A London landlord is disputing statements made to the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) that he failed to honour a commitment to temporarily relocate his low-income tenants in exchange for Council permitting twice as many units inside each of the rental complex’s low-rise buildings. Four of the five multi-unit residential buildings at 145 Base Line Rd. W. are surrounded by construction fencing while workers undertake significant renovations. Lindy Fleming and her boyfriend have lived in the fifth building for eight and 16 years respectively, and were recently served an N13 Eviction Notice from the landlord. “It’s incredibly stressful, and we worry all the time about where we’re going to end up at the end of the day,” Fleming tells CTV News. She says they pay below-market rent for the three-bedroom apartment that can also accommodate her boyfriend’s children and their grandchild. “For us to find a three bedroom apartment anywhere is way out of our budget,” she explains. “We can’t afford to move anywhere.” Fleming’s apartment is one of three in the building fighting eviction notices. On Tuesday, Kristina Pagniello from Neighbourhood Legal Services appeared at the PEC meeting to remind Councillors about a commitment made by landlord Carlos Afanador in November, 2024 when he was seeking permission to double the density on the site. “The developer/landlord has reneged on their promise of alternate temporary housing (for tenants) while the renovations occur,” Pagniello told committee members. In a letter to Council dated Nov. 7, 2024 Afanador made the following commitment, “If approved, we are willing to offer tenants a temporary unit within the same complex while renovations to add the additional basement units takes place. Once the renovations are complete, tenants will return to their original units.” Councillor Skylar Franke, who represents the neighbourhood, urged the committee to have city staff prepare a report about: “The commitments made about this development did influence the decision made at Council,” Franke told the committee. “And so I’m wondering if there is some sort of process we can take.” However, by text message landlord Carlos Afanador tells CTV News there were inaccuracies presented to the committee and that he has acted in good faith throughout the process. He claims the three remaining tenants were offered alternate accommodations. “They initially accepted the units, then withdrew their acceptance after business hours on the final day of the permitted timeline,” he texts. He adds, “When those offers were ultimately not accepted, the matter proceeded through the LTB (Landlord and Tenant Board). Only three of the property’s 15 units remain occupied, and the required three months’ compensation has been paid or tendered to all three tenants.” And regarding the subsequent eviction process he states, “N13 Notices were served and are following the Landlord and Tenant Board process. The LTB will determine the outcome.” However, Pagniello’s letter on behalf of the remaining tenants describes the process differently. “For one of the remaining units, temporary accommodation was offered by letter dated Ferbruary 20, 2026, yet the unit appeared uninhabitable. Indeed, the landlord’s own contractor confirmed at the subsequent April 9, 2026 LTB hearing that no temporary accommodation units were actually available. At that same hearing, the LTB dismissed the landlord’s application to evict, on the basis that he had not paid the compensation required under the Residential Tenancies Act.” Her letter continues, “Since then, the landlord has paid the monetary compensation and issued new N13s but appears to not be offering the temporary units to the remaining three tenants.” Asked directly if the units offered to the tenants were clean and fit for habitation, Afanador texted, “Yes”. He provided the same response when asked if he believes that his commitment to City Council was fulfilled. City staff told PEC that temporary accommodation agreements can’t be enforced under the Ontario Planning Act or the Site Plan process, but they will look at another option. The committee recommended staff prepare a report as outlined in Franke’s letter. Council will make a final decision on August 25. Afanador’s texted statement concludes, “The landlord also encourages the City to hear from all affected parties and review the complete record before drawing conclusions, particularly when the landlord has not been contacted for his side of the story. The landlord has documentation supporting the steps taken and welcomes a fair review of the complete record.”
