Originally Posted by sniderj

Section 24 doesn't say he can't remove the locks. It says he can't change the locks without giving you new keys. The intent of this is presumably to ensure that a landlord cannot deny you entry to your rented premises.

Removing the locks IS altering the locks without giving you new keys. It's always difficult to say with any precision what the legislative intent was, but I see no reason why the intent would not have been also to prevent landlords from removing a tenant's only means of control and exclusion (the most fundamental features of property) of their rental unit.

If your rental unit is an apartment, and the landlord removes the locks, there's good reason to say that they shouldn't. You can't say an apartment is really yours if you can't control who gets to go in and when. If your rental unit is considered to be a room in a house, I see no reason why the same would not apply in a rooming house of many students and their visitors.

Originally Posted by chiefjustice

Removing the locks IS altering the locks without giving you new keys. It's always difficult to say with any precision what the legislative intent was, but I see no reason why the intent would not have been also to prevent landlords from removing a tenant's only means of control and exclusion (the most fundamental features of property) of their rental unit.

If your rental unit is an apartment, and the landlord removes the locks, there's good reason to say that they shouldn't. You can't say an apartment is really yours if you can't control who gets to go in and when. If your rental unit is considered to be a room in a house, I see no reason why the same would not apply in a rooming house of many students and their visitors.

Removing the lock is altering the lock WITH giving you the new keys. If you can open the door then you have the "keys" to enter.

Originally Posted by jhan523

Removing the lock is altering the lock WITH giving you the new keys. If you can open the door then you have the "keys" to enter.

I'm pretty sure they didn't have metaphorical keys in mind when they drafted the legislation. In any event, instead of listening to anonymous internet users, you should probably seek out legal advice from a legal clinic.

Look into this: My landlord has only warned against lock on our individual doors, as he said if they need to put out a fire in a room for one reason or another, then they would be breaking it down and we would replace it... If it isn't lockable from the outside, then they can open when needed... I don't know that it's a law though.

Originally Posted by chiefjustice

I'm pretty sure they didn't have metaphorical keys in mind when they drafted the legislation. In any event, instead of listening to anonymous internet users, you should probably seek out legal advice from a legal clinic.

It sounds like the intention of this clause is that the landlord does not have a right to lock out his tenants when they have paid their rent. As long as the tenant is able to get into their room then it should be alright. Although I don't like the idea of not having lockable doors, it doesn't seem like this clause invalidates removing the lock.

Originally Posted by mike_302

Look into this: My landlord has only warned against lock on our individual doors, as he said if they need to put out a fire in a room for one reason or another, then they would be breaking it down and we would replace it... If it isn't lockable from the outside, then they can open when needed... I don't know that it's a law though.

If there is a fire in a room, I think the last thing that's important is a door.

Originally Posted by jhan523

If there is a fire in a room, I think the last thing that's important is a door.

Very true...I think it's more the landlord covering himself so that, in the event of a fire which could already cost him a lot of money (since there will always be costs not covered by insurance), he won't ALSO have to pay for a new door. Although, if there's a fire in your room, the door would probably need replacing anyways...

My brother is a Fire Prevention Officer, so I gave him a call and asked him.

He says that if a landlord rents out a house as a bunch of units instead of just as a house, different rules from the fire code apply and the house would need renovation to bring it up to code (ie. extra firewalls, etc.)

So like the OP said, the landlord is trying to make sure the house is zoned as a family residence and not individual rental units. It's not really illegal and most student houses are like this. Technically, the landlord is saying you and your room-mates are renting the whole house as a group, even though that's not really the case.

My brother hadn't heard about a rule banning individual locks on doors in a family house, but it might be a Hamilton by-law. Firefighters carry axes for a reason and are happy to use them, so I really don't understand it.

Originally Posted by kristopherk

My brother is a Fire Prevention Officer, so I gave him a call and asked him.

He says that if a landlord rents out a house as a bunch of units instead of just as a house, different rules from the fire code apply and the house would need renovation to bring it up to code (ie. extra firewalls, etc.)

So like the OP said, the landlord is trying to make sure the house is zoned as a family residence and not individual rental units. It's not really illegal and most student houses are like this. Technically, the landlord is saying you and your room-mates are renting the whole house as a group, even though that's not really the case.

My brother hadn't heard about a rule banning individual locks on doors in a family house, but it might be a Hamilton by-law. Firefighters carry axes for a reason and are happy to use them, so I really don't understand it.

Even my family house has locks on all the bedroom doors (standard with all houses in my neighbourhood), although they are the really cheap ones that open with a plain key. But they are locks none the less and if there were a fire and the door was locked then I really don't think the firefighter would bother opening the lock but would break down the door instead.

On a side note, when you say they are happy to use their axes I picture crazy firefighters swinging randomly in a burning building

I think the point is so that the firefigthers dont have to break down the door with the axe, and i dont mean open the door with no key, i mean, if there's no lock, then it'll be easier for roommates and landlord to check if something is wrong in your room, rather than say, nah, nvm, cuz i cant open the door and let something like a fire spread.

That being said,

email Laura Stevens, the Student Community Support Network Director at [email protected]
and she will know exactly what to tell you or exactly who to point you to for a final say on this.

My sublet landlord said something similar to us, but he really said that they shouldnt be there, but as long as he doesn't know about the individual locks on doors (outside style) then he won't remove them. and since he never comes by....

my landlord did the same thing its definately a fire hazard tho, as i see it, if someone has their door locked from the inside a fireman would have to break the door open to check (not even kno) if someone is inside and that can potentially injure someone in the room

According to the Fire Prevention Act and the Fire Code laws, locks on doors is not a fire hazard. As other people mentioned though, he may be replacing the doors themselves to bring it up to code, or it may be a Hamilton by-law.

Of course, all of this is moot if you haven't moved in yet, since the aforementioned sections of the Residential Tenancies Act only covers you once you're moved in ("During the tenant's occupancy").

I had a landlord try this in my second year, I let him install his own doorknob and a week later took it out and got my own with a key..he never came around enough to notice or even bothered to look at the door.

My landlord also mentioned to me that if I installed a locked door on my own I would be responsible for myself should anything happen. If you are really concerned ask a by-law officer.