Editor’s Note: This article includes a timeline of events spanning September 2024 – August 2025. View it here.
Tenants on Bank street between Lisgar and Nepean streets, known as Bank Block, received eviction notices during the week of August 6. The eviction date was set for August 31, giving them three weeks to vacate homes some tenants have lived in for decades.
Tenants formed as an organized tenant association, Bank Block Tenants (BBT), after Smart Living Properties (SLP) bought its block of affordable homes in 2022. Bank Block was slated for demolition and SLP served all tenants with N13 notices. The experience was described by tenant Ben Emond in a 2024 Leveller article as being put in “a position of struggle.”
For two years, BBT has been fighting displacement through direct actions. These actions include issuing collective demand letters to SLP, holding rallies at the landlords’ offices and homes and publicly identifying the landlords as Tamer Abaza and Rakan Abushaar.
“This landlord wants to get rid of me as cheap as possible without taking responsibility and without caring for how it will affect me.” – Nicole Seguin, tenant
In December 2024, BBT intervened in Ottawa’s City Council chambers to challenge the ‘demoviction’ proposal by SLP. ‘Demovictions’ or ‘renovictions’ are a process of eviction due to demolition or renovation, in this case, legalized by the city’s approval of development applications.
“I understand that you guys are focused on the planning aspect of this application, but you have to realize that this step in the process is giving permission for the eventual destruction of our homes,” said Emond in his deputation at the city’s Planning Committee.
Over three days – December 4, 10, and 11 – dozens of tenants and community supporters sat in city chambers and presented over 40 deputations against SLP’s proposal, which detailed its harm not only to the BBT but to the future of housing in Ottawa. The collective demand was clear: don’t approve the destruction of BBT’s affordable homes during the city’s declared housing and homelessness emergency.
Despite hours spent on deputations, questions from Councillors, and deliberations over the numerous issues with SLP’s proposal, the development went forward due to a last-minute motion by Councillor Ariel Troster on December 4 for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Ottawa and SLP.
The Memorandum of Understanding is insufficient
The MOU was initiated by the City despite SLP’s track record of evictions, neglect and mistreatment of tenants such as their conduct with tenants on Osgoode street, reported by The Leveller in 2020. This record was made evident to the City: “Smart Living targets affordable housing, pushes people out, and generates less affordable housing” said researcher Sloane Mulligan in their deputation.
The MOU was drafted and signed in under a week between the Dec 4 Planning Committee and Dec 11 City Council sessions. Trosters’s office, as BBT’s Councillor, led the negotiations with SLP’s lawyers and professional lobbyists without the tenants’ consent.
“It happened in bad faith … If it was in good faith the landlord would have been held a lot more accountable.” – Manuel Cua, tenant
Once the MOU was voted through on December 4, it removed the need for a vote both at Committees and City Council. In accepting the MOU as a set of conditions on a development, the city accepted the development application itself. The MOU facilitated the demolition of Bank Block and the evictions of its tenants.
The signed written agreement between the city and developer was meant to introduce conditions that alleviate the harm of development-led displacement. The conditions specified in the MOU conditions have not been upheld despite the tenants’ approaching eviction date.
Examples of city negotiated MOUs used in the past include the mass demoviction of Herongate by financialized landlord Hazelview Properties, and the proposed demolition and redevelopment of Manor Park by Manor Park Estates owned by the Aggarwal family.
In a 2021 Leveller article written by Tammy Mast and Josh Hawley, the authors point out that “much fanfare” was given to the Herongate MOU by the city and developer. However, it was simply another mechanism to recast mass eviction as a positive outcome and did little to address the tenants’ displacement.
“If this mass eviction went through, my household would face a rent hike of triple our current rent.” – Eric Roberts, tenant
The BBT’s MOU gave tenants two options. The first option provided a $20,000 cash benefit and a right of first refusal for ‘legal current tenants’, where tenants can rent a similar unit type at their current rental rates after the new development is constructed. Their rents are subject to the 2.5% annual provincial rent increase with protections from above guideline rent increases (increases higher than the provincially mandated 2.5%) for 10 years. The second option provided no right of first refusal and a $30,000 cash benefit. Both options included $500 in moving expenses, moving assistance, and relocation counsel.
The MOU set a move-out date of February 28th, 2025, forcing tenants to move out in one of the coldest months of the year. This date was weeks before legal eviction proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) in March, so tenants who took the MOU could not fight their eviction at the LTB.
A settlement of $20,000 had previously been offered by SLP to the tenants in late September 2024, so the cash amounts in both options were either not an improvement or a significant improvement. These amounts are inadequate compensation for eviction into the current housing market in Ottawa, where rents are reported averaging $2,024 per month for a one-bedroom.
