouldn't be.
Thank you,
Fellow residents of 1840 and 1850 Bloor Street
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2019 update:
Hello, despite the lack of regular updates, we've been hard at work collecting information and preparing our defense.
If you are attending the hearing please vote for Maria Constantin-Evenson to represent 1850 Bloor Street and Joanna Gadzinski to represent 1840 Bloor Street.
They will also have a copy of the document we will be submitting at the hearing. It was prepared by our group with the help on a Professional Engineer that does Restoration work and resides in the building. He was not able to make it to the hearing.
___________________________________________________________________________
January 31, 2019 Update 2 - Post Hearing:
Dear Fellow Tenants,
On January 31st, the scheduled Merit Hearing in regards to the AGI, file CEL-71486-17 was spent.
Let me start off with thanking everyone that put in effort from handing out informative flyers to putting in countless hours in research, callings, meetings, drafting strategy, document editing, understanding and explaining everything to the rest of us and finallypresenting it in such a successful manner at the LTB hearing. Many thanks to Mazen, Maria, Joanna, Mario, Dragos, Gianina, Ivana, Lucian and many others. Special greeting to Nevio who helped us
to prove the best of ourselves.
Our strategy at the Hearing was counting two possible scenarios at hands: a) requesting Adjournment and b) proceed with the Hearing ifthe Adjournment denied, in this case addressing two core aspects suchas errors and omissions in the AGI and eligibility of the capital expenditures and their eligible amounts.
To recapitulate what occurred at the Hearing:
- Tenants’ representation was covered by Maria, Joanna and Mario (the latter, a great team addition at hands)
- The Tenants asked the LTB to adjourn the Hearing as Renee had not given us all the necessary documentation to proceed with the Hearing.
- This request was disregarded by the Adjudicator claiming the information the Tenants requested will not have a impact on the outcome of this AGI.
- The Landlord offered to settle once more - the offer was denied.
- The Landlord claimed that tenants had complained prior to work about the exterior balcony rails and were concerned for their safety (though no proof of that was provided)
- The landlord presented their case, with an "expert" witness; which was the contractor responsible to do the work for both buildings.
Moving forward to the first item on the agenda at Hearing:
-The Tenants requested the application be resubmitted as two applications as the builds are two separate entities, with different postal codes, amenities, and cost work. The response we received from LTB indicated that they viewed this application more like a complex;
instead of two different buildings.
- The balconies came into question and the Landlord brought up the contractor as an expert witness and asked them to tell the LTB why the balconies needed to be replaced.
- Tenants now had the chance to cross-examine the witness; where technical questions were asked and the witness failed to satisfy us with the answer.
- Tenants indicated and demonstrated that spending balcony related such as prior repairs on first floor both buildings, accounting slab work mainly related to railings installment, ceiling painting and tint glass are cosmetic in nature therefore they must be subtracted from the total balcony cost. Revision of useful life according to RTA was pointed as well. The Adjudicator took notes but gave no indication as to what the outcome will be after.
- After going through multiple examples of calculations that show how wrong input alters the math behind the % rent increase above guidelines claimed by the landlord, procedures and pointing out that the landlord failed to carry the burden of proof that is required to justify why this project is a capital expenditure as well as "necessary"; the landlord dropped the other 6 items on the AGI application.
This Hearing concluded with the Tenants arguing the costs are to be fully dismissed as the landlord did not prove this was a "necessary" expense.
It is up to the Adjudicator to provide us with the new percentage of increase after amending the AGI. However, we know it will be drastically less as 6 out of 7 items have been removed completely. It was indicated to us, by the LTB that we will all receive in a month mail directly from them, informing us of the final decision from LTBand this landlord's AGI application.
Regardless the result, we believe a lot was achieved and this effort does not go unnoticed. This experience was hugely instructive in preparing us for the next AGIs. Stay alert from now on for any future work or issue to happen in our buildings and document everything. It might save your pocket one day.
Again, a big big big thank you to everyone that came out.
Your Tireless Group of Tenants
A copy of the document submitted document can be found here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vqni0ctk7qt0cbk/MH%20File%20CEL-71486-17.pdf?dl=0
Updates
March 28, 2019
We are currently reviewing the documentation supplied by Ranee Management to verify the accuracy of the requested capital expenditure claims. Your signatures continue to provide the necessary authorization for us to challenge these increases before the Landlord and Tenant Board.
Reached 100 supporters
March 28, 2019
132 Comments
I can pay up to $100 for a fund to allow us legal representation. Otherwise we will lose in court, if we will face an experienced lawyer.
Been living in 1850 bloor st since 2004, the want to increase rent, how about doing proper repairs on units of long time tenants first. Getting new floors in the kitchen was like pulling teeth, bathroom had been renovated but is worse then before. Could use new kitchen cabinets considering new tenants are moving in to new kitchens.
