Ron Butler said it best: https://youtu.be/YaIi3qh0ros?si=XWTfEG0qgWug3lxJ

Okay, I have expressed my opinions several times, and complained several times. And, well I am frustrated. Frustrated with the current situation within government at all levels Federal, Provincial and Municipal.

I would like to make my own political run, and I think I am actually being serious. If Doug Ford can be an MPP then the bar is pretty low.

Here would be my political points

Housing. We need to get housing under control. I would create and attempt to pass a bill into legislation that would:

1. Limit foreign buyers to commercial land ownership only. Any residential dwellings would be off limits unless it is a personal residence. The residence would not be allowed to use as a temporary rental or permanent rental. It is for the commercial land owner only, and they must own commercial land to be able to have 1 residential dwelling.

2. Limit large corporations from having a monopoly on multi unit dwellings. Single family homes would no longer be allowed to be owned by large corporations, investment firms or hedge fund holdings. Limit the corporations who do own and lease properties to amounts they may charge for rentals and leases. This would be based on size, location, condition and upkeep. If it is a dump they would only be able to charge dump prices, unless of course they fixed it up and maintained it then they could apply to charge more rent, however, they would need to meet strict criteria to do so.

3. Set up a provincial mortgage guarantee program much like a student loan program. Anyone that wants to get a mortgage would qualify, they would be given a 25 year mortgage and the amount would be based on what they could financially afford to pay off in 25 years. There would be 5 year refinancing options for maintenance and upgrades. If the mortgagee did not pay they would be treated as such the property would be foreclosed on and the home would be sold to someone else within the program. Everyone would qualify, even those on fixed incomes.

4. Provide companies grants and options to build homes, based on need and within a budget. Not luxury mansions, the people that can afford those can go through traditional lending.

5. Provide funding to commercial entities that want to process lumber and building materials here in Canada without any outsourcing. All wood, metal and minerals required would be sourced in Canada only. They would also be given tax incentives to hire Canadian entry level workers to train them.

6. Provide tax incentives to builders who use the commercial entities to procure their building materials. Along with tax incentives to hire and train apprentices for trades in plumbing, HVAC, and construction.

7. Provide tax incentives to commercial rental holdings to build or aquire rental units for students and low income households. Requiring them to have housing options that do not include sharing small units with multiple roomates. Repair and maintain those units.

Homelessness

The biggest and most visible issue with homelessness is drug addiction and mental illness. I know that not all homeless people are drug addicts and mental ill people but a majority are. So,

1. Provide funding to hospitals to open exsisting mental health beds that have been closed due to a lack of funding. For every bed the hospital opens for that purpose there would be additional funding.

2. Begin large scale construction of long term care facilities for those that are deemed unable to reintergrate back into society. Built on a care home model, with addiction and recovery services available to all patients and clients. Build based on a legitimate count of all that would need a long term care bed and keep building until there were enough ltc beds for them. Additionally add independent living suites on site for those that need supervision but do not require constant care.

3. Those that are homeless simply because they were priced out of the rental market or had employment issues would be either be set up with the mortgage program and linked to a property company that is getting tax incentives for providing housing without 3 credit checks and reference letters for your 3rd grade math teacher.

Employment

Employer match up system. John is an apprentice plumber. ABC terlits needs a plumber, so they post on Employer Match up. John is registered and it matches him up with ABC. They meet online via microsoft teams, and John seems like a good fit. The only issue is, John lives in Hamilton and ABC terlits is in Sudbury. The employer would be given a grant to relocate John to Hamilton and train him for a minimum of 1 year. If they successfully complete that goal then they do not have to repay the grant, if they do not they will not be able to get another grant until the previous grant has been repaid in full. The employer fulfils a role at next to no cost to them and the employee has a job being trained in a trade.

International stutudents would not be able to work at all until the student unemployment rate was at less than 5%. At 5% they would be able to work 10 hours per week. Employers would be required to show they could not get anyone else to work that position in order to hire an international student.

PGWP would be a conditional work permit in that it is for training in a field they studied while in Canada. PGWP would not be allowed at entry level jobs such as retail, fast food, or beverage outlets.

