Defining a Residential Complex

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-04-28
CLNP Page ID:	2243
Page Categories:	[AGI Applications]
Citation:	Defining a Residential Complex, CLNP 2243, <https://rvt.link/7e>, retrieved on 2024-04-28
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2023/07/31

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

2 (1) In this Act,

...

“rental unit” means any living accommodation used or intended for use as rented residential premises, and “rental unit” includes,

(a) a site for a mobile home or site on which there is a land lease home used or intended for use as rented residential premises, and

(b) a room in a boarding house, rooming house or lodging house and a unit in a care home; (“logement locatif”)

“residential complex”, except in Part V.1, means,

(a) a building or related group of buildings in which one or more rental units are located,

(b) a mobile home park or land lease community,

(c) a site that is a rental unit,

(d) a care home, and, includes all common areas and services and facilities available for the use of its residents; (“ensemble d’habitation”)

“residential unit” means any living accommodation used or intended for use as residential premises, and “residential unit” includes,

(a) a site for a mobile home or on which there is a land lease home used or intended for use as a residential premises, and

(b) a room in a boarding house, rooming house or lodging house and a unit in a care home; (“habitation”)

...

126 (1) A landlord may apply to the Board for an order permitting the rent charged to be increased by more than the guideline for any or all of the rental units in a residential complex in any or all of the following cases:

1. An extraordinary increase in the cost for municipal taxes and charges for the residential complex or any building in which the rental units are located.

2. Eligible capital expenditures incurred respecting the residential complex or one or more of the rental units in it.

3. Operating costs related to security services provided in respect of the residential complex or any building in which the rental units are located by persons not employed by the landlord. 2006, c. 17, s. 126 (1); 2017, c. 13, s. 22 (1).

Kis v Wright, 2022 CanLII 86560 (ON LTB)

2. At the beginning of the hearing, a preliminary issue was raised by the Tenant with respect to the validity of the N12 notice of termination; specifically, that the residential complex, at the time the N12 was served, consisted of six rental units, which renders the N12 invalid and the Landlord’s application should be dismissed.

3. The Tenant’s evidence was the Tenant has resided in the rental unit for over twenty years. During her tenancy, while the properties were physically two separate buildings with three units in each building, they functioned as one residential complex. Both buildings shared the backyard and parking facilities. Both buildings were on one parcel of land. They shared waste management and collection services. They were owned by Louis Vass who became deceased and the current Landlords hold title to the property.

...

11. The N12 notice of termination was filed pursuant to subsection 49(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 which states:

49 (1) A landlord of a residential complex that contains no more than three residential units who has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale of the residential complex may, on behalf of the purchaser, give the tenant of a unit in the residential complex a notice terminating the tenancy, if the purchaser in good faith requires possession of the residential complex or the unit for the purpose of residential occupation by,

(a) the purchaser;

…

[Emphasis added.]

12. Based on the evidence before the Board, I find that the Landlords were not entitled to serve the N12 notice of termination pursuant to subsection 49(1) of the Act when they served this notice to the Tenant on July 30, 2021. I say this based on the Landlords’ own admission that on July 30, 2021, the properties were still merged and on one parcel of land.

TSL-94656-18-AM (Re), 2018 CanLII 120894 (ON LTB)

10. At the hearing the Landlord’s legal representative submitted that the unit downstairs is part of the residential complex because in the definition in the Act, “residential complex” means “a building … in which one or more rental units are located….” If that was the only part of the definition of “residential complex” I would agree. However, the definition also says that residential complex “includes all common areas and services and facilities available for the use of its residents.” These words mean that what is included in the residential complex is the areas used by residents. Residents are people who live in the building, not people who work in the building. Reading the definition as a whole, I find that the area occupied by the commercial tenant is not part of the residential complex because that area is not used by residents of the building.

