Ownership Interest and N12s

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-05-03
CLNP Page ID:	2050
Page Categories:	[Personal Use Application (LTB)]
Citation:	Ownership Interest and N12s, CLNP 2050, <https://rvt.link/bf>, retrieved on 2024-05-03
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2024/03/01

Akbari et al. v. Blenkinsop et al., 2024 ONSC 1184 (CanLII)

[4] The owners of this property were Kalanithy Sriskandamoothy and Thirunavukkarasu Sriskandamoothy (collectively the “Landlords”). Although named as Appellants, these two persons did not participate in the appeal.

[5] The Appellant was a tenant in a unit in the Complex. He was not an owner of the property. However, he was responsible for providing Sydney Blenkinsop and Emily Wilson (the “Respondents”) with vacant possession of a rental unit in the complex on behalf of the Landlords.

[6] On November 2, 2020, the Appellant provided the Tenants with an N12 Notice To Terminate The Tenancy (the “Eviction Notice”) pursuant to s. 48 of the RTA, effective on December 30, 2020. He did this on behalf of the Landlords. In that notice, the Appellant indicated on the N12 form that the Landlord intended to occupy the rental unit for at least one year. He identified himself on the Notice as both “a Landlord and a Representative.”

[7] As a result of receiving the N12 notice, the Tenants vacated the property on November 30, 2020.

...

[16] At the hearing of this appeal, the Appellant only advanced one ground of appeal.

[17] The Appellant asserts that the LTB committed an error in law by finding him jointly liable, pursuant to s. 57 of the RTA, for serving the Eviction Notice in bad faith because the LTB did not analyze the separate roles and responsibilities of the Landlords and the Appellant in the serving of the N12 Notice of Eviction.

...

[30] For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed. There is no requirement in the RTA for the LTB to adjudicate and apportion responsibility and liability as between multiple Landlords in the event of a breach of the s. 48 of the RTA.

[31] Section 1 of the RTA states as follows:

The purposes of this act are to provide protection for residential tenants from unlawful rent increases and unlawful evictions, to establish a framework for the regulation of residential rents, to balance the rights and responsibilities of residential Landlords and tenants and to provide for the adjudication of disputes and for other processes to informally resolve disputes. 2006, c. 17, s. 1.

[32] The balancing of rights referenced in this section is between residential Landlords and Tenants. It is, specifically, not a statute designed to address the balancing of rights between multiple Landlords with respect to a specific residential unit.

[33] Nowhere in this consumer protection legislation is there language requiring the LTB to make such inquiries and determine issues as between multiple Landlords.

[34] If the legislation required the LTB to make an inquiry and determination with respect to determining and apportioning responsibilities and liability as between multiple Landlords, as part of an inquiry to determine whether there has been a breach of s. 48 of the RTA, the RTA would clearly and unequivocally state this. It does not.

[35] As well, such a statutory scheme runs contrary to the general purpose of the legislation. For example, it would require tenants who file a bad faith application pursuant to s. 57 to participate in a process that could stretch out extensively beyond a finding a violation of s. 48 in order for the Tribunal to apportion responsibility and liability among multiple Landlords.

[36] Such a process could be factually complicated and legally lengthy. It could involve extensive evidence determining contractual rights and responsibilities between any number of Landlords with respect to a specific property.

[37] There are also numerous other methods or processes to apportion liability among multiple Landlords, including, but not limited to, contractual arrangements between Landlords who are owners and their agents, such as the Appellant. In many (if not most) instances that would involve the hearing of evidence with respect to the contractual relationships between Landlords. In many instances, the Tenants would have no knowledge of any such contracted arrangements.

[38] The purpose of s. 202 of the RTA is to assist the Tribunal in determining the real nature of the relationship between Landlords and Tenants. It is not to require the Tribunal to determine the relationship between multiple Landlords in the event of a breach of the RTA.

[39] Had the legislature mandated that the LTB address and apportion responsibility for breaches of s. 48 of the RTA, it would have been an error in law for the LTB not to undertake such an inquiry. However, as this requirement is not mandated or directed by the RTA, there can be no error of law due to a failure of the LTB to make such an inquiry and determination.

G3 Harmonic Inc. v Raddie, 2022 CanLII 57969 (ON LTB)

1. The application is based on a Notice of Termination (N12) served on the Tenants on November 26, 2020 with a termination date of January 31, 2021, because the Landlords’ child required possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation pursuant to s. 48 (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act , 2006 (the “Act’).

2. At the outset of the hearing the representative for the Tenant raised the issue of corporate ownership of the rental complex and the fact the N12 was served on behalf of a corporation, specifically G3 Harmonic Inc

3. The Rental Agreement dated August 14, 2014 between the parties identifies G3 Harmonic Inc as the Landlord. The Notice of Termination (N12) served on the Tenants identifies the Landlord as G3 Harmonic Inc. and the application was filed in the name of G3 Harmonic Inc and Gail Tapiero.

4. The Tenants’ Representative also submitted a copy of the Land Registry for the rental address. On November 16, 2020 G3 Harmonic. Inc transferred 1% of ownership to Yael Tapiero. Yael Tapiero is not listed on Notice of Termination nor the application as a landlord.

5. On September 1, 2017, section 48(5) of the Act came into effect pursuant to the Rental Fairness Act, 2017. This provision provides that an own use notice under subsection 48(1) may only be given if the rental unit is owned in whole or in part by an individual and that the landlord is an individual:

48 (5) This section does not authorize a landlord to give notice of termination of a tenancy with respect to a rental until unless,

(a) the rental unit is owned in whole or in part by an individual: and

(b) the landlord is an individual.

5. Although G3 Harmonic Inc may be owned in whole or in part by an individual, the Agents were not listed on the Notice of Termination, nor the application. There is no authority in the Act to amend a notice of termination. As a result, I find the N12 is invalid and the application is dismissed.

Bruno Malfara v. Jenna Boyd ONLTB CEL-02026-21

Determinations:

4. Until July 19, 2021, MM2014 had a 100% ownership interest in the rental unit. After BM realized that a corporation could not serve an N12 Notice of Termination, he transferred part ownership of the property to himself for $1.00. On July 31, 2021, the Tenant was then served with a new Notice of Termination that named the Landlords as MM2014 and BM.

...

10. Therefore, pursuant to subsection 48(5)(b), only a landlord who is an individual is authorized to serve a tenant with an N12 Notice of Termination on the ground that the landlord in good faith requires possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation.

11. In this instance, I find that the only genuine Landlord is MM2014, a corporation. I recognize that the definition of “landlord” in section 2(1) of the Act includes an owner of a rental unit and I also recognize that there may be more than one landlord for a single rental unit given the broad definition of this term. However, BM acquired his partial ownership interest in the rental unit from a corporation that he alone controls for the token amount of $1.00 for the sole purpose of being able to evict the Tenant pursuant to section 48 of the Act.

12. Section 202 of the Act states:

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

13. In this instance, the real substance of the transfer of part ownership of the property to BM was for the sole purpose of evicting the Tenant. The true Landlord was and continues to be a corporation, MM2014, not BM. Since MM2014 is not an individual, it cannot give the Tenant a Notice of Termination for owner’s own use. This interpretation is consistent with the intent of subsection 48(5) which is to deny corporate landlords to evict tenants for Landlord’s own use.

14. As I have found that MM2014, a corporation, is the only genuine Landlord, the N12 Notice of Termination served on August 9, 2021 does not comply with section 48 of the Act.

It is ordered that:

1. The Landlord’s application is dismissed