AGI Tracker

Some of the 2026 rent increase notices are out and there is an error on the amount.

The Ontario guideline increase for 2026 is 2.1%
The current AGI is for 8.27%.
InterRent has already taken 3% in 2024 and 3% in 2025 for a total of 6%.
That leaves only 2.27% remaining.
So, your increase notice should be for 4.37%

But some people have been receiving notices for 5.1% which is the guildeline plus 3%.

If you have a rent increase notice for anything higher than 4.37%, you will need to contact the business office at 905-646-0861 and get it adjusted.

I have filed a Review Request with the Landlord Tenant Board and they have accepted it. When checking the LTB's Portal repository the casefile status now shows "Under Review".

My decision to only request a review of the first claim on the L5 Application (Balcony Restoration) might seem a little odd at first. But when you examine the AGI Order you will discover this is where the Adjudicator's biases are the most apparent and where our Tenant Submission carries the most evidence to support the request. So this is where we have the best chance of success.

If the claim for the balconies is reversed, that's about half of the AGI's value and when recalculated there would be a reduction in the increase, giving us all an apparent rent reduction.

Of course this is the LTB and a Corporate landlord we are up against, so the outcome is still a complete unknown. We've been through this before in SOL-40297-13 and it turned into a fight royal, lasting over 4 years. But for now we play the waiting game to see what the LTB decides to do next.

Fingers Crossed and Elbows Up!

The Tribunal AGI Order for case file LTB-L-076488-23 arrived today.
Copies of the order and cover letter are in the LTB Case Files section, above.

This is our 5th AGI for renovations, long term tenants are still paying on 4 of them.

File#	Starting	Lifetime	Expires	Increase
SOL-26605	2010-07-01	13 years	2023-07-01	Expired
SOL-40297-13	2013-12-01	13 years	2026-12-01	4.76% - 5.62%
SOL-67472-16	2016-05-01	15 years	2031-05-01	1.25%
SOL-80883-17	2017-07-01	15 years	2032-07-01	7.4%
LTB-L-076488-23	2025-08-19	16 years	2041-08-19	8.27%
Total				21.68% - 22.54%

If you haven't read Part 1 or Part 2 yet, you should read them now.

Since the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act came into force, there has been a steady increase in the number of AGIs filed by landlords. The Landlord and Tenant Board's annual report for 2006 reported 209 L5 (AGI) applications. By 2024 this had risen to 912. A more than four fold increase.

This dramatic increase is largely due to a group of corporate landlords who have turned a corner from applying for an AGI because they did renovations to doing renovations so they can file an AGI. The original purpose of encouraging proper building maintenance has been abandoned. Now, they are abusing above guideline increases as a profit making tool. This is described in great detail in This Report prepared by Philip Zigman and Martine August, of Renovictions TO. Our current landlord earned specific mention in this document. I've highlighted the relevant parts in This Excerpt and they even brag about it in their Investor Presentations.

We have to appreciate that in the process of blatantly abusing AGIs, honesty has already gone right out the window. They will be doing work that is totally unnecessary and filing L5 applications to try and claim the expense of it.

They are, in effect, selling luxury to their investors... at their tenants' expense.

That is what we are seeing in this landlord's AGI Application. Anyone living here prior to April of 2021, when they took over, knows the balconies did not need to be torn up and redone. We all saw the game they played with the lobby intercom. We know the claims in the application were phony as nine dollar bills and should have been denied.

Of course, this explains the lack of evidence in the balcony example from part 2 of this examination. The landlord presented no evidence because the investigation was never done. They didn't care that the building had been renovated multiple times. They didn't care about it's condition at the time. They had decided to redo everything before they ever saw this building. The work they did was not for building maintenance. It was strictly for financial gain, part of their "Repositioning" strategy.

Now comes the hard part...

This is not some billionaire landlord's lunch money we are talking about. This is tenant money. Hard earned Rent Money; and there is a lot of it. There are thousands of AGI files involved, in thousands of buildings. A couple of recent news reports, like This One and This One bring the enormity of it into very clear focus and the numbers are climbing at a rate approaching a thousand a year.

It is very easy to blame landlords. Without doubt, what they are doing is despicable. But, surprisingly, it is not illegal. The Residential Tenancies Act gives them the right to file these applications, in part 126. Fortunately, it does not guarantee success. In fact, we should hope that a properly functioning Tribunal system would catch the phony-balony claims and deny them.

