If so then regardless of the reason for the risk you must pass.You are not screening based on marital status you screen based solely on risk.

Is he that bad at screening tenants or is this house a magnet for bad apples and what will it cost to improve enough to attract quality people?  

Let me know if this thread helpshttps://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/393652-screening-applicants-with-no-id-social-disabled-responsiblit

Generally if a expense does not generate a higher rent it is not worth the cost or effort.If turn over is your primary concern you need to concentrate on your screening process as a priority.

Then spend some time looking into old RTA judgements so you can see just how easy it is for tenants in Ontario to get a free ride while a landlord suffers.Then you develop an absolutely bulletproof tenant screening program.

You should fire them for not screening well though that is their fault. 

They handle all the late night issues, deal with handymen, inspections, walkthroughs before and after tenants move in and out, and they deal with advertising for new tenants, screening them, and working with you through the decision process.

A lot of the risk of what your talking about with vacancies is avoided by properly screening your tenants and if your getting 1200k per month your tenants should be decent.  

Then it was sort of rinse and repeat.I did notice that was a popular starting point on a BP poll recently (renting out a place you already owned/lived in).It makes sense as you have the financing in place, the transaction complete, plus you have screened the area and the property, know all the maintenance and routines, etc.So your first home may be your first investment property, too, eventually. 

Make sure to screen applicants, run credit, and verify their housing/debt-to-income ratios.