Let's focus to the issue at hand: legally, Ranee is entitled to apply for rent increase above the guidelines for capital expenditure. Going in court with "revolutionary" approach ("STOP THIS INCREASE. IT IS NOT RIGHT! " or "stop corporate greed!!!") is not going to help. The judge wants to hear LEGAL arguments . So, I suggest let's hire ASAP a legal counselor.
1402-1840 This building group have the nerve to increase the rent more than allowed when basic maintenance isn't performed on a regular basis. The underground parking entrance to the building doors are always falling apart and need to be accessible. The garage doors look to have 1970s technology and is out of service on a regular basis.
I do not agree with Renee's rent increase due to inflated price application on item such as: landscaping,elevator ,electrical maintenance, paving expenses,incomplete work, balcony work incomplete for workmanship.
Sir, It seems like you lack the basic understanding about how a society works! "but dwelling is a basic need to anyone" Yes, it is, like food and clothing! Would you go to Wal-Mart and demand free /cheap food because is a "basic need"???? Why a private entity should be concerned about your "basic needs"? I understand the government with social housing, but a private landlord???? "It is an extra rent portion on top of multiple extra rent portions accumulated over time starting with your contract" Yes, it is but not more than inflation rate. You wouldn’t expect somebody who rented 20 years ago to pay the same rent today, would you??? Do you expect interest on your money held in the bank? So do the landlord…. "I share expenses with Tenants from my building, not with those from your building" This is not "your building "versus "my building". This is a group of buildings under the same owner; the adjudicator provided a clear explanation of the facts about this. "Renting a dwelling is not anymore cheap" If renting is not cheap, why do you expect to get a "cheap" rent and not compensate the landlord for its effort to maintain the building? "Do not ignore the fact that a Landlord builds huge profit based on the Tenants paid service." I am not sure about that: few months ago I wanted to buy an identical apartment on Fielgate , 2 bedrooms /second floor / 1 parking spot outside, all these for $380,000. Interest for 25 years would have been $190,000,that is $630 /month @3.5 % interest. Maintenance fee: $450 / month ; hydro $150/month; property tax $250/month; insurance $75/month.; rent one more parking spot $100/month ; repairs or improvements inside :$50/month TOTAL: $1705/ month + the rate of your principal ($380,000 that is $1266/ month) So, beside the value of the apartment, which will be yours in the end, you pay monthly something similar to "rent" in amount of $1705/ month. Now, you can judge how much profit is makin
To: devil's advocate “You asked for arguments.” I asked you to ground your overarching/insulting statements such us “Tenants’ defense was childish”. You failed to do that. “If you want to play Che Guevara in curt, most likely is not going to work.” I am not a fan of Che or a left ideology. You don’t need to be red to flag greediness and injustice when they happen. “The increase will be $35- $45 per month. Now, if this amount puts significant stress on your finances, you have to think on a long term solution, like moving to a different rental location or splitting the expense with somebody else.” First, your math is pure guessing. My rent increase is almost $60 per month. This is 720 per year and 9360 over 13 years (I did not count the sequent rent increases that will ad on top of that). I did not count how much profit one renting brings to Landlord. Second, there is no more affordable renting in GTA. Third, it is right to fight excessive rent increases and to advocate ways to force Landlords to build investment fund upon a % from their overall profit, not from squeezing continuously Tenant’s pocket which crystal clear abuse. Fourth, what gives you authority to judge struggling Tenants who you think you are to suggest what is best for others? Fifth, are you prepared to share your apartment with one in need? How about your car? How about your Visa? “Even without this increase, the general living expenses will increase with more than that in a year, so that person will be in trouble regardless of rent increase or not.” So, because living expenses go up yearly anyway, let’s welcome every rent increase above guidelines. Living expenses go high because the regular worker fights not for higher wages. “The difference was $16,000; divided by; let's say, 100 apt. and 13 years and 12 months will be $1.025 / month per apartment.” No, that number is translated into a % that creates an increase carried monthly for 13 years. But regardless the amount the
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via . Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Copy link or share directly
Hello Residents of 1840 and 1850 Bloor Street, Mississauga ON,
This is in reference to the Landlord and Tentant Board file number CEL-71486-17.
Did you know that you are currently paying rent above guidelines even though the legal process for that increase has not been completed and is being challenged ? ?
The reason for that is that the landlord (rep by Ranee Management) has completed repairs that qualify them to request this increase. It is important to note however, that the landlord and tenant board has yet to approve this increase even though you are currently paying for it.
We are a group of tenants that are trying to help out. We want to ensure that the repairs were required and that the costs are correctly represented. However, to do that we require your consent on forms related to this matter.
