Notice of Rent Increase (N1)
Parking Charges
TSL-22903-11 (Re), 2012 CanLII 21464 (ON LTB)
8. Section 123 says: “A landlord may increase the rent charged to a tenant for a rental unit as prescribed at any time if the landlord and the tenant agree that the landlord will add any of the following with respect to the tenant’s occupancy of the rental unit… A parking space.”
9. What this means is that the twelve month rule does not apply to increases in the rent that result from a landlord and tenant agreeing to add a service like parking. In other words, a landlord has the right to increase the rent once a year and that right is not affected by tenants choosing to add services between anniversary dates.
10. With respect to the argument that the base rent used on the NORI should have been the amount the Tenant was paying on the date the NORI was served is not an argument explicitly addressed by the Act. That being said, it seems to me that the very concept of an “increase” means that on a certain date the rent will go from A to B and B must be calculated based on A. So if a NORI is served for October 1, 2010 the proper starting rent to base the increase on must be the rent that was in effect for September, 2010. To say that the starting rent should be the amount charged back in May on the date the NORI was served is not particularly logical given the concept of an increase which occurs at one date in time. More importantly, if the argument was accepted it would defeat the explicit intention of subsection 119(2). As a result, I am satisfied that a rent increase that is supposed to be effective October 1, 2010 should be based on the rent charged for September, 2010 plus the increase sought.
7. In my view, it is not the date on which the NORI was prepared that determines its validity; rather, it is the date on which it is served. It is the giving of notice in a form approved by the Board containing the information required by the Act and with the amount of notice required by the Act, which is the prerequisite to the right of a landlord to increase rent under section 116 of the Act. The purpose of giving notice would not be served if the information contained in the notice is inaccurate at the time notice is given. In this case, before the Second NORI had been served, the lawful rent had been established by the AGI Order on November 24, 2016. The requested increase of 3.59% above that lawful rent would not result in a new rent amount of $1,684.60 as was stated in the Second NORI, but would result in a new rent of $1,678.28. Therefore, the information contained in the Second NORI was inaccurate at the time it was given to the Tenant in December, 2016 because it overstated how much the new rent would be if the Landlord succeeded on its second AGI application.
24. I am not convinced that the error relating to the AGI portion of the increase on the Second NORI resulted in any confusion on the part of the Tenant in relation to the guideline portion of the increase. I am also satisfied, pursuant to section 212 of the Act, that the Second NORI substantially complies with the Act in relation to an increase by the guideline amount.
Guide Line Increase
| Year | Rate |
| 2019 | 1.8 |
| 2018 | 1.8 |
| 2017 | 1.5 |
| 2016 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 1.6 |
| 2014 | 0.8 |
| 2013 | 2.5 |
| 2012 | 3.1 |
| 2011 | 0.7 |
| 2010 | 2.1 |
| 2009 | 1.8 |
| 2008 | 1.4 |
| 2007 | 2.6 |
| 2006 | 2.1 |
| 2005 | 1.5 |
| 2004 | 2.9 |
| 2003 | 2.9 |
| 2002 | 3.9 |
| 2001 | 2.9 |
| 2000 | 2.6 |
| 1999 | 3.0 |
| 1998 | 3.0 |
| 1997 | 2.8 |
| 1996 | 2.8 |
| 1995 | 2.9 |
| 1994 | 3.2 |
| 1993 | 4.9 |
| 1992 | 6.0 |
| 1991 | 5.4 |