This is especially concerning considering the new construction will take three or more years to complete, as stated by SLP’s representative Ryan Denyer during the December 4 Planning meeting. To be securely housed until a right to return, tenants would need at least three times the settlement cash offers, a reality acknowledged by Councillor Riley Brockington, also at the planning meeting, who pointed out $20,000 would barely cover a year’s rent and related expenses.
“It’s like the deal is sealed for them, they know that you’re going to approve it here at City Hall.” – John Bergeron, tenant
“It was treacherous. There was no consultation with us, [Troster] just took it upon herself. There was not enough time for us to think […] or talk about it and we were not part of the discussion. It felt like there wasn’t much we could have done, like it happened out of our control,” stated Bank Block tenant Manuel Cua.
“It happened in bad faith […] it was never in good faith. If it was in good faith the landlord would have been held a lot more accountable. The city councillor just wanted to look good […] to appear like she was working for the people. But she was not really.”
The aspect of the MOU most celebrated by the city is the ‘right of first refusal’, described during the city sessions as setting a precedent for developers. A right of first refusal is already a provincial housing right that requires landlords to provide tenants being evicted due to renovations or redevelopment a right to return upon completion to a comparable unit at their existing rents. SLP did not provide this to the tenants on Bank Block. When questioned as to why tenants were not offered a right to return despite only being 11 households in a proposed 290 unit development, SLP representative Ryan Denyer stated “the option to return within the current economic environment was not financially viable to accommodate.”
“The MOU does not include the necessary elements to protect the tenants on our block. It does not provide security against displacement and homelessness.” – Julie Ivanoff, tenant
The MOU does not protect the tenants from the threat of being unhoused or guarantee what the tenants will return to. Following the approval of SLP’s mass demoviction, BBT released a statement on Instagram: “All we’ve ever wanted was not to be displaced – we never asked for a MOU. A carefully negotiated ‘right to return’ with conditions that protect all of us throughout the process would have been a welcome safety net as we continue to fight for our homes. The deal brokered between the city and SLP is far from that. We heard a lot of celebrating of the MOU […] but no discussion of the actual conditions.”
The statement said tenants would be returning to significantly smaller units with no rent control in a crammed building with expensive amenities. This return would take years to eventualize during which tenants will face housing insecurity and homelessness, and if they return, it would be to a landlord that has been trying to evict them.
No tenant input
At the December 4 2024 planning meeting, the deputations from tenants and community supporters presented arguments against SLP’s proposal. They highlighted how the development destroys affordable housing, the holes in legal protections for tenants, SLP’s consistent practices of neglect and the ways SLP’s proposal contradicts the city’s goals of increasing affordable, transit-oriented, and diverse housing.
“For the first time in my life I will be without a home, at 67 years of age […] This landlord wants to get rid of me as cheap as possible without taking responsibility and without caring for how it will affect me,” Nicole Seguin wrote in a deputation read by her sister Sylvie Seguin.
“If this mass eviction went through, my household would face a rent hike of triple our current rent. Best case scenario, this would sweep my partner, daughter and I into the situation of poverty and instability,” said tenant Eric Roberts.
“You just got to go down there and walk around the block and you can see that […] Smart Living don’t care about the property. It’s like the deal is sealed for them, they know that you’re going to approve it here at City Hall,” said tenant John Bergeron about the deteriorating conditions since SLP bought the block.
In February 2025, The Leveller reported that SLP was owing millions in loans and legal fees, had its Hintonburg property forced into receivership and did not pay over half a million in property taxes.
“The option to return within the current economic environment was not financially viable to accommodate.” – SLP representative Ryan Denyer
SLP owners Tamer Abaza and Rakan Abushaar were absent, instead represented by SLP staff Rowland Gordon and Ryan Denyer, Lisa Dalla Rosa from Fotenn Planning, and Mahshad Madahi from Neuf Architects. Gordon described how the rents for studios will begin at $1,600 and the new development’s target population are “transient tenants.”
When SLP was questioned on why they had not negotiated with tenants, SLP representative Ryan Denyer stated “we have been reaching out for over a year for amicable solutions for tenants to be rehomed in a better location and financial position than where they began.”
This contradicts tenant testimonies. like Emond’s, who described SLP as “the company that has refused repeatedly to talk with us as human beings and tried to make all the money in the world”.
As the meeting progressed, a number of Councillors questioned the merits of SLP’s proposal. Councillors Troster, Laura Dudas, Clark Kelly and Theresa Kavanagh vocally stated they would vote against the development. Along with Councillors Brockington, Jeff Leiper, and Glen Gower, who have a progressive track record in housing and vocally sympathized with the tenants, there was a moment where an unprecedented vote rejecting a mass eviction seemed possible.
