27-06-2025
Landlord hit with water bill interest 7 years after tenant moved out in Ottawa
An Ottawa landlord says she's on the hook for hundreds of dollars in interest on a tenant's unpaid water bill, seven years after she says she was told the account was clear.
Claire Lalonde, who has been a landlord for 16 years, says that when her tenant moved out in March 2018, she called the City of Ottawa to confirm everything was in order before transferring the water account to a new tenant, adding a city staff member assured her the account was 'all good' and were no arrears left by the previous tenant.
Fast forward to May 1, 2025, when Lalonde received a letter from the city requiring she pay $549.87 in unpaid water and sewer charges, including $377 in interest, dating back to 2018.
The original bill was $172.78. She was given notice to pay or risk the charge being added to her property tax bill, along with a $53 administrative fee.
In a series of letters and phone calls to city departments since June, Lalonde has tried to get the interest removed.
'I don't mind paying the water bill,' she said. 'I don't want to be charged seven years of interest when I was never told that there was an issue.'
Lalonde says city staff told her their hands were tied. A late fee interest rate of 1.25 percent is compounded to the outstaying bill each month.
'I tried to negotiate with them and say, listen, I'll pay the original bill, just don't charge me the interest because I was never informed,' she said. 'And they don't even want to take off a hundred bucks, nothing.'
Documents reviewed by CTV News Ottawa show the city maintains it followed proper procedure under Ontario's Municipal Act. In responses from city collections staff, officials say Lalonde had signed a tenant authorization agreement in 2018 allowing her tenant to be billed directly for water and sewer services, and that all subsequent communication, including overdue notices, was sent to the tenant.
Staff added that due to privacy laws, information about tenant accounts can't be disclosed to landlords, unless a water certificate is formally requested. One response from the city notes it is limited on what they can disclose about collections from the tenant.
'They're [city staff] telling me there's an online system,' said Lalonde. 'But that's not what they told me when I called.'
City staff she spoke with, likely pointing to My ServiceOttawa portal, which allows property owners and tenants to check water account balances and billing history.
While the online verification system did exist back in 2018, it is not proactive. Property owners must manually sign up, log in, and check the account themselves. The city also offers a formal water utility certificate, for a fee, that confirms whether any amounts are outstanding as of a given date.
City officials acknowledged that collection efforts are 'manual and iterative,' and that 13 per cent of cases fail to recover funds from former tenants or owners. When all attempts are exhausted, the Municipal Act allows the city to transfer the amount to the current owner's tax roll.
'No billing error occurred,' the City of Ottawa stated in another letter, adding that penalties and interest are applied to all overdue accounts and cannot be waived unless the city made a mistake.
But Lalonde argues there needs to be some accountability for the time delay.
'Seven years later, they come up with an amount and they're charging me for seven years of interest,' she said. 'If I would have known I had an arrear, I would have paid the bill immediately.'
In one city letter, officials recommended she contact a lawyer or her insurance provider, an option Lalonde says isn't practical.
'It's going to cost me more than that to get a lawyer, unfortunately,' said Lalonde. 'And I think they know that and that's why they get away with it.'
Lalonde says she has no way of reaching her former tenant and feels stuck between a bureaucratic system and a bill she believes is not fair.
'I'd like the city to be accountable for not telling the people in time,' she added. 'Two months or three months later, that would have been acceptable. Seven years, not acceptable.'
