Municipal & Land Use Planning Law: How Short-Term Rental Regulations Impact the Canadian Housing Crisis

par Adriana Piccolo, lauréate du concours de dissertation à l’intention des facultés de droit 2023, présenté par la Section du droit municipal de l'ABC

(uniquement en anglais)

Introduction

In recent years, Canada has experienced a significant transformation in its housing market, characterized by an increasing demand for homes, with limited supply and few affordable options.¹ The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation states that an additional 3.5 million homes will be necessary by 2030 to meet the affordable housing needs of Canadians.² Part of this housing shortfall can be attributed to the growing appeal of short-term rentals (STR). STRs refer to the practice of renting out a dwelling (a house, townhouse, condo, or apartment) for periods shorter than 30 days.³ The specifics of this definition vary slightly across municipalities within the country.⁴ A study by Desjardins illustrates the widespread presence of STRs in the Canadian real estate sector. They reported that in 2023, there were 235,000 active STRs nationwide on popular platforms like Airbnb and Vrbo.⁵ This figure accounts for 4.9 percent of Canada’s long-term rental market and 1.4 percent of the country’s overall housing supply.⁶ The increasing popularity of STRs is largely driven by the economic benefits for property owners, who find short-term leasing financially more rewarding than long-term rentals. For example, in Victoria, the annual revenue difference is considerable. Here, STRs are generating nearly $60,000, compared to the $23,000 earned from long-term leases.⁷ This substantial difference in earnings emphasizes the financial motivations behind the rising availability of STR properties across Canada.

The increased use of STRs has profound implications, that not only result in a declining supply of long-term housing options but also contribute to increased rental prices.⁸ This presents a growing challenge for Canadians who are searching for affordable and accessible housing. A comprehensive analysis by Desjardins demonstrates the magnitude of this issue. Their research indicates that in 2022, the national rental vacancy rate was 1.9 percent, representing a decline from the long-term average of 2.7 percent, while also falling notably short of the “balanced” market threshold of 3 percent.⁹ These statistics are crucial because they reveal a worrisome trend. When vacancy rates fall below three percent, as currently observed in Canada, rent prices begin to rise.¹⁰

Recognizing the gravity of this issue, several Canadian municipalities have introduced regulatory measures on STR units to alleviate the pressures on the country’s housing market. These measures aim to promote more long-term rental properties by reducing the dominance of STRs through the implementation of strict regulations and guidelines.¹¹ To accomplish these objectives, many municipalities are either establishing new regulations or amending existing ones.¹² These regulatory adjustments include limitations on eligible dwelling types, criteria for land usage, occupancy limits, the introduction of new licensing schemes, the application of relevant taxes on STR units, as well as compliance and enforcement measures.

Although the shared objective of these regulations is to minimize STR usage and ultimately restore the housing market for long-term residents, individual municipalities adopt different methods to reach this mutual objective. This comparative analysis will explore the various regulatory approaches implemented across several Canadian jurisdictions. While these initiatives demonstrate a range of strategies illustrating the diversity in regulatory approaches, it becomes clear that creating restrictions for STRs alone, will not be enough to alleviate the housing crisis in Canada.

Short-Term Rental Regulatory Initiatives Among Canadian Municipalities

I. Primary Residence Rule

In 2017, the Toronto City Council undertook a step towards regulating STRs by introducing Zoning By-law Amendments. These legislative changes, specifically the introduction of Zoning By-law No. 1452-2017,¹³ and Zoning By-law Amendment No.1453-2017,¹⁴ were put in place to establish a regulatory framework governing the operations of STRs in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act.¹⁵ This section grants municipalities the authority to regulate land use for specific purposes.¹⁶ The decision in Hodgart et al. v Toronto,¹⁷ further strengthened the city’s power to effectively oversee and manage STR activities.