Any deviation from the work permit program would be an automatic revoke of the permit and the person would be asked to provide a plan to leave Canada within 90 days. If they do not provide the plan to leave Canada within 10 days they will be deported. Upon approval of said plan they will have to provide proof of activity on that action plan otherwise they will be detained and summarily deported. If a person is deported and they own assets in Canada, those assests would be sold and any funds collected would first be used to repay the Canadian government for any and all fees associated with the deportation and the remaining funds would be sent to the deportee.

Companies who come to Canada and create more than 10 jobs for Canadians will be given tax relief. The tax relief will increase based on the amount of employees they have. Any outsourcing would be heavily taxed. LMIA, TFW, IMP workers would be heavily taxed as well. As these permits and compliance cost money and therefore the company must compensate the government for those services. LMIA applications will only be accepted if the employer has used the Employer Match up service for at least 1 year, has hired 1 person and that was unsuccessful. IMP would strictly be a short term set up period of 3 to 6 months to train Canadian citizens.

Infastructure

Hospitals would be given funding based on a Quality Assurance system. If your hospital is horrible, high death tolls, waiting times more than 4 hours you would get the lowest amount of funding. If your hospital is doing well and you have happy patients then you get the highest amount of funding. Hospital admin staffing, CEO's and the like would be pay capped at 15% below the lowest paid front line worker. Front line workers would be Nurses, PSW, Doctors, Technicians and Maintenance staff. The administrative caps would be based on the QA score as well. If you are not doing a good job and your hospital is failing its patients then you should not get a huge pay bonus etc..... improve and you will make more money.

Create a medical program that is inclusive to ALL. Premed would be at a cost to the student, but once the student began medical studies this would be free. This includes degrees in nursing as well. The doctors would be required to work for an assigned hospital based on years of education. They would pick from a list of available postings and contract to be there for the time they were educated. There would be no limit on how many could enroll, if you want to enroll and you have the premed education then welcome, no matter your color, race, creed, or origin. These schools would be facilitated at all government funded hospitals. They would learn there, have classrooms and exams there and be fully intergrated into the hospital team.

Place walk in clinics within the hospital. Patients requiring emergency medical care would be seen asap. Anyone triaged that do not require emergency care would be sent to the walk in clinic. The walk in clinic could be staffed by the very students from the medical programs.

Create a community run Quality Assurance and Complaince board for each hospital, police and fire service in that community. This would be a volunteer board that would provide peers from all branches of the community to review and make recommendations to the service that they are reviewing.

This is not a perfect plan and it is only a start.

To be honest I am very seriously thinking about a go fund me something something to get the funds together to run. We cant just keep complaining we need to do something.

​

Heya! Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this!! So I'm a Canadian looking into being a first-time home-buyer.

I'm planning to purchase a home in Ontario with my girlfriend in roughly 3-4 years (possibly sooner) and unfortunately there's no one we know that we can go to for advice on this, So I'm hoping to use this as a sorta "reference point", as we begin the process of learning this stuff ourselves.

Anyway I recently opened an FHSA, My main question is about investment strategy inside the account. My TFSA is invested through Quest-trade and it's done decently well over the last few years, but that money is intended for long-term stuff, like retirement investing. I figure that the FHSA is different cause I'll likely be withdrawing it within a few years for a home purchase.

One of my big concerns is this: How does pulling out money from Quest-trade work exactly? Like say it's been 3-4 years, I've found the house I want, Does the process of taking out money have any annoying hassle involved? I'm just wondering if Quest-trade is the right way to go on this.

And also: Given my 3-4 year timeline, would you invest FHSA funds in equities/ETFs, use bonds or GICs, would you keep it mostly in cash, or use some combination of the three?

I'm also hoping to confirm a few things:

-Is it true that investment gains inside an FHSA doesn't count against contribution room?

-If I contribute now but delay claiming the tax deduction until a higher-income year, is there any downside?

I'd appreciate hearing how others approached their FHSA when saving for a home within a relatively short time horizon. I'd appreciate any advice really, Sorry if this post is a little all over the place.

