A tense and emotional debate unfolded at London City Hall this week after a key municipal committee failed to support a motion aimed at closing a loophole in the city’s renoviction bylaw — a gap that critics say is being exploited by bad-faith landlords to force low-income tenants out of their homes.
At the centre of the issue is London City Councillor David Ferreira, who expressed deep frustration after the Community and Protective Services (CAPS) Committee voted 2–2 on his motion, effectively blocking staff from beginning immediate work on a report that could lead to reforms in the controversial bylaw.
“It doesn’t make any sense to me at all,” Ferreira told CTV News following the meeting. “We need to stop this now. There are so many people who are already at risk and who are going through this process as we speak. Every day we delay, more families face displacement and potential homelessness.”
His comments reflect a growing sense of urgency among housing advocates and tenants in London who say last-minute evictions tied to questionable renovation claims are increasing — especially in the city’s most vulnerable communities.
What Is a Renoviction — And Why Is It So Controversial?
A ‘renoviction’ occurs when a landlord issues an N-13 eviction notice to tenants, claiming that the property must be vacated for extensive renovations or repairs. While such notices are legally allowed in Ontario in certain circumstances, housing advocates argue they are often misused.
In many cases, the renovation work is minimal or unnecessary. Instead, critics say the true motive is to remove long-term tenants paying below-market rent, allowing landlords to renovate lightly and re-list the unit at a much higher price.
Low-income renters, seniors, and people with disabilities are especially vulnerable to this practice, as they are often unable to find comparable housing in the current high-cost rental market.
“This is not just a legal issue — it’s an ethical one,” Ferreira argued. “People are being forced out of their homes under the guise of renovation, only to see the same units reappear on the market at twice the price.”
To combat this problem, the City of London introduced a Rental Unit Repair Licence bylaw earlier this year. It came into effect in March and requires landlords to obtain a $600 licence from City Hall for each rental unit that is being issued an N-13 notice.
The intention of the bylaw was to discourage “bad-faith” evictions by holding landlords more accountable and placing city oversight into the renovation process.
However, as Ferreira discovered, the bylaw contains a significant weakness.
The Loophole: From Renoviction to “Demoviction”
Ferreira raised concerns that some landlords are avoiding the new licensing requirement by claiming that a rental unit will be demolished or converted to commercial use. Under the current wording of the bylaw, these types of alterations are exempt.
Critics now refer to this practice as a “demoviction” — when a tenant is evicted not for repairs, but because the landlord plans to tear down the unit or change it into non-residential use.
In practical terms, it means a landlord can simply label the project differently and avoid oversight, fees, and accountability, while still displacing tenants.
“This loophole essentially gives them a free pass,” Ferreira said. “If they just say they’re converting the space to a commercial unit or demolishing it, they can bypass the entire licensing requirement.”
Recognizing the potential danger of this gap, Ferreira proposed a motion directing city staff to begin preparing a report on how to close the loophole and add new safeguards to the bylaw.
But that motion failed.
Tenants Share Emotional Testimony Before the Committee
Several tenants and housing advocates spoke before the CAPS Committee, pleading for immediate action.
One of them, Darcy Barnes, shared a heart-wrenching account of facing eviction and the fear that comes with housing instability.
“I can’t afford today’s rents,” Barnes said. “I’m afraid of becoming homeless. I don’t know what’s going to happen to me and my cat.”
Another tenant, Gayle Harrison, warned that without stronger protections, more people will find themselves on the streets.
“It’s really time that City Hall looks at things differently when it comes to affordable housing,” she said. “If it doesn’t, more of us are going to end up out in the cold.”
Jordan Smith, speaking on behalf of the tenant advocacy group London ACORN, highlighted how vulnerable populations suffer the most under these practices.
“It’s the elderly. It’s people with disabilities,” Smith told the committee. “These are individuals who are already struggling, and now they’re being forced to fight trauma, legal battles, and the very real risk of homelessness.”
Despite these powerful testimonies, the committee remained divided.
Committee Deadlocked, Staff Cite Workload Issues
City staff told committee members that due to their current workload, the earliest they could bring back a new report addressing loopholes in the bylaw would likely be in the third or fourth quarter of 2026.
They also noted that a broader review of the existing bylaw is already scheduled for early next year, and suggested that any changes could be addressed as part of that process.
This did not satisfy Ferreira or Coun. Sam Trosow, who supported the motion.
“I’m not willing to say, ‘Sorry, we’re doing a review next year — too bad, so sad if something happens to you in the meantime,’” Trosow stated. “People could lose their homes between now and then.”
However, Coun. Jerry Pribil and Coun. Elizabeth Peloza voted against starting a new report immediately.
“I want to wait for the first report and make the best possible decisions going forward,” Pribil said.
Peloza echoed that sentiment, stating, “I’m interested to see that report before I make decisions about what next steps need to be taken.”
With a 2–2 tie — Ferreira and Trosow in favour, Pribil and Peloza opposed — the motion failed to pass, leaving the loophole unaddressed for now.
Growing Fear of Increased Homelessness
For Ferreira and local housing activists, the consequences of that deadlock are clear and alarming.
“I’m so worried about just throwing more and more people into homelessness,” Trosow said after the meeting. “We are not paying nearly enough attention to prevention.”
Ferreira agreed, emphasizing that preventative steps must be taken before families find themselves on the street.
“If you want to stop homelessness, where do you start?” he asked. “You start before people become homeless.”
London is already experiencing a significant rise in housing insecurity and homelessness, with shelters stretched thin and affordable units hard to come by. Housing advocates warn that without swift action, the city could see a sharp spike in displacement over the next 12 to 18 months.
City Council to Make Final Decision December 16
Although Ferreira’s motion failed at the committee level, it will still be brought before London City Council for a final decision on December 16.
This leaves a narrow window for councillors to reconsider whether immediate action is needed or whether the city will wait until next year’s scheduled review.
Housing activists and tenant groups say they will continue to push for stronger protections, clear language around demolitions, and tighter oversight of N-13 evictions.
For those facing displacement today, the outcome of the council meeting could be life-changing.