TSL-96689-18-SA (Re), 2018 CanLII 120852 (ON LTB)

9. In the present case, I am not satisfied the Tenant breached a condition of Order TSL-89899-17-AM and therefore I must grant the Tenant’s motion pursuant to section 78(11)(a) of the Act and set aside the eviction order.

10. None of the photographs presented and none of the oral testimony was satisfactory in showing what specifically is the boundary line between the Dunn Avenue Parkette and the lands belonging to the owner of the residential complex. For instance, it was even suggested on behalf of the Landlord that the Parkette is located to the right of the path furthest away from the residential complex with the unlikely result that its identification sign and the city garbage cans are located on lands belonging to the owner of the residential complex.

11. Subsection 2(1) of the Act defines “residential complex to mean:

(a) a building or related group of buildings in which one or more rental units are located …, and

includes all common areas and services and facilities available for the use of its residents;

12. In the context of Order TSL-89899-17-AM, I find that the phrase “at the residential complex” means inside and not outside the building that is the subject of paragraph 2 of order TSL-89899-17-AM. That is because when used in an order of the Board, unless circumstances indicate otherwise, “residential complex” has the same meaning as it does in subsection 2(1) of the Act, namely, the building where rental units are located, and the preposition “at” means “in”.

13. Further, it was not established that the derogatory comment was made by the Tenant even while on the grounds of the owner of the residential complex. Consequently, the Tenant has not breached paragraph 2 of order TSL-89899-17-AM issued February 26, 2018.

TST-39175-13 (Re), 2013 CanLII 52082 (ON LTB)

The buildings are two separate buildings which form a residential complex. It is usual to see shared services and facilities, common land, and shared building management.

The Tenant further argued that 'building' is not defined in the Act and should be read as meaning 'residential complex'. While the Tenant noted that this interpretation was applied in a prior decision of the Board, the decision was not submitted to the Board, the fact situation is unknown, and in any event, the Board is not bound by prior Board decisions.

'Residential complex' is defined as "a building or a related group of buildings..." as is the case in the current application.

However, the definition must be read and interpreted in its entirety and the definition of 'residential complex' specifies that, in addition to a building or related group of buildings, it "includes all common areas and services and facilities"

Therefore the term 'building' cannot be interpreted as having the same meaning as 'residential complex'. A building is a constituent part of a residential complex which is comprised of a building, or related group of buildings, and all common areas and any other service or facility.

Section 6(2)(c) refers to “no part of the building being occupied”, not to no part of the residential complex being occupied. Therefore, I find that the new building, in which the Tenant resides, does fall under the exemption found at s. 6(2)(c).

Essendi v Manning, 2021 CanLII 120270 (ON LTB)

1. As a preliminary matter, the Tenant argues that the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter because he is the owner of the residential complex and the matter belongs in superior court.

2. The Tenant testified that he was facing foreclosure when he met the Landlord. The Landlord promised that he could arrange a mortgage to prevent the impending foreclosure. This involved putting the house in the Landlord’s name. The Tenant alleges that the parties had an agreement wherein the Tenant would buy back the house after it was transferred to the Landlord’s name. The residential complex was sold to the Landlord and the sale was completed on July 29, 2014, according to the parcel register submitted by the Landlord (p.27, Landlord’s evidence brief). Tenant feels like he was conned out of his home.

3. Subsection 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) defines “landlord” as “the owner of a rental unit”; a “tenant” includes “a person who pays rent in return for the right to occupy a rental unit”. It is undisputed that the there is a lease agreement between the parties wherein the Tenant is required to pay rent for the right to occupy the rental unit.

4. Based on the parcel register, I am satisfied that the Landlord is a “landlord” as defined by the Act because he is the registered owner of the residential complex.

5. I am also satisfied that the Tenant is a “tenant” as defined under the Act because he is required to pay rent in return for the right to occupy the rental unit in accordance with the written lease agreement between the parties (p.46, Landlord’s evidence brief).

6. The parties are in a Landlord and Tenant relationship and, therefore, the Board has jurisdiction.