Notice of Termination Requirements (LTB - General)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID:	238
Page Categories:	[Personal Use Application (LTB)], [Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)‎], [Maintenance Obligations (LTB)],
Citation:	Notice of Termination Requirements (LTB - General), CLNP 238, <https://rvt.link/dn>, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2024/10/22

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

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

46 (1) A notice of termination becomes void 30 days after the termination date specified in the notice unless,

(a) the tenant vacates the rental unit before that time; or

(b) the landlord applies for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant before that time.

George V. Apartments Ltd v. Cobb, 2002 CarswellOnt 5553

14) Elkhatib and other cases referred to in that judgment decided under the prior Act were cited to us as authority for the following proposition: a tenant's notice to terminate which fails to comply with the provisions of the Act is not necessarily a nullity. We respectfully disagree. We have found the tenant's notice deficient in three ways. This matter can also be distinguished from Elkhatib on the narrow ground that Ms. Cobb did not give notice in writing whereas in Elkhatib notice was in writing and was found by Swinton, J. to be required. (para. 17) Were the tenant permitted to give notice verbally, landlords would never know whether the notice date was effective should the tenant subsequently seek to resile from the oral notice.

15) More broadly, we find the scheme of the Act should be applied with an even hand between landlord and tenant when it comes to notices of termination. Section 39(1) of the Act recites that a tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with the Act. A tenant may terminate a tenancy at the end of a period of the tenancy by giving notice of termination to the landlord. (s. 46 of the Act). Section 47, quoted above, requires the tenant to give at least 60 days notice before the date of termination is specified to be effective and that date shall be on the last day of the rental period. Section 43(1) sets out the form of the notice that is to be given by either a landlord or a tenant. We find the notice requirements should apply equally to landlord and to tenant. There is nothing in the legislation to suggest that a tenant's notice which fails to comply with the provisions of the Act is other than void.

Braks v Bailey, 2013 CanLII 57485 (ON SCSM)

18. It has been held that the notice requirements under the Act are to be strictly interpreted, whether the notice is given by the landlord or the tenant: George V. Apartments Ltd. v. Cobb, (2002) O.J. No. 5918 (Div. Ct.). The requirement that notice be given in writing applies despite any agreement between the parties to the contrary or any waiver, by virtue of s. 3(1): see Nistap Development Corp. v. McIntyre, (2009) O.J. No. 2960 (Div. Ct.). Those appellate authorities are binding on this court.

19. I therefore find that although Ms. Bailey gave notice on January 24, 2012 of termination effective March 31, 2012, in law that notice was invalid because it was not given in writing. Ms. Bailey therefore breached the month-to-month tenancy by moving out on March 31, 2012 without having given valid notice under the Act. The question then becomes what damages result from that breach.

TNL-00388 (Re), 2007 CanLII 75972 (ON LTB)

5. The Landlords’ N4 notice was premature by one day. It did not comply with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’). In particular, the Tenant had until the end of the day on February 1, 2007 to pay rent for February. At the time the Landlords served the N4, on February 1, 2007, there were not yet any arrears owing. In fact, arrears for February 2007 were not owed by the Tenant until February 2, 2007 – in other words, until February 1, 2007 passed without the payment of rent.

16. The Tenant ultimately vacated the unit on his own notice (on February 28, 2007), and not as a result of the Landlords’ N4 notice, flawed or not.

17. The tenancy is deemed terminated on March 31, 2007.

TST-25926-12 (Re), 2012 CanLII 36415 (ON LTB)

7. The Landlord submits that the Tenant “unilaterally” moved out of the rental unit after receipt of the Landlord’s Form N-5. On the contrary, it was the Landlord who acted unilaterally.

8. The Tenant was entitled to accept the Landlord’s breach and to move out of the rental unit on or before November 10, 2012. It was incumbent upon the Landlord not to serve a Form N-5 Notice to Terminate if it did not mean it.

9. This case is distinguishable upon its facts from Pajelle Investments Ltd. v. Braham [1993] O.J. No. 261, a decision of Chapnick, J. submitted in argument by the Landlord. In that case, decided under the now-repealed residential tenancy sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act R.S.O. 1980, c. 232 as amended, the court found that the Landlord was entitled to prospective rent in lieu of notice.

10. In this case, the Tenant simply accepted the Landlord’s new Notice of Termination. The Landlord is entitled to compensation up to the date that the Tenant moved out of the rental unit.