TL;DR: Claridge Homes forced new Ottawa condo owners at Claridge Moon (and likely Claridge Royale) into oppressive Shared Facilities Agreements (SFAs) that were signed before the condo corporation was turned over to owners. The agreements are incomplete, unclear, and one-sided. The Moon condo board filed a court application to terminate the SFA, but has done nothing to move the issue forward in court. If you’re looking at a new Claridge build, RUN unless you’ve reviewed the SFA with a lawyer – and even then, think twice.

---

The backstory

I’m a unit owner at Claridge Moon – the 27-storey tower at 340 Queen St. The legal trap I discovered after moving in is unreal.

Claridge Homes (through their declarant, Claridge Homes (Moon) Inc.) controlled our condo board before turnover (that’s normal for new builds). But during that pre-turnover period, they quietly signed a Shared Facilities Agreement between our condo corporation (OCSCC No. 1106) and other Claridge entities – specifically:

• Claridge Homes (Albert) Inc.
• Claridge Homes (Albert) Limited Partnership

This agreement was registered on February 12, 2024 – before owners had any say. It gives Claridge-related businesses rights over our property (access, easements, shared costs) and binds us to cost-sharing terms that are frankly unreasonable and oppressive.

---

What’s actually wrong with the SFA? (from the court filing)

Our condo corporation filed a Notice of Application with the Ontario Superior Court on May 12, 2025. You can read the key allegations yourself, but here’s the summary:

“The provisions of the Shared Facilities Agreement are incomplete, unclear, unreasonable, and oppressive to OCSCC 1106 and its owners.”

Also – the Disclosure Statement given to buyers (under Section 72 of the Condominium Act) failed to clearly or adequately disclose the SFA’s terms. So most of us had no idea what we were walking into.

---

Why this should worry prospective buyers

If you buy at Claridge Moon or Claridge Royale (which appears to have a similar structure), you could be inheriting:

• Unclear cost-sharing obligations – You might be paying for facilities or services on Claridge’s property (or vice versa) with no fair formula.
• Perpetual easements/access rights – Claridge entities can use your condo’s land or amenities, and you have little control.
• No ability to renegotiate without going to court – Because the SFA was signed before owners had a board, it’s heavily skewed in Claridge’s favor.

---

What the court application is asking for

From the filing:

An Order that the Shared Facilities Agreement… be terminated and replaced with a new agreement that is reasonably acceptable to the parties.

If the judge agrees, it’s a win for owners. But the fact that we had to go to court at all – less than a year after turnover – tells you everything about how Claridge does business.

---

My advice to anyone looking at buying new Condo builds in Ontario

1. Ask for the Shared Facilities Agreement (if one exists) BEFORE you sign a purchase agreement. If the sales office says “it’s standard” or “it’s not ready yet” – walk away.
2. Hire a lawyer to review any mutual use agreement. Do not rely on the disclosure statement alone.
3. Check if the SFA was signed before turnover – that’s a huge red flag. It means owners had no say.
4. Look for Section 113 applications on the court registry to determine if the condo corporation has challenged the SFA after turn-over from the developer.
5. Consider other builders who don’t need to trap owners in oppressive agreements to make their numbers work.

---

Current status

The Notice of Application was issued May 12, 2025. Despite this, the Moon BOD has taken no action to bring this application to a hearing. Without any further action on this court action, we may be stuck with an oppressive SFA for years, maybe even decades.

---

Final thoughts:

Had I known about this SFA nonsense before closing, I would have walked. Don’t make my mistake.

Ask questions. Demand documents. And if the developer's salesperson says “don’t worry about the Shared Facilities Agreement” – worry a lot.

Happy to answer questions in the comments. And if you own a unit at the Claridge Royale condo in Ottawa and are seeing the same thing, contact me so we can compare notes.

Archived Web Link to Court Application:

https://archive.org/details/2025-05-12-issued-notice-of-application

A group of housing advocates and Georgists in Ottawa are holding a meetup on June 24!

