View source for Talk:Constitutional Question, Bankruptcy & RTA Termination

Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

• The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, editors.
• You do not have permission to edit pages in the Talk namespace.

---

You can view and copy the source of this page.

{{Citation: | categories = [Constitutional Law], [Bankruptcy], [Bankruptcy & Consumer Proposals (BIA)], [Payment of Rent (LTB)] | shortlink = https://rvt.link/e1 }} =Other Issues= * TSL-62310-15-IN (Re), 2015 CanLII 85061 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/gmmtc>, retrieved on 2024-11-04 * Alberta (Attorney General) v. Moloney, 2015 SCC 51 (CanLII), [2015] 3 SCR 327, <https://canlii.ca/t/gm22l>, retrieved on 2024-11-04 ==See Also== * [[Bankruptcy (LTB)]] * [[Vacant Possession - Illegal Termination and Occupation by Landlord]] - The principle of reading into an Act =Test Case= * Agreed Facts, ** The (order) for termination was issued on September 25, 2024. ** The date in the order to pay the arrears by was October 15, 2024. ** The tenant was issued a stay by way of entry into bankruptcy on October 11, 2024. ** The request to review was filed on October 15, 2024. ** The board issued a stay of proceedings for the L1 Order on October 16, 2024, pending a review. ** There are no reasonable grounds for upholding the review, and thus, the stay must be lifted. The problem is that under the RTA, there is no way to stop a termination post order under the current schema. ==Proposed Constitutional Question== :<b>PART 1</b> Is there an operational <i>Conflict of Laws</i> between sections 74 (4), and (5), and section 85 of the <i>Residential Tenancies Act, S.O 2006</i> ("RTA"), with sections 69(1), 69.1(1), 69.2(1), and 69.3(1) of the <i>Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985</i> ("BIA")? More specifically, do the conditions set out under sections 74 (4), and (5) that permit a tenant to void <i>an order of eviction</i> operate as an <i>inverted</i> administrative enforcement mechanism, as contemplated in <i>407 ETR Concession Co. v. Canada (Superintendent of Bankruptcy), 2015 SCC 52 (CanLII), [2015] 3 SCR 397, paragraph 24</i>, by frustrating the purpose and intention of sections 69(1), 69.1(1), 69.2(1), 69.3(1), and 84.2(2) of the BIA? :<b>PART 2</b> If yes to PART 1, do the automatic stays granted under sections 69(1), 69.1(1), 69.2(1), and 69.3(1) of the BIA, operate as a stay for an order of eviction granted under the RTA, where the board has issued an order of eviction <b>by reason <u>only of</u> a finding of arrears</b> that were accrued before the date a bankrupt entered into bankruptcy? :(See: <i>Paterson v. City of Oshawa, 2023 ONSC 2287 (CanLII)</i>) :<b>PART 3</b> If yes to PART 2, then must section 85 of the RTA be found of no force or effect under the authority of Section 52 (1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, to the extent that section 85 applies to an individual that has become bankrupt, whereby, before an order for eviction for that individual becomes enforceable, or after an order for eviction for that individual becomes enforceable but before the order is executed? :<b>PART 4</b> If yes to PART 3, does a finding of constitutional invalidity of section 85 of the RTA, to the extent that PART 3 applies, when applied to the facts of this case, operate as a stay of eviction in the present case?

Return to Talk:Constitutional Question, Bankruptcy & RTA Termination.