Notice for Renovation or Repair (Defective N13)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-04-27
CLNP Page ID:	1865
Page Categories:	[Personal Use Application (LTB)], [Maintenance Obligations (LTB)], [Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)], [Renovation & Demolition (LTB), Renovations & Repairs (LTB)]
Citation:	Notice for Renovation or Repair (Defective N13), CLNP 1865, <6H>, retrieved on 2024-04-27
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2024/04/11

Other Resources

• When Do I Need a Building Permit?

Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23

8 (1) No person shall construct or demolish a building or cause a building to be constructed or demolished unless a permit has been issued therefor by the chief building official. 1992, c. 23, s. 8 (1); 1997, c. 30, Sched. B, s. 7 (1).

...

(2.2) If an application for a permit meets the requirements prescribed by regulation, the chief building official shall, unless the circumstances prescribed by regulation apply, decide within the period prescribed by regulation whether to issue the permit or to refuse to issue it. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 21, s. 2 (2).

...

10 (1) Even though no construction is proposed, no person shall change the use of a building or part of a building or permit the use to be changed if the change would result in an increase in hazard, as determined in accordance with the building code, unless a permit has been issued by the chief building official. 2002, c. 9, s. 16.

...

34 (0.1) The Minister may make such regulations as are desirable governing standards for the construction and demolition of buildings.

(1) Without limiting the generality of subsection (0.1), the Minister may make regulations,

...

3.2 prescribing the persons who may apply for a permit under section 8 and the information to be provided with an application for a permit under section 8;

...

4. setting out the applicable laws with which compliance must be achieved before a conditional permit may be issued under subsection 8 (3);

O. Reg. 332/12: BUILDING CODE

1.3.1.3. Period Within Which a Permit is Issued or Refused

...

(5) The requirements that an application for a permit under subsection 8 (1) of the Act must meet for the purposes of Sentence (1) are,

(a) that the application is made in the form described in Sentence 1.3.1.2.(2),

(b) that the applicant for the permit is a person described in Clause 1.3.1.2.(1)(a) or (b),

(c) that all applicable fields on the application form and required schedules are completed,

(d) that all required schedules are submitted with the application,

(e) that payment is made of all fees that are required, under the applicable by-law, resolution or regulation made under clause 7 (1) (c) of the Act, to be paid when the application is made, and

(f) that the applicant has declared in writing that,

(i) the application meets all the requirements set out in Clauses (a) to (e),

(ii) the application is accompanied by the plans and specifications prescribed by the applicable by-law, resolution or regulation made under clause 7 (1) (b) of the Act,

(iii) the application is accompanied by the information and documents prescribed by the applicable by-law, resolution or regulation made under clause 7 (1) (b) of the Act which enable the chief building official to determine whether the proposed building, construction or demolition will contravene any applicable law, and

(iv) the proposed building, construction or demolition will not contravene any applicable law.

Two Clarendon Apartments Limited v. Sinclair, 2019 ONSC 3845 (CanLII)

[9] The decision in the present case was consistent with the result in Corbett v. Lanterra Developments, 2014 ONSC 3297 (Div. Ct.), at para. 14, where there was a demolition permit, and the construction resulted in different units from those demolished, so that the tenant could not move back into the rental unit.

[10] In my view, the Board’s approach to the definition of demolition was reasonable and consistent with the Act and modern principles of statutory interpretation.

[11] On the facts, the evidence supports the finding of a renovation. I note, although the Board did not mention this, that the affidavit evidence from the City Building Official states that the City had not granted a demolition permit, and the building permit required the same unit outside area as prior to the renovations.

[12] Given that there was no error of law and ample evidence to support the conclusion of the Board, this ground of appeal fails.

