An ongoing dispute at an apartment building in Etobicoke is drawing attention across the sector as tenants push back against their landlord and property manager for what they are describing as “abrupt changes” to rent‑payment procedures. The conflict at 24 Mabelle underscores the risks Ontario landlords face when operational shifts collide with long‑standing lease terms, aging tenant populations, and evolving provincial legislation.
According to the Toronto Tenant Union, tenants staged a demonstration at Compten Property Management’s head office, delivering an oversized “mock cheque” to protest the company’s refusal to accept rent payments by cheque. Residents say the lobby mailbox was taped shut, cutting off the usual on‑site method of submitting rent, and that management now expects all tenants to use an online payment portal — a system many seniors cannot navigate. The conflict comes on the heels of a 9 per cent Above Guideline Rent Increase (AGI) application, intensifying pressure on long‑term tenants already coping with rising housing costs.
Legal opinions on the matter diverge. Benjamin Ries, Executive Director of South Etobicoke Community Legal Services, argues that many tenants have a defensible right to continue paying rent by cheque, either because their leases specify it or because landlords have accepted cheques consistently for years.
“The method and location of rent payment is a contractual matter that one party cannot unilaterally change just because they feel like it,” he said.” Landlords who refuse to accept the rent where and how they have already legally agreed to receive it… must not need the money too badly.”
On the flipside, Joe Hoffer of Cohen Highley LLP says most leases give landlords the authority to change payment methods, provided they do not require PAP or post‑dated cheques: “If the leases in question support the landlord’s right to change the manner of payment and contain a ‘no waiver’ clause (which most do) then the hysterical response by the Toronto Tenant Union is just political and has no basis in law,” he said.
Hoffer added that even if leases do not explicitly permit such changes, landlords may still impose reasonable rules — including requiring the use of a portal — if justified. Past challenges to landlords refusing cash payments were unsuccessful, he noted, because eliminating theft risk was deemed reasonable.
At the same time, he acknowledges that there are some limits: if the change is motivated solely by landlord convenience and unsupported by lease provisions, it may be unenforceable.
“The claims by the Union that these 90‑year‑olds may lose their housing are simply fear‑mongering to gain support for their own cause,” he said. “No tenant will be evicted for declining to pay rent as demanded, even if the landlord has a right under the lease to require the change.”
Bill 60 and future legal challenges
The 24 Mabelle dispute is emerging as a cautionary example for landlords across Canada, particularly in Ontario, where Bill 60 will soon reshape the eviction process. With shorter timelines to correct paperwork issues and fewer defences available at hearings, operational changes — such as shifting to digital‑only payment systems — could escalate into eviction risks more quickly, even when tenants attempt to pay their rent. Sudden procedural adjustments may trigger legal challenges, reputational harm, and heightened scrutiny from tenant advocates and community legal clinics.
More broadly, the situation highlights the tension between digital modernization and tenant accessibility. As online portals become more common, seniors, newcomers, and tenants without reliable internet access may struggle to comply. Without alternative payment options, these residents become vulnerable to administrative eviction notices despite long histories of timely payment. In a climate shaped by AGIs, rising operating costs, and regulatory change, operational consistency and clear communication are becoming essential risk‑management tools.
In Hoffer’s view, clear communication and adherence to lease terms are not just best practices but essential safeguards in an environment where administrative missteps can quickly escalate into legal challenges, public scrutiny, and avoidable arrears.
“By ensuring tenants have reliable, legally compliant ways to pay rent,” he noted, “landlords reduce friction, minimize the likelihood of contested notices, and reinforce the operational consistency that underpins long‑term asset performance.”