If you would like us to fight against this increase for you, please sign this petition. By signing the petition you are providing this consent in writing and it will help us help you ensure that you are not paying for what you shouldn't be.
Thank you,
Fellow residents of 1840 and 1850 Bloor Street
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2019 update:
Hello, despite the lack of regular updates, we've been hard at work collecting information and preparing our defense.
If you are attending the hearing please vote for Maria Constantin-Evenson to represent 1850 Bloor Street and Joanna Gadzinski to represent 1840 Bloor Street.
They will also have a copy of the document we will be submitting at the hearing. It was prepared by our group with the help on a Professional Engineer that does Restoration work and resides in the building. He was not able to make it to the hearing.
___________________________________________________________________________
January 31, 2019 Update 2 - Post Hearing:
Dear Fellow Tenants,
On January 31st, the scheduled Merit Hearing in regards to the AGI, file CEL-71486-17 was spent.
Let me start off with thanking everyone that put in effort from handing out informative flyers to putting in countless hours in research, callings, meetings, drafting strategy, document editing, understanding and explaining everything to the rest of us and finallypresenting it in such a successful manner at the LTB hearing. Many thanks to Mazen, Maria, Joanna, Mario, Dragos, Gianina, Ivana, Lucian and many others. Special greeting to Nevio who helped us
to prove the best of ourselves.
Our strategy at the Hearing was counting two possible scenarios at hands: a) requesting Adjournment and b) proceed with the Hearing ifthe Adjournment denied, in this case addressing two core aspects suchas errors and omissions in the AGI and eligibility of the capital expenditures and their eligible amounts.
To recapitulate what occurred at the Hearing:
- Tenants’ representation was covered by Maria, Joanna and Mario (the latter, a great team addition at hands)
- The Tenants asked the LTB to adjourn the Hearing as Renee had not given us all the necessary documentation to proceed with the Hearing.
- This request was disregarded by the Adjudicator claiming the information the Tenants requested will not have a impact on the outcome of this AGI.
- The Landlord offered to settle once more - the offer was denied.
- The Landlord claimed that tenants had complained prior to work about the exterior balcony rails and were concerned for their safety (though no proof of that was provided)
- The landlord presented their case, with an "expert" witness; which was the contractor responsible to do the work for both buildings.
Moving forward to the first item on the agenda at Hearing:
-The Tenants requested the application be resubmitted as two applications as the builds are two separate entities, with different postal codes, amenities, and cost work. The response we received from LTB indicated that they viewed this application more like a complex;
instead of two different buildings.
- The balconies came into question and the Landlord brought up the contractor as an expert witness and asked them to tell the LTB why the balconies needed to be replaced.
- Tenants now had the chance to cross-examine the witness; where technical questions were asked and the witness failed to satisfy us with the answer.
- Tenants indicated and demonstrated that spending balcony related such as prior repairs on first floor both buildings, accounting slab work mainly related to railings installment, ceiling painting and tint glass are cosmetic in nature therefore they must be subtracted from the total balcony cost. Revision of useful life according to RTA was pointed as well. The Adjudicator took notes but gave no indication as to what the outcome will be after.
- After going through multiple examples of calculations that show how wrong input alters the math behind the % rent increase above guidelines claimed by the landlord, procedures and pointing out that the landlord failed to carry the burden of proof that is required to justify why this project is a capital expenditure as well as "necessary"; the landlord dropped the other 6 items on the AGI application.
This Hearing concluded with the Tenants arguing the costs are to be fully dismissed as the landlord did not prove this was a "necessary" expense.
It is up to the Adjudicator to provide us with the new percentage of increase after amending the AGI. However, we know it will be drastically less as 6 out of 7 items have been removed completely. It was indicated to us, by the LTB that we will all receive in a month mail directly from them, informing us of the final decision from LTBand this landlord's AGI application.
Regardless the result, we believe a lot was achieved and this effort does not go unnoticed. This experience was hugely instructive in preparing us for the next AGIs. Stay alert from now on for any future work or issue to happen in our buildings and document everything. It might save your pocket one day.
Again, a big big big thank you to everyone that came out.
Your Tireless Group of Tenants
A copy of the document submitted document can be found here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vqni0ctk7qt0cbk/MH%20File%20CEL-71486-17.pdf?dl=0
Updates
March 28, 2019
We are currently reviewing the documentation supplied by Ranee Management to verify the accuracy of the requested capital expenditure claims. Your signatures continue to provide the necessary authorization for us to challenge these increases before the Landlord and Tenant Board.
Reached 100 supporters
March 28, 2019
132 Comments
my rent was increased 4.8% last may. just received notice for another 4.8% for this may. these repairs do not justify an increase of 100.00 a month over 2 years.
