Landlord Not Correctly Named on the Notice (LTB)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-05-05
CLNP Page ID:	770
Page Categories:	[Defective Notice (LTB)]
Citation:	Landlord Not Correctly Named on the Notice (LTB), CLNP 770, <https://rvt.link/67>, retrieved on 2024-05-05
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2023/05/26

Procedural Issues Regarding Eviction Applications, Interpretation Guideline 10

Multiple Landlords

If more than one landlord entered into the tenancy, and only one of them gives a Notice of Termination, they take a risk that the tenant will object to it at the hearing. The Notice may not be sufficient if any of the landlords' names are missing from the Notice, although it is sufficiently signed if any one of the landlords signs it.

The same may be true of the application. If there are multiple landlords, all should be named in the application, although one may sign it as agent for the others.

If the Notice was given by a different landlord than the applicant, this may be proper if the property has been sold and the new landlord is the applicant. However, both the purchaser and vendor should be named and sign the application if there is rent owing to each.

TSL-85025-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42621 (ON LTB)

2. The Landlord requested to amend the application to correct the name of the corporation in the style of cause. The Tenants did not dispute that the Landlord was incorrectly named in the application and in the notice of termination but they argued that the incorrectly named landlord rendered the notice of termination void. However, as I explained at the hearing, section 43 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006] the (“Act”), which sets out the essential elements of a notice of termination, does not specifically state that a landlord must be correctly named in a notice. Therefore, I find that the landlord’s failure to name itself correctly in the notice does not render it defective and void.

3. The Tenants also raised the recent amendment to section 48 of the Act, which prevents a corporation from filing a landlord’s own use application. However, that amendment came into effect on May 30, 2017, several months after the Landlord’s application was filed and it does not apply to this application. In the present case, the Landlord corporation owns the residential complex. It filed an application seeking vacant possession of the rental unit so the son of the sole owner of the corporation can move into the unit. I am satisfied that the individual owner, CB, is the directing mind of the corporation. As such, I am satisfied that CB meets the definition of “landlord” in the Act because he is also an owner of the rental unit. Accordingly, CB will be referred to as the Landlord in the remainder of this order. This approach is consistent with the court’s decision in Slapsys (1406393 Ontario Inc.) v. Abrams, 2010 ONCA 676 (CanLII).