TST-00729-18 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87744 (ON LTB)

4. I find that the Tenant was entitled to the compensation because all three conditions in section 52 of the Act were met, namely:

• The Tenant received notice to terminate the tenancy for the purpose of demolition.
• The residential complex contains at least five units. The Tenant testified that there are five units in the complex.
• The demolition was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of any Act. Although the N13 Notice references the findings of a fire inspector, Fire Services’ Notice of Violation (issued two months before the N13 Notice was prepared) does not require that any part of the residential complex be demolished including the rental unit.

5. The Tenant moved out of the rental unit on September 3, 2018. The Tenant testified that at the time he moved out he had a zero balance in his rent account. The Tenant paid the rent up to the end of June, 2018. The Landlord “inherited” the Tenant’s two-month rent deposit from the previous owner of the building pursuant to section 18 of the Act, which the Landlord should have applied to the Tenant’s rent for July and August, 2018.

6. The Tenant’s monthly rent was $610.00. Therefore, the Landlord owes the Tenant $1,830.00 in compensation under section 52 of the Act.

SOL-14870-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 101419 (ON LTB)

1. The Notice to terminate a tenancy at the end of the term for conversion, demolition or repairs (Form N13) served on the Tenant by the Landlord dated December 30, 2010 is invalid as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the

'Act') as the Landlord altered the standard N13 form by adding words that were not supposed to be included in the N13.

2. The Landlord altered the form so that it was reading that he did not require a building permit. The Act only allows a Landlord to file under this section of the Act when a Landlord has to carry out “repairs or renovations that are so extensive that they require a building permit and vacant possession of the rental unit”.

3. In addition, I am not satisfied that the Landlord requires vacant possession of the rental unit so as to carry out major repairs or renovations to the rental unit and or to the residential complex that have been ordered by the City of Hamilton.

4. The Landlord has not taken any steps to obtain the necessary permits for the work that he proposes to carry out on the rental unit and or the residential complex.

EAL-67898-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 84881 (ON LTB)

10. There are two conditions which the Landlord has to meet before the Board can consider granting an eviction order. According to subparagraph 50(1)(c) of the Act, the Landlord must establish that: (1) a building permit is required; and (2) vacant possession of the rental unit is required. These are two separate conditions and each has to be satisfied.

...

16. I am satisfied that a building permit is required for part of the work, which is the replacement of window in four rooms. However, there is no evidence that a building permit is required for the remainder of the work. Therefore, the Board can only consider this application insofar as the replacement of the windows is concerned.

17. Although the Landlord asserts that it is not feasible to allow the Tenant to remain in the unit, it appears to me that the Landlord’s reluctance to consider this option stems not out of necessity but rather because it would make it more complicated, time-consuming and expensive to conduct the work in that manner. There is no compelling evidence that allowing the Tenant to remain in the unit would create either an unreasonable hardship for the Landlord or potentially endanger the Tenant’s safety. Instead, the Landlord’s entire case for seeking vacant possession rests on a rather curt statement contained in a quote provided by a building contractor who was not called as a witness at the hearing, that vacant possession is required “in order for the mould remediation to be done and the renovations”. That is not enough to satisfy the Landlord’s burden of proof in this proceeding, which consists in establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that vacant possession is more than merely desirable, but, in fact, that it is a necessity. Further, there is no evidence before the Board that it would be too difficult or expensive to consider carrying out all of the renovations while the Tenant continues to live in the rental unit.

18. The Landlord’s entire case for seeking vacant possession rests on a statement in a quote provided by a building contractor who was not called as a witness at the hearing, that vacant possession is required “in order for the mould remediation to be done and the renovations”. That statement alone is insufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that vacant possession is more than merely desirable or preferable, but, in fact, that it is a necessity. I also note that the Tenant has testified that he is willing to tolerate the inconveniences that would stem from the working being carried out while he continues to live in the rental unit and to cooperate with efforts to keep rooms clear of any of his personal effects while they are under renovation.

19. As vacant possession is not required to carry out any of the renovations that the Landlord plans to undertake at the rental unit, the application is dismissed.

