Termination based on Former Tenant (RTA)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-05-06
CLNP Page ID:	1801
Page Categories:	[Contract Law, Leases, & Sub-Letting (LTB)]
Citation:	Termination based on Former Tenant (RTA), CLNP 1801, <4i>, retrieved on 2024-05-06
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2021/11/10

TSL-10752-10 (Re), 2011 CanLII 13412 (ON LTB)

1. When the Landlord’s arrears of rent application first came before me on February 11, 2011 I asked the Tenant to identify himself by name which he did. His answer came as something of a surprise to the Landlord who believed him to be the Former Tenant. It turned out that the Former Tenant and Tenant were once married. They moved into the rental unit together from another unit in the residential complex. Shortly after the move they experienced marriage breakdown and the Former Tenant moved out of the rental unit sometime around October of 2006. It was the evidence before me that although the lease named the Former Tenant as the sole tenant of the rental unit, and the Tenant as an occupant only, only the Tenant actually signed the lease for the rental unit.

2. Based on the evidence before me and after hearing the submissions of the parties, I amended the Landlord’s arrears application to name the Tenant as the responding party. The Tenant did not object to my doing so and agreed he should be considered the Tenant of the unit and solely responsible for the arrears of rent. I am further satisfied that the Former Tenant was not in possession when the Landlord filed this application so the Board has no jurisdiction to order her to pay any part of the arrears of rent owing.

3. With respect to the application contained in Board file TSL-13238-11 it was the evidence before me that the Tenant orally told an employee of the Landlord’s that the Former Tenant had moved out in 2006. That evidence was not contested by the Landlord. Given that the evidence concerning who signed the lease would support the conclusion that the Tenant was always a tenant of the rental unit as that term is defined in the Act, and given that an employee of the Landlord’s knew the Former Tenant moved out of the rental unit more than sixty days before the application was filed, I believe that the Board does not have jurisdiction to evict the Tenant pursuant to the Landlord’s application contained in Board file TSL-13238-11 so that application must be dismissed.

HOL-00401-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 39882 (ON LTB)

12. As for PE and CF, for the reasons already stated, were Occupants of the unit, effective August 27, 2015, and retained that status for the 60 days thereafter as the Landlords took no action to challenge the transfer of the occupancy of the unit to them by the former tenant(s). Afterwards, PE and CF became Tenants and retained such status as at the date of the hearing.