Since co-founding Tenatch in 2019, I’ve witnessed first-hand the harsh asymmetry embedded in Toronto’s commercial real estate market. While we made repeated efforts to rebalance power between landlords and small business tenants, it often felt like David versus Goliath. And when the pandemic arrived, it didn’t cause the imbalance—it made it impossible to ignore.
Despite mounting public health concerns, neither the federal government nor most provinces in Canada were willing to impose a moratorium on commercial evictions. This left hundreds of thousands of small business owners vulnerable to the unilateral decisions of landlords, especially in high-demand urban corridors. In this article, I aim to clarify three key issues:
(1) Why would landlords pursue eviction during a pandemic?
(2) Why a commercial eviction ban was essential—not optional.
(3) What can be done next?
Global Comparisons and Canada’s Missed Opportunity
In March 2020, countries like the UK and Australia responded quickly to economic shutdowns by placing moratoria on evictions. France suspended rent and loan collection, while Denmark subsidised fixed costs to prevent delinquency. These measures recognised the role of policy in cushioning both tenants and landlords during an unprecedented crisis.
In Canada, however, eviction policy falls under provincial jurisdiction. Most provinces chose not to act. According to a Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) survey, over 60% of SMEs were unable to pay full rent—yet few protections were in place to stop lockouts or seizures.
Why Would Landlords Evict in a Crisis?
A common counterargument we often heard: “Why would any landlord evict a paying tenant? Isn’t that bad business?” In an ideal world, yes. But such assumptions overlook the structural imbalance built into the commercial leasing system.
Here’s the reality: many small business leases are inherently one-sided. Tenants sign long-term contracts, often backed by personal guarantees. They invest heavily in custom renovations—fixtures, kitchens, gyms, etc.—which are not easily transferrable. And when eviction occurs, landlords often retain these assets without compensation. Worse, landlords are under no obligation to negotiate or compromise, especially when the market offers an opportunity to replace old tenants with higher-paying ones.
Imagine negotiating your salary with a boss who can not only deny your request but also keep your tools, charge you for your replacement, and penalise your exit. That’s the effective position most small business tenants find themselves in under existing lease structures.
The Power of Threat, Not Just Action
The true issue is not always eviction itself, but the threat of eviction. Commercial leases are typically signed for five to ten years, with some renewal options lasting up to 20 years. In a crisis, tenants may default, but relief programs like Canada’s CECRA required landlord opt-in—a loophole many refused to entertain. In hot real estate markets, landlords saw a rare chance to push out older tenants paying below-market rents and replace them with more lucrative agreements.
So when given two options—
(A) Evict a tenant, reclaim the space, and charge higher rent, or
(B) Apply for partial rent subsidy under federal relief programs—
many landlords, unsurprisingly, chose (A). The structure incentivised displacement over dialogue.
A Broken System, Not Bad People
This is not a vilification of landlords. Most act rationally under the rules of market economics. But that’s precisely the problem: when systemic power is this uneven, rational actors can still produce harmful outcomes.
The crisis prompted desperate actions—entrepreneurs tapping retirement savings, borrowing from friends, or signing rent deferrals that trapped them in future debt. Even survival came at a cost. For many, getting through COVID meant financial depletion, emotional exhaustion, and uncertain recovery. Meanwhile, landlords were protected by the legal right to repossess, retain assets, and enforce debt obligations.
As a result, we didn’t just see an economic collapse—we saw a legitimacy crisis in how cities value their small business ecosystems.
What Next?
No provincial leader can credibly claim to support small business without addressing this structural imbalance. Eviction moratoria weren’t radical—they were essential. The real estate market won’t self-correct on its own. Without systemic reforms to balance power—be it through legal rights, financial mechanisms, or public policy—we risk repeating this cycle of displacement in every future shock.
At Tenatch, we’ve committed ourselves to exploring innovative responses to these challenges. While we don’t claim to have all the answers, we’re driven by one question: how do we build more equitable urban economies where small businesses don’t just survive—but shape the cities they call home?
Leave a Reply