Quote:
Originally Posted by MickMcGeough
Also, thanks cowboy for the links, it got me reading more about the new Bill 34 legislation and it turned out that the landlord cannot actually increase my rent for awhile yet. The new legislation states:
The landlady believes that this means that any rent increases after April 24, 2007 cannot be increased again for 365 days, but that the first rent increase isn't subject to this law. That is to say that my rent could have been increased March 1, 2007 and she could increase it again on August 1, 2007, but then she couldn't do it again until August 1, 2008. I think this is incorrect. It seems to me that after April 24, 2007, any rent increase is subject to this law and the increase cannot be effective until a year has passed since the last increase, even if the last increase was prior to April 24, 2007.
You made my day Cowboy! If I'm understanding that law correctly, you just saved me a lot of headache.
|
Not sure whether you are or not, but it always helps to read the source material and any changes made to it. From my non-legal background I'd agree with you. However, if you get shoved aside by the landlord after discussing this, probably the best course of action is to start rounding up other tenants in the building and seek counsel. What I do know about the law is that there is what happens in the court room and also what happens out of the court room. Any lawyer I've spoken to about any civil or contract law issues has said that both sides' least desireable outcome is to go to court. It's costly, takes time, can be very public for corporations wishing to maintain a good image, and also scares possible investors away from the project. Just the possibility of a legal challange might result in an out of court agreement that suits you better should it come to that. Good Luck!