TSL-97139-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141658 (ON LTB)

22. In order to comply with paragraph 50(1)(c) of the Act the Landlord’s proposal must be to do repairs or renovations to the rental unit that are so extensive that they require vacant possession. However, paragraph 50(1)(c) of the Act must also be read together with section 53(1) of the Act which provides that the tenant must be given a right of first refusal to occupy the rental unit as a tenant when the repairs or renovations are completed. Read together those provisions must mean that the renovations cannot result in the elimination of the tenant’s rental unit. If the landlord were permitted to eliminate the rental unit under the guise of performing major repairs or renovations that would render meaningless the Tenant’s rights under subsections 53(1) and (3) of the Act to exercise his right of first refusal to occupy the rental unit and pay rent at no more than what the Landlord could have lawfully charged if there had been no interruption in the tenant’s tenancy when the repairs or renovations are completed.

23. In this regard under the presumption against tautology, “[e]very word in a statute is presumed to make sense and to have a specific role to play in advancing the legislative purpose”: see R. Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (3rd ed. 1994), at p. 159. To the extent that it is possible to do so, the Board should avoid adopting interpretations that render any portion of a statute meaningless or redundant: Hill v. William Hill (Park Lane) Ld., [1949] A.C. 530 (H.L.), at p. 546, per Viscount Simon.

24. In this case the Landlord is not proposing to perform major repairs to the rental unit such that it could be occupied by the Tenant upon completion. I find that the Landlord instead intends to reconfigure the residential complex into a single family dwelling by, among other things, taking the rental unit out of existence.

TSL-04926-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87561 (ON LTB)

7. There is no dispute that a building permit is not required for replacement of knob and tube wiring since the only authority legally authorized to approve electrical work and to issue a permit to undertake electrical work is the ESA. While there is an argument to be made that an ESA “permit” is an “other authority” as stipulated in s. 73, the provision of the Act which allows a Landlord to seek termination is s. 50 a liberal interpretation of s. 73(a) cannot be employed to cure the defect under s. 50(1)(c).

...

11. I am of the view that had the legislature intended that a Landlord be able to terminate a tenancy and evict a Tenant for the purpose of performing renovations or repairs that do not require a building permit it would not have drafted s. 50(1)(c) as it did. The language of the section expressly says that the renovations be “so extensive” that they require a building permit and vacant possession. I do acknowledge that it may be necessary to obtain a building permit should the scope of the work require it, but the application seems premature until that need is known.

12. Furthermore, I am also not satisfied that the Landlord has established that it is necessary to have vacant possession to undertake the removal and replacement of knob and tube wiring.

TSL-98745-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 143789 (ON LTB)

20. Pursuant to section 73 of the RTA, to succeed in this application the Landlords must prove that they have obtained all the necessary permits required to carry out the proposed renovations, or taken all reasonable steps to do so. In this case, there is no doubt that the Landlords obtained the necessary permits. However, the Tenants argue that the permits have expired.

TSL-66897-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 99152 (ON LTB)

13. I have considered the parties facts and arguments and find in favour of the Tenant. The Tenant’s evidence was logical, detailed and internally consistent. Conversely, the Landlord was at times unclear about basic facts, and he conceded most of the propositions put to him via cross examination.

14. The Landlord clearly wishes to use the rental unit for residential purposes, just not residential rental purposes. He wants to store his personal property in the rental unit, and that stated use is clearly residential. As noted in Chin Wing Chung Tong Realty Co. v. Chen, a landlord cannot use an N13 as a method to spread an existing use into another part of the same premises.[1]

15. Further, the City order makes it clear that no person can use or permit the use of the unit unless it is repaired. This means that notwithstanding the Landlord’s stated position, he must repair the unit regardless of whether the unit is rented or used for used for storage.

16. In order for me to find that he intends to use the unit for non-residential use, the Landlord would have needed to present evidence to that effect, yet no such evidence was provided. Also, the city by-law makes it clear that if his stated use is residential in nature, the Landlord would have needed to have obtained a by-law amendment. The Landlord has not testified that any such amendment has been obtained.