But not only is the LTB not catching them, it appears to be assisting the landlord by approving them. The real enemy is the Landlord Tenant Board who go out of their way to approve upwards of 85% of these claims, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, as we saw in Part 2 and as I've seen in Past Cases.

I can think of only three reasons the LTB would do this:
• Corruption
• Policy
• Incompetence
and none of these should be tolerated.

The only fence between tenants and rental chaos is the Landlord Tenant Board.
Activists and Tenant Advocates need to turn their attention to the LTB, the real enemy, and demand fairness in adjudicating these lawsuits.

Continue to Part 4

If you haven't already read Part 1 of this entry, please read it now.

After spending a couple of days with the LTB's AGI Order in casefile LTB-L-076488-23 I can tell you I've seen this all before.

In SOL-40297-13, as here, the outcome was the result of some very biased and dishonest behaviour. Not by the landlord, by the Landlord Tenant Board, itself. In the First and Last hearing in SOL-40297-13, as in this new order, the adjudicator came into the hearing process with the pre-decided notion to approve the landlord's every claim in full. If you listen to the audio transcripts of those hearings you will find chaos and more than a little inappropriate behaviour from the adjudicators, all calculated to block tenant rebuttals and favour the landlord.

To take one example from this order, let's have a look at Item 1 which is about the balcony repairs:
• First, look at tab 1 of the Landlord Evidence. Notice that he relies entirely upon two contracts, showing the work to be done, completion dates, etc. but does not produce any documentation to show that the balconies actually needed to be repaired or replaced.
• Next, look at tab 1 of my Tenant Submission. In paragraph 3 I point out there is nothing in the landlord's evidence to indicate the work was actually necessary. I then show 130 pictures of balconies in good condition, being used and enjoyed by tenants, demonstrating the work was unnecessary.
• Finally, look at the Landlord Reply. Note that he claims to have consulted with engineers about the work to be done, but failed to produce any evidence (reports, tests, inspections, photographs, etc.) to support his assertions.
• At this point the adjudicator had all the submissions before her and it should be obvious that the landlord has failed to produce any proof that the work done was necessary under the rules set out in the Residential Tenancies Act (p.126) and Ontario Regulation 516/06 (p.18). Moreover, she also had a considerable body of photographic evidence showing the work was not necessary.
• In a fair hearing this should have resulted in a finding that the landlord had failed to meet his burden of proof. Item 1 would then be denied under part 126.8 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which excludes rent increases by reason that the balconies were not proven to need major repair or replacement.
• So what does the adjudicator do?
  She spends paragraphs 34 through 56 of her order, building the landlord's case for him so that she can approve the rent increase for Item 1.
• Interestingly enough, she used information from contracts and accepted the landlord's claims of consulting engineers at face value; neither of which actually prove the work done was necessary.

Other sections of the Order follow the same pattern of the adjudicator heavily favouring the landlord.
In colloquial terms: We were railroaded... by the LTB!

Continue to Part 3

The Landlord Tenant Board has issued it's AGI Order in casefile LTB-L-076488-23... and it is not good news for us tenants. They have given the landlord every penny he asked for. That is an 8.27% rent increase (~$150 per month) for everyone listed at the bottom of the order.

By Tribunal Instruction it will arrive in our mail slots on or before September 2, 2025.

Rent Arrears:
• If you've been paying as you go, your account should be in order.
• If you have been holding back the AGI amount from your rent, you will need to pay the arrears. This will amount to several hundred dollars as it will encompass the first year at 3% of your rent, plus the second year at 6%.
• You will have up to 4 months to pay any arrears in monthly amounts negotiated with the landlord.
• You may also have a rent adjustment increase for the balance of this year to pay as you go.
• In any case, you will have one more increase of 2.27% plus the province's annual increase on your next rent increase.
• The final 8.27% AGI increase will last for 16 years, expiring In August of 2041.

Be aware that if your name is on the list at the bottom of this order, you are caught up in it with no choice but to pay the rent increases. To not pay them will almost certainly result in eviction.

---

I feel very badly about this outcome. I am currently studying the order looking for anything that can be used to call for a review. It isn't enough that I/we might not like the outcome. There needs to be a serious error in judgement or law before we can seek further litigation. If none are found, we're stuck with this decision as it is.

Continue to Part 2.

Landlord's Reply to the various tenant submissions arrived in email Friday afternoon. After looking it over I prepared a Final Rebuttal hoping to get it in before the adjudicator's deliberations start on Monday (2025-06-02).