A fundamental aspect of these new amendments was the introduction of the primary residence requirement. This regulation mandates that in Toronto, STR activities must occur within the host’s primary residence.¹⁸ A primary residence is defined as the dwelling where individuals predominantly live, and which serves as their official address for various formal purposes, including billing, identification, taxation, and insurance.¹⁹ The inclusion of this rule extends beyond Toronto. Other Canadian municipalities such as Vancouver,²⁰ Victoria,²¹ Ottawa,²² Charlottetown,²³ and Iqaluit,²⁴ all share a similar requirement to restrict STR operations to the host’s permanent residence. These restrictions are designed to limit the increasing number of properties being used exclusively as STRs, a trend that negatively affects the Canadian housing market.²⁵

Importantly, all of these jurisdictions are also permitted to have STRs in an accessory or secondary unit as well.²⁶ Although there is consistency in the adoption of these rules, the way that each area enforces the restrictions on accessory and secondary units differs. For instance, in Charlottetown and Iqaluit, hosts are required to physically occupy the principal dwelling during the rental period.²⁷ In contrast, cities like Vancouver, Victoria, Ottawa, and Toronto, consider it sufficient if the property is designated as the host’s primary residence, regardless of whether the host is physically present during the rental period.²⁸

The inclusion of the primary residence rule within STR regulations reflects a joint effort by multiple municipalities to maintain stability in the housing market. Requiring that STR activities operate from the host’s primary residence is a measure aimed at preventing the transformation of long-term rental properties or residential homes into dedicated STR units. This rule is just one part of a broader regulatory framework intended to address the issues arising from the rapid expansion of the STR market. Another crucial aspect involves enforcing adherence to specific zoning restrictions.

II. Zoning Regulations and Neighbourhood Involvement

In addition to primary residence restrictions, Canadian municipalities are now differentiating between the commercial and residential use of land. In Hodgart,²⁹ the Tribunal made a distinction between using a house as a permanent residence and using the same property for paid short-term guest accommodations. The Tribunal emphasized that properties engaging in STR activities for commercial gain, evident through frequent guest turnover, are utilizing the land for commercial purposes, even if the property is classified as residential.³⁰ This distinction was deemed significant enough to gain recognition under Section 34 of the Planning Act.³¹ Thereby granting municipalities the authority to regulate STRs that are treating residential-zoned areas as commercial properties.³² The rationale behind empowering municipalities to regulate this process aligns with Section 1.1.1,³³ of the Public Policy Statement (PPS). This section highlights the significance of maintaining safe, livable communities by fostering a balance of residential, commercial, and other land uses. Therefore, it is crucial to restrict the shift from residential to commercial land use where it could impact neighbourhood dynamics and undermine the residential character of these areas.

In response to the restriction of operating STRs in residential zones, certain Canadian municipalities have designated specific areas for commercial STRs to accommodate tourists and enhance their economic prospects. For instance, in Montreal, various boroughs allow commercial tourist accommodations in locations like Plaza St-Hubert (Rosemont-La-Petite-Patrie), sections of St-Laurent and St-Denis (Plateau-Mont-Royal), and a portion of Ste-Catherine Street (Ville-Marie).³⁴ Nevertheless, while promoting tourism, these designated regions still prioritize the protection of the neighbourhood character as required by Section 1.1.1 of the PPS.³⁵ This commitment is demonstrated through their enforcement measures which require a sufficient distance between commercial STR establishments, with some areas requiring a separation of up to 250 meters between buildings.³⁶

In the 2011 Ontario Municipal Board decision, Rosen v. Corporation of the Town of Blue Mountains,³⁷ the court reinforced the idea that while promoting tourism and economic development, one must also consider preserving the residential nature of specific neighbourhoods. The city of Saskatoon upholds this balance by actively engaging with its communities. Community input is a crucial component of the municipality of Saskatoon’s approach to regulating STRs. The Community Services Department in Saskatoon is required to provide written notices to neighbouring property owners within 75 metres of a proposed STR location.³⁸ The nearby properties have the opportunity to share their feedback within a 21-day period upon receiving the notification regarding the potential STR establishment.³⁹ This process demonstrates Saskatoon’s inclusive decision-making process that values nearby resident perspectives and highlights the value placed on local perspectives to ensure that STR activities align with their respective communities.

In further efforts to manage the impact of STRs on neighbouring communities, some Canadian jurisdictions have introduced quantitative restrictions on STR operations, such as annual night caps. For example, both Toronto,⁴⁰ and Iqaluit,⁴¹ have established a limit allowing STRs for up to 180 nights per year. This restriction is considered relatively flexible in comparison to stricter regulations observed in cities such as San Francisco and London, which both enforce a 90-day limit, along with Amsterdam’s 30-day cap.⁴² While the limitations in Canada may not be as stringent as those in other parts of the world, the primary objective remains to mitigate any potential disturbances within the community to ensure that permanent residents are satisfied with their neighbourhood’s living standards.

