City staff grilled about advice not to post landlords’ names and phone numbers on city website

Committee deadlocks on proposal to publicize landlord contact info, leaving council to decide next steps on rental transparency and accountability.

A pair of city councillors kept staff on the hot seat, challenging a report’s recommendation to take “no further action” on several proposals meant to make some problematic landlords more accountable to their neighbours.

On Tuesday, the Community and Protective Services (CAPS) Committee was deadlocked over next steps, after staff advised them not to amend the Residential Rental Unit Licensing (RRUL) by-law to require that landlords display their name, a contact telephone number, and the maximum number of occupants permitted to reside within a rental unit.

Council requested the report last summer after several members expressed frustration at absentee landlords whose properties are routinely the subject of neighbourhood complaints about noise and property standards.

A delegate from London ACORN, an advocacy group for tenants, urged the committee to implement the changes.

“If you’re a landlord in the city and you follow the rules already set out by this body, you should have absolutely no reason to be concerned,” Skylar McFarlane told the committee.

However, the staff report emphasized that the RRUL By-law already requires landlords to post the rental license in a visible location near the entrance which contains their name, address, and telephone number.

In addition, occupancy limits are enforced with inspections and compliance processes through the Ontario Building Code and Property Standards by-law.

Coun. David Ferreira pointed out that the landlord’s license is posted inside the building, and not visible to neighbours hoping to informally resolve an issue before it reaches the level of a by-law violation.

So Ferreira put forward a motion seeking a new staff report about the feasibility of posting on the City of London’s website the professional/business contact information of rental property owners.

“People are trying to see how can they inform the property owner of what’s going on in order to make things a little bit better,” he told colleagues on the committee.

However, staff reiterated concerns expressed in their initial report about Londoners taking enforcement into their own hands, “Sharing this information with the public suggests that people should contact landlords directly about by-law violations. Civic Administration is of the view that the City should not encourage the public to take on enforcement of the City’s by-laws.”

“You have to go through layers of legal work to ascertain the identity of absentee owners, and this is not conducive to a good neighbourly feeling on the block,” argued Coun. Sam Trosow.

Trosow emphasized a 2011 court ruling that confirmed city hall’s collection of a landlord’s contact information when issuing a rental licenses did not violate the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) because the contact information is considered to be “business information” and therefore not personal information.

“We’re giving the owner not just reasonable privacy protections, but full anonymity, and there’s no reason for that,” he added.

However, Coun. Jerry Pribil and Coun. Anna Hopkins were not willing to support Ferreira’s motion, so it was defeated on a tie vote 2-2.

A subsequent motion to accept the report and take no further action was defeated 2-2, this time with Coun. Ferreira and Coun. Trosow in opposition.

The report will be considered by Council without a recommendation from the committee on March 3.

“I can’t think of any reason why we would be doing this other than to protect the anonymity of certain owners,” Trosow told CTV News after the meeting. “It’s not a legitimate purpose under the law, so I’m hoping that other councilors just say yes let’s just make it easier for people to get this information.”

He acknowledged that there are other ways that neighbours can determine the owner of a problematic property, including a publicly accessible computer in the lobby of City Hall with MPAC (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation) records, but emphasized that the process can be unnecessarily burdensome.

“They’re going to get [landlord information] one way or another if they want to get it,” concluded Trosow. “The only problem is they may have to do a property title search or come downtown, and then if it’s a numbered corporation, they must go through another process. The information is there, it’s just not readily accessible and available.”