I can pay up to $100 for a fund to allow us legal representation. Otherwise we will lose in court, if we will face an experienced lawyer.
Been living in 1850 bloor st since 2004, the want to increase rent, how about doing proper repairs on units of long time tenants first. Getting new floors in the kitchen was like pulling teeth, bathroom had been renovated but is worse then before. Could use new kitchen cabinets considering new tenants are moving in to new kitchens.
Let's focus to the issue at hand: legally, Ranee is entitled to apply for rent increase above the guidelines for capital expenditure. Going in court with "revolutionary" approach ("STOP THIS INCREASE. IT IS NOT RIGHT! " or "stop corporate greed!!!") is not going to help. The judge wants to hear LEGAL arguments . So, I suggest let's hire ASAP a legal counselor.
1402-1840 This building group have the nerve to increase the rent more than allowed when basic maintenance isn't performed on a regular basis. The underground parking entrance to the building doors are always falling apart and need to be accessible. The garage doors look to have 1970s technology and is out of service on a regular basis.
I do not agree with Renee's rent increase due to inflated price application on item such as: landscaping,elevator ,electrical maintenance, paving expenses,incomplete work, balcony work incomplete for workmanship.
Sir, It seems like you lack the basic understanding about how a society works! "but dwelling is a basic need to anyone" Yes, it is, like food and clothing! Would you go to Wal-Mart and demand free /cheap food because is a "basic need"???? Why a private entity should be concerned about your "basic needs"? I understand the government with social housing, but a private landlord???? "It is an extra rent portion on top of multiple extra rent portions accumulated over time starting with your contract" Yes, it is but not more than inflation rate. You wouldn’t expect somebody who rented 20 years ago to pay the same rent today, would you??? Do you expect interest on your money held in the bank? So do the landlord…. "I share expenses with Tenants from my building, not with those from your building" This is not "your building "versus "my building". This is a group of buildings under the same owner; the adjudicator provided a clear explanation of the facts about this. "Renting a dwelling is not anymore cheap" If renting is not cheap, why do you expect to get a "cheap" rent and not compensate the landlord for its effort to maintain the building? "Do not ignore the fact that a Landlord builds huge profit based on the Tenants paid service." I am not sure about that: few months ago I wanted to buy an identical apartment on Fielgate , 2 bedrooms /second floor / 1 parking spot outside, all these for $380,000. Interest for 25 years would have been $190,000,that is $630 /month @3.5 % interest. Maintenance fee: $450 / month ; hydro $150/month; property tax $250/month; insurance $75/month.; rent one more parking spot $100/month ; repairs or improvements inside :$50/month TOTAL: $1705/ month + the rate of your principal ($380,000 that is $1266/ month) So, beside the value of the apartment, which will be yours in the end, you pay monthly something similar to "rent" in amount of $1705/ month. Now, you can judge how much profit is makin
To: devil's advocate “You asked for arguments.” I asked you to ground your overarching/insulting statements such us “Tenants’ defense was childish”. You failed to do that. “If you want to play Che Guevara in curt, most likely is not going to work.” I am not a fan of Che or a left ideology. You don’t need to be red to flag greediness and injustice when they happen. “The increase will be $35- $45 per month. Now, if this amount puts significant stress on your finances, you have to think on a long term solution, like moving to a different rental location or splitting the expense with somebody else.” First, your math is pure guessing. My rent increase is almost $60 per month. This is 720 per year and 9360 over 13 years (I did not count the sequent rent increases that will ad on top of that). I did not count how much profit one renting brings to Landlord. Second, there is no more affordable renting in GTA. Third, it is right to fight excessive rent increases and to advocate ways to force Landlords to build investment fund upon a % from their overall profit, not from squeezing continuously Tenant’s pocket which crystal clear abuse. Fourth, what gives you authority to judge struggling Tenants who you think you are to suggest what is best for others? Fifth, are you prepared to share your apartment with one in need? How about your car? How about your Visa? “Even without this increase, the general living expenses will increase with more than that in a year, so that person will be in trouble regardless of rent increase or not.” So, because living expenses go up yearly anyway, let’s welcome every rent increase above guidelines. Living expenses go high because the regular worker fights not for higher wages. “The difference was $16,000; divided by; let's say, 100 apt. and 13 years and 12 months will be $1.025 / month per apartment.” No, that number is translated into a % that creates an increase carried monthly for 13 years. But regardless the amount the
Help this petition grow
Share it with friends to help reach 250 signatures.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via .
Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
Signing with Google or Facebook verifies your signature instantly — no email needed.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
my rent was increased 4.8% last may. just received notice for another 4.8% for this may. these repairs do not justify an increase of 100.00 a month over 2 years.