The regulations on STRs, such as adherence to local zoning laws, assessing community impact, and fostering neighbourly engagement, highlight the complexities of integrating STRs into neighbourhoods. These rules are not only meant to regulate where STRs are located but also to ensure they add value to the community economically and socially, all while maintaining the residential character of the area. To strengthen this focus on community well-being, licensing rules for STR hosts offer additional protection for nearby areas.

III. Licensing Regulations

Municipalities that regulate STRs have various licensing systems to accommodate the diverse nature of STR operations in different jurisdictions. Major cities such as Vancouver,⁴³ Edmonton,⁴⁴ Toronto,⁴⁵ and Iqaluit,⁴⁶ have adopted a single-license approach. This system simplifies the process for STR hosts by requiring a standard license for all rental properties within the municipality. Typically, it involves a fixed annual fee, often under $100.00, to minimize administrative complexities for hosts and regulatory bodies.⁴⁷ However, rules regarding the number of licenses individual operators can hold vary between jurisdictions. While Vancouver limits hosts to one license, promoting a decision for those with multiple properties,⁴⁸ Edmonton,⁴⁹ and Iqaluit,⁵⁰ mandate separate licenses for each property designated for STR use.

Conversely, cities like Kelowna and Regina have adopted a use-based licensing model, which distinguishes between STRs operating within the host’s primary residence and those operating outside of one.⁵¹ This distinction is reflected in the fee format, with higher licensing fees imposed on STRs located outside the host’s primary home. For example, in Kelowna, the fee difference between primary residence and non-primary residence STR licenses is $345.00 and $750.00, respectively.⁵² Similarly, in Regina, the annual licence fee for a principal residence is $100.00, compared to the $300.00 for a secondary property.⁵³

Moreover, municipalities like Whistler and Calgary have designed their STR licensing systems to account for the scale of the operations, particularly focusing on the number of rooms or units being offered. In Whistler, they follow a one-license-per-owner model, with a $25.00 charge for each additional unit under the same ownership.⁵⁴ This approach allows owners with multiple units to operate under a single license, avoiding the need for separate licences for each STR property.⁵⁵ In contrast, Calgary implements a two-tiered system where the licensing fee increases based on the number of rentable rooms, distinguishing between smaller and larger STR operations. Properties with one to four rooms for rent receive a $100.00 licencing fee per property, while those with five or more rooms face a higher fee of $172.00 per property.⁵⁶ This tiered structure aims to account for the increased impact and logistical demands associated with managing larger STR properties.⁵⁷

These diverse regulatory strategies in Canadian municipalities illustrate efforts to navigate the complexities of the STR market effectively. These strategies involve tailoring STR licenses based on factors like simplification, location, and number of units. These various measures ensure a balanced approach that meets the unique needs of each community.

III. Municipal Tax Regulations

Alongside licensing systems, Canadian municipalities have also introduced tax regulations. The Ontario Transient Accommodation Regulation authorizes municipalities in Ontario to impose a Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT).⁵⁸ These tax provisions are supported by amendments made to section 400.1 of the Municipal Act,⁵⁹ which were formalized in the 2017 Provincial Budget. These amendments were designed to generate funds for tourism endeavours and improve local infrastructure to accommodate visitors.⁶⁰

In 2018 both, Toronto and Ottawa adopted a four percent MAT for registered STR operators under the Transient Accommodation Regulation 435/17. Toronto has increased its rate to six percent,⁶¹ while Ottawa adjusted to five percent for overnight accommodation sales. ⁶² Similarly, the city of Hamilton also implemented a mandatory four percent MAT through the approved By-law No. 22-209.⁶³ However, in contrast to Toronto and Ottawa, this regulation took effect in January 2023.