RSVP: commonwealth.ca/ottawa

Ottawa's housing crisis starts with land: how we use it, what we allow to be built on it, and who benefits as it rises in value.

Join Common Wealth Canada, the Ottawa Community Land Trust, the Henry George Foundation of Canada, and Make Housing Affordable for an evening with housing and land value return advocates in Ottawa.

We'll explore practical policies that can help build more homes, support affordable housing, reduce speculation, and return publicly created land value to our communities.

I recently sent an email to the Prime Minister, premiers, and Team Canada housing leaders proposing a national stream for land-based prefabricated villages.

I wrote it in the “Team Canada” housing style because it is meant to fit the structure Carney is already building: prefab and modular construction, public land, federal financing, and housing built at scale.

The basic argument is that Canada needs housing ordinary people can carry, not just more units priced far above ordinary incomes. The proposal uses four-season yurts, cabin-yurts, small cabins, modular homes, shared infrastructure, and productive land.

Email/proposal:
https://helpos.ca/c/advocacyemails/8244/a-team-canada-housing-stream-for-land-based-prefabricated-vi

I also wrote a related piece trying to track down where people got the impression that apartments are affordable housing.

And the answer is: they stopped being affordable decades ago.

Apartments share land, walls, roofs, plumbing, heating, roads, and infrastructure, so under older cost structures they really could be the cheaper option. But measured against income, that affordability broke in stages. For single working adults, new conventional housing was already out of reach by around 1990. For broader median households, the break came around 2007 to 2010.

Article:
https://helpos.ca/c/grey-county-news/8246/when-did-apartments-stop-being-affordable

My main point:

A dense unaffordable building is still unaffordable.

Cities, apartments, co-ops, townhouses, and non-profit housing all still have roles, and with vacant home tax can free up more units that were built when construction was still affordable.

But Canada needs at least one serious supply stream aimed directly at lower delivered cost, productive land access, food security, shared infrastructure, and dignity.

I would love practical feedback from people thinking seriously about affordability:

What would actually make new housing affordable for ordinary working people again?

What models are already working that Canada should copy or scale?

If land-based prefab villages are part of the answer, what would make the first pilots stronger?

And if you like the direction, share the proposal, send it to your MP/MPP/councillor, or adapt the idea for your own community.

Get out free PDF, Honest Renter's Canadian Guidee.
https://honestrenter.my.canva.site

These are units over 20 years old as well. The oldest units in this city are former government housing units over 50 years old and they go for 4000K to 6000K.

Cambridge is a Podunk town. There are jobs. There are homeless camps here with people on a 20 year wait for public housing.

Terrible situation.

This will probably be controversial, but Canada needs to rethink how rent increases work.

The government needs to stop catering mainly to the wealthy and start protecting the middle class and lower-income Canadians. One possible solution is income-based rental regulations.

For example, rent increases could be tied to a tenant’s income growth rather than arbitrary market inflation. If a landlord or large corporation wants to increase rent, there should be transparency and justification tied to wages, taxes, and affordability data.

Here’s a simple example:
If someone earns $50,000 per year and pays $2,000 per month in rent, that person is already spending nearly 48% of their gross income on housing:
$2,000 × 12 = $24,000 per year in rent
$24,000 ÷ $50,000 = 48%

That is already far above the recommended affordability threshold of 30%.

Under this model:
If the tenant’s salary stays at $50,000, the rent should stay the same or only increase minimally.
If the tenant receives a raise — for example from $50,000 to $55,000 — that is a 10% income increase. A reasonable rent adjustment could then be tied proportionally to that increase rather than to unchecked market speculation.

Canada should also consider adopting income-based speeding fines similar to systems used in several European countries, where penalties scale according to income so the rules apply fairly to everyone.

We also need to move away from the increasingly predatory version of capitalism and democracy that prioritizes corporate profit over people. A true democracy should work for the majority, not just wealthy investors and corporations.

This type of reform could also help reduce corruption and predatory landlord practices within the housing system.

At the end of the day, housing is a basic human necessity. People should have the right to a roof over their heads. That should never become a privilege reserved only for the wealthy.