Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
A Hamilton renoviction case has put a spotlight on something rental owners often underestimate: how much legal exposure sits behind the paperwork of a renovation-driven eviction — and how a management partner’s understanding of that paperwork can matter as much as the renovation itself.
In May 2025, a Hamilton provincial offences court found landlord Kevin Moniz guilty on four counts of knowingly failing to give tenants their right of first refusal after N13-driven renovations at his property on Strathearne Avenue. Justice of the Peace Linda Crawford fined him $25,000 per count — $100,000 in total — calling it an unusually high penalty for a Residential Tenancies Act violation, and one intended as a general deterrent.
How the Case Unfolded
The eviction process began in 2021, when Moniz issued N13 notices to the building’s long-term tenants, arguing the units needed to be vacant for extensive renovations. The Landlord and Tenant Board initially sided with him — the tenants moved out through 2022 and early 2023 believing, and having been told, they would be able to return once the work was finished.
They didn’t get that chance. According to court testimony, Moniz re-rented the renovated units to new tenants at more than double the previous rent, without honouring the legally required right of first refusal for the tenants who’d been displaced. One tenant, Darlene Wesley, testified she’d lived in her unit for nearly 20 years without ever missing a rent payment, and had given Moniz written notice of her intent to return before she moved out. Crawford found the violations were deliberate, calling the impact on the affected tenants “devastating.”
Where the Property Manager Fit In
Property management company Cornerstone Select Properties was also brought into the case — but its role was narrower than the headline fine suggests, and worth understanding precisely rather than in broad strokes.
Court records show Cornerstone was hired in January 2023 — after the evictions had already occurred — to help lease the vacated units to new tenants. The company was tried alongside Moniz and convicted on one of the four counts, tied specifically to the tenant whose displacement overlapped with Cornerstone’s involvement. The company’s president, Jeff Varcoe, contested the charges, testifying that no one at the firm was aware the entire building had been renovicted and that Cornerstone had received only a modest leasing fee for its work. The court didn’t accept that explanation for the one overlapping count, but Cornerstone was not implicated in the other three.
The lesson here isn’t that a specific company acted in bad faith — that’s not what the court found. It’s narrower and, in some ways, more useful for owners: a property manager brought in even after the fact, for a limited scope of work like re-leasing units, can still end up with legal exposure tied to how those units were vacated in the first place. If your manager doesn’t ask about the history of a unit before leasing it, that’s worth noticing.
Why This Matters for Ontario Owners
Most owners hire a property management company assuming: “My manager knows the law. They’ll keep me compliant.” That assumption is usually reasonable — but renoviction compliance is a genuinely narrow, frequently misunderstood corner of the Residential Tenancies Act, and both Toronto and Hamilton have introduced dedicated licensing bylaws specifically because the rules were being handled inconsistently.
The right of first refusal isn’t an optional courtesy. It’s a legal requirement: a tenant displaced for renovations is entitled to return to their unit at the same rent once the work is complete, and failing to honour that — whether by the owner or the people acting on their behalf — carries real financial consequences.
What This Means When Choosing a Property Manager
Any property manager can collect rent and schedule repairs. Fewer can confidently:
- Identify whether a renovation genuinely requires vacant possession
- Issue legally correct N13 notices and track the mandatory timelines that follow
- Understand and administer the right-of-return process correctly
- Ask the right questions about a unit’s eviction history before re-leasing it
- Navigate the newer municipal renoviction licensing requirements in cities like Toronto and Hamilton
These aren’t extra services. They’re the baseline of compliant renoviction handling — and the Hamilton case is a reminder of what’s at stake when that baseline isn’t met, by an owner or anyone working on their behalf.
“A general deterrent in my view is very important in these kinds of circumstances, where there’s a landlord with a small building that was once affordable for people.” — Justice of the Peace Linda Crawford
Stay Compliant Through Every Stage of a Renovation
From the first N13 notice to the tenant’s right of return, our team tracks every requirement so a renovation project never becomes a legal liability.
Frequently Asked Questions
When a landlord evicts a tenant to complete renovations that require vacant possession (via an N13 notice), the tenant has a legal right to move back into the unit at the same rent once the work is complete, provided they gave the landlord written notice of their intent to return. Renting the unit to a new tenant instead is a violation of the Residential Tenancies Act.
In May 2025, a Hamilton court found landlord Kevin Moniz guilty on four counts of knowingly denying tenants their right of first refusal after renovicting them from his Strathearne Avenue property in 2021–2023. He was fined $25,000 per count, totalling $100,000. A property management company involved in re-leasing the units after the evictions was also tried and convicted on one of the four counts.
Owners remain legally responsible for their properties regardless of who is managing day-to-day operations, and property managers can also face their own liability depending on their role and knowledge. This is why choosing a management company with genuine expertise in Ontario’s renoviction and right-of-return rules — not just leasing and maintenance — matters for both parties.
Source: CBC News, “Hamilton landlord fined $100K for illegal renovictions that had ‘devastating’ impacts on tenants, court hears” (May 2025).