Niagara-on-the-Lake Town Council also initiated a MAT through their By-law No. 5435-22,⁶⁴ though, unlike Toronto, Ottawa, and Hamilton, their MAT began at a two percent rate and was targeted specifically at establishments with five or more rooms.⁶⁵ Subsequent amendments, reflected in By-law No. 5540-23,⁶⁶ incrementally raised the tax rate to three percent in 2023, with further plans to increase it to four percent by January 2025.⁶⁷

Beyond Ontario, the municipality of Halifax implemented a three percent marketing levy on STR accommodations in 2023.⁶⁸ This levy directs proceeds towards Halifax’s budget and contributes to the Special Events Reserve Grant Program under By-Law M-400.⁶⁹ The allocation of tax revenue in Halifax mirrors Ontario’s approach as both regions prioritize fostering a thriving tourism sector by reinvesting into marketing initiatives.⁷⁰

The strategic adjustment of MAT rates by each municipality reflects a shared dedication to ensuring that the STR sector contributes proportionately to the local economy, tourism expansion, and infrastructural maintenance. Moreover, raising taxes on STRs serves as a deterrent, discouraging their use and aligning with the country’s goal of reducing STR usage to promote long-term rental availability.

IV. Enforcement

After implementing all of these new regulations, STR operators must have access to the necessary information and regulations mandated in each specific municipality. Different regions employ a variety of methods to achieve this goal. Some areas promote voluntary compliance, particularly when resources are limited.⁷¹ This approach involves activities like informative websites, awareness initiatives, and community involvement to educate residents about the rules and processes.⁷² Cities such as Kelowna, Vancouver, Whistler, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Halifax, and Charlottetown, provide exceptional resources through convenient online platforms that offer details on the reasoning behind policies, procedural guidelines, and existing regulations.⁷³ Conversely, locations like Tofino, Banff, Churchill, Fredericton, and Iqaluit do not offer these valuable online tools.⁷⁴

Other municipalities integrate license-based requirements into their application procedures to enhance hosts’ adherence to regulations that govern STRs.⁷⁵ Different regions impose specific licensing criteria on STR operators. These criteria may entail submitting plans for managing sites and guests, undergoing property inspections, and providing host declarations to ensure compliance with regulations and safety standards.⁷⁶ In Vancouver, for instance, steps have been taken to guarantee that STR listings comply with rules about restricted STR structures like certain strata buildings and affordable housing units.⁷⁷ To enforce this effectively, the city maintains a registry of restricted properties. When individuals apply online for a new STR permit, the system automatically cross-references the address with the current list of restricted properties.⁷⁸ Halifax follows a similar approach where aspiring STR operators must register their properties with the Residential Rental Registry.⁷⁹ This is Halifax’s initiative to collect a comprehensive database of STRs in order to better understand their local rental market.⁸⁰

In other areas, authorities use a range of data obtained from resident complaints, inspections, and auditing tools to enforce regulations.⁸¹ Municipalities such as Kelowna and Victoria offer specialized contact information for staff handling licensing or the STR sectors.⁸² Providing this information on the website is crucial as it enables direct communication with the municipality, enhancing the effectiveness of complaint mechanisms. Unlike Kelowna and Victoria, Niagara-on-the-Lake has partnered with a third-party service, Host Compliance, to assist in addressing complaints and handling a significant number of STR-related issues.⁸³

In regions with platform registration mandates such as Ottawa, Toronto, Halifax, and Charlottetown, details from live listings on these platforms are combined with complaints and other data obtained by the local government as a means to focus enforcement efforts.⁸⁴ Vancouver follows a comparable process, employing a combination of proactive audits and information from licenses, Airbnb, external sources, and complaints for effective enforcement.⁸⁵

Additionally, various municipalities have distinct strategies for enforcement when STR platforms are engaged. Both, Vancouver and Toronto involve platforms in enforcement efforts, however, each city approaches this differently.⁸⁶ Vancouver, despite not requiring platform registration, has entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement with Airbnb.⁸⁷ This agreement outlines conditions for Airbnb's operations in the city and includes provisions for the platform to assist in enforcing Vancouver's STR rules, such as ensuring that new listings show a valid business license number.⁸⁸ In Toronto, platforms are mandated to educate hosts on regulatory standards during listing registration and must incorporate fields for mandatory license numbers.⁸⁹ Moreover, these platforms are required to have procedures established for removing listings that do not meet regulations, and for managing problematic hosts.⁹⁰