Ordinarily I would have left it at the Landlord's reply but there were a few issues I felt the need to address. Frankly, I find myself wondering if this "lawyer" of theirs actually understands how evidence works.

[2025-06-02] This resulted in the landlord Objecting to the rebuttal and me Countering the landlord's objections. Hopefully that silliness is over and done.

Now there is nothing left to do now but wait for the Adjudicator's Order to publish, hopefully sometime in June.

Over the last few days I've been contacted by a number of tenants who are receiving unpaid rent notifications from InterRent's accounting departments.

Since January of 2024 they have been billing rent increases at 5.25%. This includes the mandatory provincial amount of 2.5% plus an extra 3% to cover the rent increases from the current AGI. Most are already on their second year of this, some are seeing it for the first time.

You are obligated to pay the 2.5% allowed by the province. No question about that.

However, the additional 3% is optional. You have the choice to pay the increase incrementally along with your rent (per their billings) or you can elect to withhold that portion of the increase until there is a Tribunal Order saying that you must pay it.

In the first case you will almost certainly be overpaid by the time the Tribunal Order issues. You will then need to make arrangements with InterRent's accounting office to deduct any overpayments from your rent.

In the second case you must inform them of your intention to hold back the additional amount. You cannot just not pay it, they need to adjust your billing information. Be aware that you will find yourself owing a lump sum payment to catch up on any arrears when the Tribunal Order is issued, so be sure to set the extra money for this aside.

They are required by law, to allow you to withhold the extra 3%. If they have been sending you notices, you will need to contact their accounting office and get this straightened out immediately.

Call the Building Admin number -- 905-646-0861 -- explain that you are being billed for an AGI Increase and choose not to pay until the Tribunal Order issues. They should connect you through to their accounting office where the appropriate adjustments can be made.

Based on the rules set out in the Notice of Written Hearing, the May 17th deadline for tenant submissions into this case is now passed. See the file list at the top of this page to view/download the submissions that were sent.

Now we wait for the landlord's deadline. He has until June 1st to respond to tenant submissions.

I have uploaded my Tenant Submission to the Landlord Tenant Board's evidence portal and notified both them and our landlord's lawyer by email.

The AGI problem
Capital Expenses in Above Guideline Increase cases (AGIs) have always been a problem for tenants, adjudicators and lawyers alike. They are slow moving processes where considerable time elapses between the decision to renovate and the delivery of the AGI paperwork to respondents. During this interregnum all evidence and knowledge of the state of the building before the work began is lost to time and the work itself. Tenants are typically slow to react, often finding themselves broadsided as the papers arrive at their doors. Legal representatives have no real knowledge of the building and are left with only convoluted arguments about maintenance and cosmetics. Worse still, the adjudicator in these cases will most likely have no knowledge of the building at all.

Imagine an adjudicator making a rent increase decision on a building he's never seen and with information supplied only by the landlord. This is far more common than you might think. In fact, it is the rule, not the exception.

Because of this problem, most AGIs are approved without challenge.
Because of this loophole, many landlords have begun taking advantage of the system.

About my submission
I've lived in this building for 40 years. I've been witness to 5 full renovations and been hit with 4 AGIs. This has shown me a pattern of abuse by landlords that becomes more obvious with each repetition. So, it is fair to say that I saw this one coming a mile away.

I've been gathering information and evidence since the day our current landlord took over this building. I've amassed hundreds of pictures, kept every notice and memo and catalogued the building's history. I knew an AGI was coming and I wanted to be ready for it when it did.

Our adjudicator does not have to go into this decision blind.

In my submission, I've taken a story telling approach that informs the Adjudictor about the building's ownership, renovation and AGI history. In each of the 5 items claimed, I've responded to the landlord's evidence and where possible, offered my own evidence to show the building's condition shortly before the work started. I have also taken steps to expose our landlord's dishonesty, especially in the claims for the balconies and lobby intercom.

In a fair hearing, I believe we will be able to significantly reduce the rent increase, if not eliminate it outright.

There's still time
The deadline for submissions is May 17th. If you are on the List Of Parties and still living in this building, you have the right to make your own subissions, giving testimony and/or evidence for our case.

The instructions for making your submissions are in the Notice of Hearing you received in the mail.

The landlord's replies are due by June 1st. So, until then, we wait.

My request for an Interactive Hearing has been Denied so we are going forward with a written hearing.

