Anxiety is high among tenants of yet another Guelph apartment building facing eviction by an owner planning to demolish it.
Evictions due to demolition and renovations are becoming a growing problem in Guelph and Ontario, a problem experts say requires urgent municipal action.
Charlotte Crewson’s stomach has been in knots since the end of January, when an N13 was delivered to her door, signalling all tenants needed to be out by the end of April.
The building is a small rent-controlled six-plex at 64 Cedar St., just west of Edinburgh Road and south of Wellington Street There are six tenants in total, with the highest rent sitting at $1,168 and the lowest under $800.
“I’ve lived in my unit for six years,” she said. “But I lived there previously before with my dad in high school and then I had my first apartment there.”
Her dad has lived there for around 25 years; everyone else in the building has been there for 10 or more.
“It’s an old building, but there’s nothing structurally wrong with it,” she said. “The roof has been redone, the driveways have been repaved, the windows are new. We just got two brand new hot water heaters.”
Five of the units are two-bedrooms and one is a one-bedroom. Though all the tenants work full-time, they can’t afford market value; as of January the average one-bedroom apartment in Guelph goes for $2,056, and a two-bedroom for $2,387.
She believes the original landlord had owned the building since it was built in the 70s, and sold because of his age.
Land registry records show 64 Cedar Street Inc. purchased the building for $1.1 million on Nov. 29, 2024. A Daniello Luongo is listed as the president, vice-president, manager, secretary, director or treasurer authorized to act for the corporation.
Another apartment building in the process of being renovated at 493 Victoria Rd. N. was purchased by Roberto Luongo in January of 2024. Both share the same service address as Daniko Property Management in Erin.
Daniko Management did not respond to request for comment.
The paralegal who signed the N13 responded via email.
“I would appreciate if you could please cease from contacting me, unless your inquiry pertains to a legal matter, and not trivial media concerns,” said Rana Muasher, of Rana Muasher Legal Services.
The reason for the demolition remains unclear, including whether the intention is to create more housing by severing the existing units or tearing the whole building down.
It’s worth noting a representative of Luongo’s has previously stated the reason for renovating the Victoria Road North apartments was to address the housing crisis by creating more units.
No-fault evictions like demovictions and renovictions are becoming increasingly commonplace.
“People across Ontario are being displaced from their homes due to a rise in demovictions and renovictions,” says the website created by the Toronto tenant group No Demovictions.
“This practice, although justified as one of the only means of building more housing, destroys the stock of affordable housing and displaces lower income tenants who are unable to afford skyrocketing rent rates.”
Director of advocacy and legal services for the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, Douglas Kwan, agrees.
“If you look over the span of four years, we’ve seen probably a 20 per cent increase,” he said of demovictions and renovictions.
What’s happening, he said, is investors are seeing older rent-controlled buildings that can only go up two and a half per cent every year, and realizing that newer buildings can charge much higher rents.
“They’re looking at that and realizing… that the only way to evict a tenant when they’ve done nothing wrong is through these no-fault evictions, like renovictions and demovictions,” he said.
“Certainly the province has also recognized that this has increased because they passed Bill 97,” he said.
The bill, dubbed the Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act, made a series of amendments to seven provincial acts, including the Building Code Act and the Residential Tenancies Act.
For example, while tenants have the right to return to their old unit once work is completed, there are no rules that require landlords to give former tenants adequate notice their unit is available.
With Bill 97, landlords are required to provide 60 days notice to a tenant that the unit is ready for them to reoccupy.
While the bill was passed in June of 2023, he said the portions of the bill that would provide greater tenant protections have yet to be enforced, which is why many municipalities are taking it upon themselves to pass anti-renoviction bylaws.
But anti-renoviction bylaws don’t protect against demovictions, which is where rental replacement bylaws come in.
Bylaws in Toronto and Hamilton dictate the landlord will pay the difference in rent while renovations are going on until the tenant can move back in at their original rent, he said
“That acts as a strong disincentive for those who are trying to game the system,” Kwan said.
Until the province prioritizes the creation of truly affordable housing across Ontario, he said both bylaws are needed in each municipality “to plug the holes in this leaky bathtub.”
Guelph city staff are in the process of developing an anti-renoviction bylaw, although it’s unknown when it will be presented to council .
It would not prevent legal evictions, but act as a deterrent for bad faith actors, said Coun. Erin Caton in an email.
“It is most certainly upsetting and I wish we had more ability to keep people in their current affordable homes. The province is just pushing more people into potential homelessness in the name of "more housing" and failing to build affordable housing at the same time,” Caton said.
Caton added it would help if the province would allow municipalities to block permits for renovations or demolitions unless a tenant is given a comparable unit for the same rent.
But Kwan, while commending municipalities for acting on anti-renoviction bylaws, believes they can do more.
“We’re not talking about contravening provincial laws; we’re talking about enhancing what’s already there,” he said. “Municipalities are fully within the legal right to pass these bylaws, and it’s imperative they recognize that they have this authority.”
The rental housing protection bylaw in Mississauga, for instance, requires a permit for applications to convert or demolish rentals with more than six units, a vacancy rate below three per cent and if rent is 1.75 times the average market rent or lower.
Converted rental units must be retained at similar rents for 20 years; demolished and rebuilt units must also remain at similar rents. It includes stipulations against harassment of tenants as well.
Any property owner who violates the bylaw could face heavy fines.
In Kitchener, the bylaw dictates permits can only be issued if the applicant has worked with city staff to provide documentation of the compensation provided to displaced tenants and the provision of replacement rental units in the new development.
Alternative housing or compensation must be offered to tenants, which could include providing a temporary offsite unit, waiving rent for a year, or paying tenants out (the equivalent of 10 months rent, compared to the three months required under the Residential Tenancies Act).
Developers are likewise required to replace any demolished or converted rental units and maintain affordable rent for a period of 10 years.
Bylaws like these are essential since Bill 97 won’t be an automatic fix, Kwan he said, since it proposes heavy fines for bad actor landlords, which only apply after someone has been evicted.
That affordable unit will never return; once this process takes place, even if the former tenant is compensated, it’s gone, he said.
Renoviction and demoviction interactions also tend to go under the radar because they don’t necessarily need city approval.
For instance, the N13’s were issued at 64 Cedar St. indicating no permits or authorization are required for the demolition.
The lack of accountability is a byproduct of not having a rental registry, he said.
“So it’s up to individual service managers like Guelph and Wellington County to identify where the buildings are that are providing affordable housing, and to ensure those are preserved better, because that’s within their jurisdiction.”
Back at 64 Cedar St., Crewson and the other tenants haven’t heard from Daniko Management since the N13 arrived.
“They’re not plowing the driveways, they’re not providing salt. I don’t know if they’re coming to take the change out of the laundry room.”
Still, they don’t want to leave, and the tenants plan to fight to stay in their homes.
“It’s not just people who have six doors facing out into an empty hallway. We’re a community,” she said. “How can you displace people and say that you’re fixing the problem?”