Another approach that is used for the enforcement of STRs involves implementing a data-sharing requirement. These requirements are typically agreed upon through a data-sharing arrangement between the platform and local government.⁹¹ These provisions are evident in Vancouver, Toronto, and Ottawa, where rules stipulate that platforms must meet specific data-sharing obligations as a prerequisite for operating in these areas.⁹² For example, in Toronto, the data sharing agreement specifies responsibilities for the STR company to regularly provide certain records to the City.⁹³ These records include transaction details from STR operators such as names, addresses, registration numbers, booking dates and durations, prices, and rental types.⁹⁴

Canada’s Housing Market

I. Short-Term Rentals and the Housing Crisis

Canada is currently facing a severe housing crisis as a result of an extensive housing shortage.⁹⁵ The supply of housing has failed to match the demand for housing over the past two decades.⁹⁶ The rapidly growing STR market, notably dominated by platforms such as Airbnb, has been identified as a contributor to this crisis by limiting the available housing for long-term rentals and sales.⁹⁷ With Airbnb holding a substantial market share, around 38 percent of listings, the strain on housing availability has intensified.⁹⁸ In response, municipalities across the country are introducing regulations to reduce the impact of STRs, aiming to enhance the supply of long-term rentals and alleviate housing affordability challenges. A 2019 McGill University study supports these measures, suggesting that stricter STR regulations could reintroduce approximately 31,000 units in major cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver for long-term occupancy.⁹⁹

STR properties have been identified as a factor contributing to rental price increases. Increased rental prices are notably prevalent in neighbourhoods with a high concentration of Airbnb units,¹⁰⁰ demonstrating a clear correlation between the density of Airbnb properties and rental increases across various Canadian neighbourhoods.¹⁰¹ These high-density areas experienced a substantial 30 percent increase in rent between the years 2016 to 2022, coinciding with a threefold rise in Airbnb units during the same period.¹⁰² This percentage equates to about a 55-dollar rent increase. This would mean that the Airbnb units accounted for approximately a quarter of the overall rental cost increases between those six years.¹⁰³ Notably, in Quebec City’s Saint-Roch neighbourhood, Airbnb units represented 7.5 percent of all housing in 2022.¹⁰⁴ These statistics illustrate the overwhelming presence of STR units in the country.

While there is a recognized correlation between Airbnb’s growth and rising rental prices, this link does not imply a direct cause-and-effect relationship. The attractiveness of certain neighbourhoods for STRs is based on their central locations and amenities, which can also make them desirable for renters and independently increase demand and prices, regardless of STR activity.¹⁰⁵ A study conducted by the Conference Board of Canada reveals that, out of a 30 percent rent increase observed in their sample of neighbourhoods, less than one percent of that can be linked to increased Airbnb activity.¹⁰⁶ This minimal impact suggests that while STRs might slightly influence housing availability in popular tourist spots, they are not the primary contributor to Canada’s broader housing affordability challenges.

While cities like Vancouver and Toronto have implemented stringent STR regulations in response to concerns about housing market pressures, the expected relief has not materialized. Despite a notable 50 percent reduction in Airbnb listings following the municipal regulations in these cities, there has been no corresponding improvement in the housing market strain.¹⁰⁷ This disconnect indicates that focusing solely on STR regulations is an inadequate response to address Canada’s housing crisis. The country’s housing system challenges are complex and require extending beyond targeting STRs exclusively.

Conclusion

To address the increasing number of STRs and promote long-term rental availability, local municipalities have been granted the ability to implement and enforce their regulatory frameworks.¹⁰⁸ Several jurisdictions including Toronto,¹⁰⁹ Vancouver,¹¹⁰ Victoria,¹¹¹ Ottawa,¹¹² Charlottetown,¹¹³ and Iqaluit,¹¹⁴ have taken steps to confine STR operations mainly to hosts’ primary residences, although the enforcement approaches vary across different regions. For example, for secondary and accessory dwellings, Charlottetown and Iqaluit require the host’s physical presence during rentals,¹¹⁵ in contrast Vancouver, Victoria, Ottawa, and Toronto, are satisfied as long as the STR property serves as the host’s main residence.¹¹⁶

