Can you clarify this? Are you saying that homeowners will create fake "rental" contracts with straw man renters, and then when fined, provide the rental contract as evidence that they tried to comply? My guess is that the city will simply take the position that the onus is on the homeowner to ensure the renter is actually there, which is the correct approach if the concern is that homeowners would create straw man renters.

Yes, I'm talking about straw man renters. Considering that the non-compliance penalty would likely end up being several times the value of the property (1% per day, and you can bet that it will take more than a few months before self-declarations are challenged), I suspect that this bylaw would get thrown out or heavily rewritten by the courts.

I'd also guess the city could ask for proof of money being exchanged, and test the rent against neighbouring homes' rents.

They could provide a copy of the contract when asked, I presume

That's the point of the "rental" market. It's still real. But maybe I'm happy to rent 2-3 houses for a very low price? I have business in different parts of the city over a week, so that seems like a convenient arrangement. (wink, wink)

But how do I know you won't actually live there full time causing me wear and tear costs. I mean ... you now have a contract that says you can!

You don't hand over the key.

Pretty sure that any locksmith will make you a key to a house you have a copy of the lease for.

That should be fine. They have to declare the rental income as income, and if it's a pure rental property, pay GST as well. Tax authorities already audit for unusually low rental rates vs market. The rent on a 1m house is likely in the 50k+ range, and the taxes on that will exceed the 10k no-occupancy fee. Problem solved.