This moment was ended by a last minute motion for an MOU from Troster, seconded by Leiper, that would defer this decision to the December 11 City Council meeting, giving SLP one week to “come back with a better deal” for the tenants.
On December 5, BBT reached out to Troster requesting to be actively involved in any decision making in the week ahead. BBT met with Troster’s office on the morning of Friday December 6 during which Troster’s office stated it would be pushing for a right to return in the MOU.
BBT told The Leveller they were explicit with Troster: a right to return is helpful, but not its main demand. In order for the right to return to have any value, tenants would need to be protected from housing insecurity and homelessness while the development is completed. In a follow up email to this meeting BBT reaffirmed “we would view those three provisions together (right of first refusal, rent control for 15 years, and a relocation assistance arrangement for each year that tenants are displaced) as necessary for the MOU arrangement to be tenable.”
On December 9, BBT received the terms of the final MOU with a single cash payout and this message: Troster’s office ‘strongly believed this is the best deal possible and that this MOU sets a new standard for protecting tenants’.
On December 10, BBT and community supporters once again intervened in the City’s Built Heritage Committee, during which tenant Julie Ivanoff stated clear opposition to the MOU:
“Councillor Troster brought up an MOU. The MOU does not include the necessary elements to protect the tenants on our block. It does not provide security against displacement and homelessness. It also undermines our organizing work and the legal processes we are currently going through at the Landlord and Tenant Board, pressuring us to accept a deal before we even have a chance to make our case at the Board.”
Ivanoff continued, “in the context of this MOU the only way to protect tenants would be by means of adequate provision for relocation assistance. Without this, the right of first refusal is not meaningful…. Once $20,000 dollars runs out, what are we supposed to do?”
Following this, BBT issued a letter and public statement on social media.
“We, the tenants who live in the buildings slated to be demolished, oppose the application and the MOU (in its current form), for reasons stated in the Committee meeting on December 4th and 10th, and due to SLP’s shameful practices that many of your fellow councillors have discovered over the past few weeks,” BBT wrote.
Later, Ivanoff provided a statement saying “the MOU was brokered against our wishes and without our participation. It robbed us of an opportunity to exercise due process before municipal committees, and robbed us of our right to exercise agency in our dealings with the landlord. The MOU was a disheartening demonstration that we are currency to be gambled for political clout.”
On December 11, City Council approved the development and the MOU in contrast to the organized tenants’ demands.
BBT’s agenda item was brought up 8 hours into the meeting, and deliberated for only a few minutes. Only Councillor Stephanie Plante dissented on the whole motion, and Councillors Troster and Marty Carr dissented on the primary clause in the motion.
Editor’s Note: The Leveller reached out to Councillor Ariel Troster’s office but did not receive a response by time of publishing.
”We don’t approve developments. The committee’s role is to approve zoning by-law amendments,” said Planning Committee chair Jeff Leiper.
In a statement provided by Emond, he challenged the notion that the City cannot consider tenants in its planning process: “It is preposterous that human rights are not given the slightest regard in the whole zoning and development process. For us to have and maintain a just society, the wellbeing of people must be the prime consideration. If these are not protected, how can we rely on any governments or organizations to uphold them?”
The harm is in the long-term details
“This is just all for news. [Troster] just went on about how successful she was brokering this deal. They could have negotiated a better deal from the beginning,” said Bank Block tenant John Bergeron.
“When people as old as me lose their homes […] with my parents’ belongings – these have value to me – the money in the MOU is nothing in comparison to having lived here for almost 50 years, and paid thousands and thousands in rent.”
Many of the remaining households did not take the MOU and collectively decided to continue resisting their mass eviction. Yet, hours were spent making sense of how the MOU impacted tenants’ and their organizing, of what taking it, not taking it, or contesting it entailed.
How did the MOU impact the LTB process? Was it still technically an eviction? What would happen if only some tenants took it? Could SLP really be relied on to provide the money, moving support and relocation assistance?
Most importantly, the MOU disrupted the core, consistent demands BBT had been making to SLP: drop the N-13 evictions and meet with the tenants as an organized group.
On December 16, SLP issued a notice dated December 12 saying tenants needed to accept the MOU before the end of the month, despite the deadline to accept the MOU officially noted as the end of January.
In December, SLP also served all tenants with trespass notices and summons for delivering a letter to Tamer Abaza’s house in November 2024. The language on the summons stated the ‘Abaza family experienced a serious and distressing experience’ due to tenants delivering a letter, shared by BBT. The charges forced BBT to halt their organizing and hire criminal defense lawyers until the Crown eventually stopped the case for insufficient grounds.