In addition to dwelling requirements, local governments have implemented zoning regulations to restrict STR activities in residential areas, aiming to preserve the integrity and stability of neighbourhoods.¹¹⁷ Montreal, confronting unique tourism-related challenges, has introduced spatial planning rules that allocate specific zones for commercial STRs, subject to a separation standard.¹¹⁸ The zoning separation strives to maintain a peaceful residential atmosphere while also supporting the tourist economy. The significant focus on preserving neighbourhood character and ensuring community contentment is highlighted in legal cases like Rosen,¹¹⁹ where the court emphasized the necessity of balancing tourism and economic interests with residential peace. In addition to jurisprudence, community engagement also forms a crucial aspect of the regulatory framework, as demonstrated in Saskatoon. Here, value is placed on community input which underscores the importance of public feedback in fostering harmonious neighbourhood relationships especially with the recent growth of STRs.¹²⁰

Moreover, the introduction of licensing requirements demonstrates the various strategies used by municipalities, ranging from simple single-license systems,¹²¹ to more complex tiered,¹²² and use-based approaches.¹²³ These licensing systems consider factors of simplification, location, and unit numbers to achieve a balanced method tailored to each jurisdiction’s specific needs.

Just as municipalities vary in their methods of licensing STRs, they also adopt a range of municipal tax percentages that are imposed on these rentals. Regardless of the specific figures, whether in Ontario or elsewhere, they all allocate the tax revenues to similar destinations, revealing how municipalities use financial strategies to support local tourism and improve infrastructure development.¹²⁴

As different municipalities add a variety of restrictions that differ from one another, each municipality needs to enforce their restrictions efficiently and effectively. This enforcement requires that STR operators be well-informed about the regulations specific to their desired municipality. Various regions have adopted different strategies to ensure compliance. Some rely on voluntary adherence, utilizing informational websites and community initiatives to educate the public on regulations.¹²⁵ Additionally, some cities incorporate licensing requirements to ensure STRs meet local rules, involving property management plans, inspections, and compliance declarations.¹²⁶ Cities like Vancouver have implemented systems to prevent unauthorized listings, while Halifax requires STRs to register for better market understanding.¹²⁷ Enforcement methods range from direct municipality communication, using data from complaints and inspections, to partnerships with third-party services for complaint management.¹²⁸ Further, cities like Ottawa and Vancouver require STR platforms to register and share data, facilitating regulation enforcement.¹²⁹ These approaches illustrate the importance of tailored strategies to effectively manage and enforce rules throughout various municipalities.

Although such regulatory measures attempt to foster a structured STR market and in turn aim to mitigate potential negative impacts on long-term housing availability, these rentals continue to have significant impacts on housing affordability and availability. Some studies indicate that strict STR regulations could potentially reintroduce around 31,000 units into the long-term rental markets of cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.¹³⁰ They also suggest a link between the presence of Airbnb and rises in rental prices.¹³¹ However, opposing viewpoints, such as that from the Conference Board of Canada, argue that the influence of STRs on overall rental costs is minimal, with less than one percent of rent increases attributed to increased Airbnb activity.¹³² This implies that while STRs may have a slight impact on housing availability in popular tourist spots, they are unlikely to be a primary driver of Canada’s broader housing affordability challenges.¹³³

Efforts to substantially decrease Airbnb listings in Toronto and Vancouver through strict STR regulations have not alleviated Canada’s housing crisis.¹³⁴ This suggests that the causes of housing affordability issues are more complex and extend beyond the STRs implications alone. This highlights the limitations of depending solely on STR regulations as a quick fix for housing affordability and availability issues, emphasizing the need for a more holistic and inclusive housing policy approach.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LEGISLATION

City of Hamilton, by-law No 22-209, “A By-law to Establish a Municipal Accommodation Tax” (12 August 2022).

City of Iqaluit, by-law No 624, “Business Licensing Bylaw” (8 November 2005), s 3 [by-law No 624].

City of Iqaluit, by-law No 899, “Zoning By-law” (25 August 2021), s 5 [by-law No 899].

City of Toronto, amended by-law No.1453-2017, “Zoning By-law Amendment” (8 December 2017).

City of Toronto, by-law No. 1452-2017, “Zoning By-Law” (8 December 2017) [City of Toronto].