Today's mail delivery brought a nice heavy brown envelope with copies of the Notice of Hearing for our current AGI, including tenant instructions, a bunch of page updates for the original L5 Application and a copy of the Landlord's Evidence. Lots of interesting stuff to read!

The timeline remains as before:

• April 16th - Service of the notice and related documents
• May 17th - Deadline for written submissions by tenants
• June 1st - Deadline for landlord responses to tenants
• The Adjudicator considers the submissions and issues an order

I've also put copies of the relevant documents online for you to view or download with your web browser:

I am preparing a detailed response on behalf of those on my Agency Authorization list.
If you are named in the List Of Parties and have not signed up, please Contact Me and we can arrange a time for you to sign a slip. I will be accepting new signatures until May 14, 2025.

All parties have the right to make their own written submissions.
See the Notice of Hearing for instructions. When preparing a submission, be sure to keep it relevant. Submit information only about the 5 claims listed on the L5 application. Stay with facts and evidence, opinions and pleading will get you no place.

Checking the LTB Portal this afternoon, I've discovered that we are scheduled for a Written Hearing on the merits of the landlord's application. There is a Direction To Serve instructing our landlord to serve the notice on or before April 17th of 2025. There is also a copy of the Notice Of Written Hearing that we will receive along with a copy of the application and any documents related to it.

The timeline is as follows:

• April 17th - Service of the notice and related documents
• May 17th - Deadline for written submissions by tenants
• June 1st - Deadline for landlord responses to tenants
• The Adjudicator considers the submissions and issues an order

Legally, everyone on the List Of Parties who is still in residence in this building has the right to make submissions to this process. The papers coming will explain how to file your submissions, which are generally sent in as PDF documents.

However: This may not be our best course of action. As I've said before, this isn't an ordinary AGI. There are multiple irregularities in the landlord's actions and the L5 application. These are best explored in an interactive hearing where witnesses can be questioned and testimony and evidence can be challenged in real time.

I have filed a Request for Interactive Hearing outlining the reasons a written hearing is not adequate in this case and requesting the hearing be held either in person or over Zoom. I urge you do to the same.

Write to agiunit@ontario.ca Be sure the subject line reads "LTB-076488-23 Request For Interactive Hearing". Please, make your request simple and to the point.

Resuming agency authorization
Agency Authorization allows me to be your 'agent' and to speak on your behalf in a hearing.

As most of you will know, I've been doing the research and accumulating information about this case from the day InterRent took control of this building. In my opinion, it makes far more sense to present a single unified response that speaks for the general body of tenants. To this end, I strongly suggest that if you have not signed an Agency Authorization slip, you should do so now. Those who have already signed up can relax and allow me to act on their behalf.

To sign up for Agency Authorization, please Contact Me and we can arrange a time. It only takes a couple of minutes and it's completely free.

Also be sure to talk to your neighbours and remind them to check this Blog regularly.
News and updates will be posted as they happen.

This morning was our case management hearing. As expected only a small number of tenants attended.

The most interesting parts were the group discussion before and after the hearing. We all pulled together rather nicely and worked as a team. I ended up representing all present. I do want to thank those in attendance for their faith in me.

After listening to the landlord's itemization of the Capital Expenditures, it was moved by a unanimous vote that we all wanted to move to a Merits Hearing because of serious inconsistencies in their claims.

So now we wait. We will receive notice of the Merit hearing through our mail slots, just like we did for this morning's hearing.

With the LTB's backlog, this could be a longish wait.
As always I will keep you posted.

The documents accompanying the "Notice of Video Hearing" offer the following explanation for a Case Management Hearing (CMH):

So, this is essentially a negotiation between landlord and tenants hoping to find a solution, short of a full tribunal hearing.

There may be cases where this is a good solution. But, this is not one of them.

First;

Issuing a consent order, without the unanimous agreement of all respondents to an application is wildly unfair. There are a number of technically limited tenants living in this building who will not be able to log into an online hearing. To make a decision in their absence would amount to taking away their right to decline or to argue for a different resolution.

Second;

As a negotiation, there is an underlying assumption the capital expenditures claimed on the application meet the definition of "Eligible Capital Expenditures" per the guidelines set out in the Residential Tenancies Act Paragraph 126 and Ontario Regulation 516/06 Paragraph 18 to qualify for a rent increase. But, at this point in the process there will be no proof of that.

Third;

There exists an abundance of evidence showing this application has been brought in bad faith and the expenditures claimed should not be seen as Eligible Capital Expenditures for the purpose of an Above Guideline Increase in rent. A full presentation of this evidence and testimony can only be made under oath in a Merits Hearing.

