The financial decision is somewhat more defined. The CICA used to put out a pamphlet on 'The lease or buy decision' detailing the calculations required. The problem with your scenario is that you don't include the impact of increasing equity values; how much equity would you have had if you had bought in 2009 versus buying in 2016? If you reside in the Greater Van or GTA markets, it's highly likely that you are worse off.; those seven years between 2009 and 2016 mean about a 1.72 multiplier on your 2009 asset value (1.08**7). That means if you financed a $1,000,000 home in 2009, it was 'worth' $1,720,000 in 2016. That means the differential in your cash outflows would have to total to $720,000,  or about 100k a year, for the rental option to be comparable to the buy option. That seems unlikely. 

Post hoc analysis is not too useful for the future, but the parameters of the decision remain the same.  If you expect housing prices to increase, you should be buying.