Bad Faith - s. 202 (Tenant)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-01
CLNP Page ID:	2426
Page Categories:	Personal Use Application (LTB)
Citation:	Bad Faith - s. 202 (Tenant), CLNP 2426, <https://rvt.link/dh>, retrieved on 2024-11-01
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2024/10/20

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17

Findings of Board

202 (1) In making findings on an application, the Board shall ascertain the real substance of all transactions and activities relating to a residential complex or a rental unit and the good faith of the participants and in doing so,

(a) may disregard the outward form of a transaction or the separate corporate existence of participants; and

(b) may have regard to the pattern of activities relating to the residential complex or the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 202.

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an application made under Part V.1.

Pinto v. Regan and White v. Regan, 2021 ONSC 5502 (CanLII)

[40] Section 202 of the RTA imposed a statutory duty on the Member to determine questions of fact and to apply governing principles of law to ascertain the real substance of the transactions and activities regarding the rental units at issue, and the good faith of the parties to the N11. The Member did not consider all the evidence to determine the element of good faith on the part of the respondent other than making a passing reference in the Reasons. The Member did not take the totality of the evidence into account when he applied the substantive law. This amounted to an error of law.

Fava v. Harrison, 2014 ONSC 3352 (CanLII)

[17] We accept, as reflected in Salter, supra, that the motives of the landlord in seeking possession of the property are largely irrelevant and that the only issue is whether the landlord has a genuine intent to reside in the property. However, that does not mean that the Board cannot consider the conduct and the motives of the landlord in order to draw inferences as to whether the landlord desires, in good faith, to occupy the property.

[18] In this case, Board Member Beckett made a finding of fact that the notice that one of the landlords wished to occupy the property was not given in good faith. She decided that the credibility of the landlords was undermined because one of the landlords took the position that she wished to live in the house notwithstanding the other landlord’s belief that the unit was unsafe. In our view, the Board was entitled to take this into account in assessing the landlord’s credibility and in assessing the landlord’s good faith. In our view, Board Member Van Delft’s conclusion restricts the meaning of the term “good faith” to an unreasonable degree. By excluding any consideration of the landlord’s motives in deciding whether the landlord has acted in good faith, she has unduly restricted the consideration the Board must give to that term. We see nothing in Salter or Feeney, supra, to the contrary.