For the tenants that did express interest in the MOU, SLP delayed responses, did not clarify details, and waited until the last moments of the deadline to share legal paperwork for tenants to review and sign. The tenants reported that the process of working through the MOU with SLP was full of complications and difficult to navigate.
In a public letter to Councillors, BBT pointed out that a move out date of February, two months after the MOU was introduced and almost a month before the LTB hearings disrupts tenants’ fight against their eviction.
The tenants who took the MOU negotiated different move out dates with SLP. When BBT reached out to the city through Councillor Troster to ask when SLP would pay the tenants according to the MOU terms, the City lawyer informed them that since a different move out date was negotiated outside of the formal process of the MOU, they cannot uphold the terms of the MOU.
BBT disclosed that SLP’s lawyers have since placed various conditions on the MOU settlement being issued including asking tenants to drop T2 forms (submitted to LTB for landlord negligence), and asking tenants to sign an agreement that they won’t pursue any legal action against the landlord in perpetuity.
Editor’s Note: The Leveller reached out to Smart Living Properties multiple times prior to publishing articles in September 2024 and February 2025. We have not received a response.
Still to date, none of the Bank Block tenants that accepted the MOU have received the settlement or moving support and all tenants have been ordered to vacate by the end of August.
Bank Block tenant Roberts provided a statement to The Leveller arguing for tenants to self organize to collectively control their own conditions: “For a homeowner, a $20 or 30k sum can buy a new kitchen or bathroom. For a low or fixed-income tenant household, the same sum in the form of a Buy Out is incapable of preventing a slip toward poverty or homelessness at the result of displacement. Politicians understand that our current housing system relies on continual, widespread displacement of low-income households and yet continue to endorse and celebrate Buy Outs.”
“On Bank Block, we now understand from experience that politicians do not broker stability for tenants. If we want to control our conditions, we need to organize ourselves and challenge landlords directly.”
Memorandum of Understanding Timeline
- Sept-Nov 2024: BBT organizes protests targeting SLP’s renoviction of tenants, reported by The Leveller. BBT meets with Councillors Leiper (Sept) and Troster (Nov) for avenues to deny SLP’s proposal. BBT is told there are no avenues to contest SLP’s proposal or negotiate housing security for the tenants. An MOU is not mentioned as a viable option.
- Dec 4 2024: Planning and Housing Committee. Dozens of deputations provided by tenants and community supporters convince multiple members of Council towards rejecting SLP’s application but City lawyers advise against. MOU is proposed at the very end and the vote on SLP’s proposal is deferred.
- Dec 6 2024: BBT meets with Councillor Troster and demands to have input on the MOU’s terms. By EODthe end of Dec 6, the Councillor’s office had not received any response on the MOU from SLP.
- Dec 9 2024: Troster’s office sends terms of MOU to BBT. MOU terms do not contain BBT demands, and include an early move out date. BBT immediately dissented against the MOU.
- Dec 10 2024: Built Heritage Committee. More deputations lead the Committee to question SLP’s capacity to take on a heritage project of this significance. BBT publicly shares opposition against MOU.
- Dec 11 2024: City Council Meeting. BBT distributes to all Councillors a letter of opposition to the MOU and a summary of deputations. Despite this, SLP’s proposal and MOU passed with majority.
- Dec 16 2024: BBT receives letter from SLP’s Andrew Amin dated Dec 12 with confusing messaging on the required move out date and deadline to accept MOU (which was not outlined in the MOU terms).
- Dec 16-19 2024: BBT Tenants and community supporters (many who were not present) receive trespassing charges from SLP for delivering a letter to Tamer Abaza’s residence in Nov 2024.
- Dec 18 2024: Tenants receive summons for these charges which states the ‘Abaza family experienced a serious and distressing experience’ due to tenants delivering a letter.
- End of Jan 2025: Official deadline to accept MOU. Not all tenants take the MOU offer. Tenants who do accept MOU don’t receive paperwork to review until the day before the deadline.
- Feb 28 2025: Move out date under MOU (tenants who took MOU negotiated different move out dates)
- Mar 17-18 2025: LTB Hearings
- May 23 2025: Crown stays (stops) criminal proceedings against BBT
- May 2025: City legal team states they will not attempt to enforce the terms of the MOU on SLP
- July 2025: City legal team backtracks on their stated reason for not enforcing the MOU, claiming if tenants withdraw T2 applications (requests for serious repair work), they will honour the MOU.
- August 2025: SLP promises MOU payments on condition that tenants sign an agreement to never pursue any legal actions against the landlord
- August 6-9 2025: Tenants receive eviction orders in early August for the date of August 31st, providing barely three weeks notice to vacate. To date, no tenants have received MOU payment.