Halifax Regional Municipality, by-law No M-400, “Respecting Marketing Levy” (22 August 2023).

Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, “Transient Accommodation Tax” O. Reg. 435/17.

Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s 400.1.

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s.34 [Planning Act].

Provincial Policy Statement, Ontario 2020, s.1.1.1 [PPS].

Town of Niagara-on-the-lake, by-law No 5435-22, “Municipal Accommodation Tax By-Law” (1 July 2022).

Town of Niagara-on-the-lake, by-law No 5540-23, “Municipal Accommodation Tax By-Law of The Corporation of The Town of Niagara-On-The-Lake” (1 January 2024).

Town of Niagara-on-the-lake, “Municipal Accommodation Tax” [NOTL].

JURISPRUDENCE

2019 ON LPAT [Hodgart].

2012 ONSC 4215 (CanLII) at para 54 [Rosen].

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

British Columbia, “B.C’s short-term rental principal residence regulation” (March 18, 2024) [British Columbia].

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, “Housing Shortages in Canada: Solving the Affordability Crisis” (Government of Canada, 23 June 2022).

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, “Housing Shortages in Canada: Updating how much housing we need by 2030” (Government of Canada, 13 September 2023).

City of Calgary, “Short-term rentals” [City of Calgary].

City of Charlottetown, “Short-Term Rental Operation | Tourism Accommodation Levy Frequently Asked Questions” [City of Charlottetown].

City of Edmonton, “Short-Term Home Rentals” [City of Edmonton].

City of Kelowna, “Short-Term Rental Operator’s Guidebook”.

City of Ottawa, “Hotel and short term accommodation tax”.

City of Ottawa, “Short-Term Rentals” [City of Ottawa].

City of Regina, “Residential Short-Term Accommodation Licences”.

City of Saskatoon, “Development Regulation” [City of Saskatoon].

City of Toronto, “Short-Term Rental Municipal Accommodation Tax”.

City of Toronto, “Short-Term Rental Operators/Hosts” [City of Toronto].

City of Toronto, “10 Things You Should Know About Short-Term Rentals”.

City of Vancouver, “Short-Term rental business licence” [City of Vancouver].

City of Victoria, “Short-Term Rentals” [City of Victoria].

Halifax Regional Municipality, “Marketing Levy” [Halifax Regional Municipality].

Municipality of Whistler, “Tourist Accommodation Business Licence”.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, “Estimating how much housing we’ll need by 2030” (Government of Canada, 13 September 2023).

SECONDARY MATERIALS: ARTICLES

Cameron, Anna & Lindsay M. Tedds “Managing the Short-term Rental Market in Canada: A Comparative Analysis of Policy, Planning, and Regulatory Strategies in 25 Municipalities” (2023) Soc Science Research Network 4 at 5 [Cameron].

SECONDARY MATERIALS: CASE COMMENT

Omar Ha-Redeye, “Regulating Short Term Rentals During a Housing Crisis”, Case Comment on CanII 112392 (23 February 2020).

SECONDARY MATERIALS: ELECTRONIC SOURCES

Bartlett, Randall & Kari Norman, “Could Restricting Short-Term Rentals Help Alleviate Canada’s Housing Crisis?”” (4 December 2023), online: Desjardins [Barlett].

Combs, Jennifer, Danielle Kerrigan & David Wachsmuth, “Short-term rentals in Canada: Uneven growth, uneven impacts” (June 2019), online: The urban Politics and Research group at McGill [Combs].

Demarco, Zoe, “Restrictions on Short-Term Rentals Could Improve Canada’s Housing Crisis: Economists” (5 December 2023), online: Storeys.

Jamasi, Zohra, “Regulating Airbnb and the Short-Term Rental Market” (June 2017), online: Canada Centre for Policy Alternatives [Jamasi].

Leduc, Pierre, “Canadian Home Sales See Little Change From June to July” (15 August 2023), online: The Canadian Real Estate Association.

Lucio, Julia, “Airbnb and the Housing Crisis: Is there a Way to Proper Regulations?” (14 February 2024), online: The Seeker.

The Conference Board of Canada, “Airbnb Activity and Rental Markets in Canada” (11 October 2023), online: The Conference Board of Canada [Conference Board of Canada].

Endnotes