Finally;

Past experience with negotiated settlements have produced terrible results for all of us. In one case a small number of tenants attending a case management hearing ended up costing all tenants of this building a 7.4% rent increase in a consent order that will not expire until 2032. This amounts to about $75.00 a month, per apartment for a total of $13,500 each.

This is not "yer average AGI". This is the 5th AGI from the 4th landlord in this building, since 2007. Long term tenants have seen this game before. We need to hold the landlord responsible for proof of his claims. This is also the first time we've gathered evidence and had the opportunity to get our arguments into a Merits Hearing. To end these landlord games, we need an evidence based resolution and order for this case.

During this first hearing, on behalf of those who've signed Agency Authorization, I will be demanding our day in court and I urge each of you to follow suit. It would be a horrible mistake to settle this case by any other means.

Some people have moved in after the renovations were completed, replacing a tenant who was here during the renovations. They may have received Notices that, while addressed to their apartment do not apply to them by name.

Take a look at this List Of Parties naming those who are subject to the landlord's application. If your name is on this list you are being sued. If it is not there or you have moved out, you are not being sued.

If you are on the list and would like me to speak for you at these hearings, it is not too late to fill out an Agency Authorization slip. Contact me and we can arrange for you to fill one out.

At the end of April, 2021, ownership of this building was transferred to InterRent REIT. They immediately launched into renovating the entire building, which took almost 2 years.

On February 14th, 2025, 91 of the 157 units in this building received a Tribunals Ontario "Notice of Video Hearing", fixing a hearing date of March 17th. Those who did not receive the notices are in the clear and do not need to worry.

This legal action is a direct result of an L5 Application for an Above Guideline Increase (AGI) in rents that was filed on September 27th, 2023 and details 5 claims of capital expenditures:

Balcony Restoration	1,267,129.16
Boiler Replacement and Building Automation System	462,334.98
Elevator Modernization	372,250.25
Concrete Enclosure for Exterior Stairwell	112,152.50
Security Cameras and Intercom System	78,606.77
Total	$2,292,473.66

Now let me make this perfectly clear: We are being sued by our landlord in an attempt to recover these expenses via increased rent. If you received these documents, you have no choice. This is going to happen to you whether you like it or not and it is going to affect your rent, whether you like it or not. Rent increases of up to 8.27% ($165.40 per month on $2,000 rent) are possible. Most of those affected are already paying 6% of that on their current rents.

Yes, this is totally unfair. None of us asked for this and none of us consented to it. This is being done autonomously by our landlord. But, unfortunately the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), Part 126 makes it legal and InterRent is taking full advantage of it.

So what can we do about this?

We fight back using the same legal process the landlord is using, by mounting an evidence based defense against both the claims being made and the underlying practice of abusing a loophole in the RTA to bring them forward.

If you read the Full Story, presented as the main page of this site, you will discover this is not our first time going through this. In fact this is Our 5th AGI.

I've been here through the entire fiasco and I believe I understand how the game is played. I saw this coming as soon as InterRent took over. I've been warning people about it for nearly 4 years. To get ready, I've amassed a considerable pile of information and evidence which I believe puts me in a strong position to defend us against this one.

Since I also have a stake in this, I will be happy to present my case in the hearings at no cost to anyone but myself. But, to make this work, I need your help and cooperation. Since there is a hearing pending, please check back frequently for updates and more information.

What have I already done?

I was lucky enough to get early access to the LTB Portal so that I could review and study the casefiles in advance. This also allowed me to set up some preliminary motions and requests.

On 2024-10-24, I filed a Motion To Dismiss which was Denied. This was not unexpected since the Tribunal is not going to easily throw out a $2.3 million case. But it was worth the try.

On 2024-11-13, I filed a Request For Accommodation which was also Denied. This one concerns me because the people who will be hit hardest by these rent increases are also the people who most likely won't have computers and phones to access the online hearing.

I've also filed Agency Authorization for 29 people who've agreed to have me represent them in the hearings.

Of course, this is also a matter of ongoing research and learning.

If you have questions or concerns, you can use the information on the announcement that came through your mail slots to contact me.

I've started this blog page to give people information about an Above Guideline Increase (AGI) that's been a long time coming. As things progress, I will be adding information to keep you up to date on the latest news.

We now have the court papers for our first hearing.
So this just got very real.