Bad Faith (Purchaser - Defend)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-06-17
CLNP Page ID:	2379
Page Categories:	Bad Faith (Purchaser - Defend)
Citation:	Bad Faith (Purchaser - Defend), CLNP 2379, <https://rvt.link/bv>, retrieved on 2024-06-17
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2024/05/23

TST-00312-18 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87633 (ON LTB)

12. By the Tenant’s own evidence, the purchaser’s mother or mother-in-law occupies the rental unit and has been doing so since at least the end of October, 2018 or beginning of November, 2018. A parent of the purchaser or of the purchaser’s spouse are people referred to in section 49(1)(c) of the Act. I am satisfied that this individual occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after the Tenant vacated the rental unit. I do not think that the fact that the N12 Notice indicates that the purchaser (as opposed to the purchaser’s parent or a spouse’s parent) intended to move in is in itself determinative of bad faith. Section 57(1)(b) refers a situation where none of the people listed in section 49(1) or (2) move into the rental unit (it does not appear to be material if the person who moved into the rental unit is not the same person listed on the N12 Notice). Therefore, I find that this element of section 57(1)(b) is not satisfied.

TST-00354-18 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87648 (ON LTB)

8. The Tenant testified that he visited the residential complex on February 23, 2019. On that day, the Tenant spoke to the person living in Unit A. That individual claimed to be the mother of the new owner of the house. She told the Tenant that the people who live in the rental unit are not members of the purchaser’s family but they are renting the rental unit on a temporary basis while the home they own is being renovated.

9. On February 23rd the Tenant also spoke to one of the people living in the rental unit. This individual told the Tenant that she is not the new owner/landlord but she would not share any more information about herself with the Tenant.

10. Based on the Tenant’s uncontested evidence, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that neither the purchaser nor anyone else listed in section 49(1) or (2) of the Act occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after the Tenant moved out. Without any explanation from the Landlord or the purchaser about the course of events, I find that the purchaser did not intend to move into the rental unit at the time the N12 Notice was served. Therefore, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Landlord provided the Tenant the N12 Notice in bad faith

Berger v Regier, 2021 CanLII 124096 (ON LTB)

4. The parties do not dispute that in April 2018 the Landlord gave the Tenant an N12 Notice of Termination under 49 of the Act with a termination date of June 30, 2018. In the N12 Notice, the Landlord claimed that she required vacant possession of the rental unit because the Landlord sold the unit and the purchaser intended to move into the unit. The parties also do not dispute that the Landlord filed an application with the LTB based on this N12 Notice (file number HOL-02786-18), a hearing was held on June 26, 2018 and an order was issued terminating the tenancy on July 31, 2018.

5. The parties also do not dispute that the agreement of purchase and sale between the Landlord and the purchaser did not close and the purchaser never moved into the rental unit.

6. The parties further do not dispute that the Tenant moved out of the rental unit on July 18, 2018. However, they disagree about the reason the Tenant moved out of the rental unit. The Tenant claims that she moved out of the rental unit pursuant to the LTB’s order HOL- 02786-18, which is directly connected to the N12 Notice the Landlord gave her. The Landlord’s position is that the Tenant moved out as a result of a different order the LTB issued in connection with a separate application about non-payment of rent. Based on the evidence before me, I prefer the Landlord’s position on this issue.

TST-94743-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 123237 (ON LTB)

25. The first part of the test requires me to look at the intention of the Landlords at the time the N12 notice was given. At the time of the N12, did the Landlords serve the N12 in good faith, i.e. to provide vacant possession for the purchasers’ residential occupation? In looking at this question, the law is clear that I may consider the conduct and motives of the Landlords to draw inferences about the Landlords’ good faith.

26. LK has testified that, at the time he served the N12 Notice, he believed that the purchasers were going to move into the unit. This evidence was not seriously contested by AJ. In her final submissions, AJ indicated that she did not believe that LK served the N12 in bad faith.

27. I am compelled by LK’s evidence’s in this regard: it was given in a straightforward and consistent manner. I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the N12 was served by LK in good faith because he actually believed that the purchasers required the unit following closing for residential use.

28. Based upon the totality of the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the Landlord served the N12 in good faith. Because the Tenant has not satisfied all the required elements of the test to succeed in this application in s.57(1)(b) of the Act, this application will be dismissed.

29. In light of my finding in paragraph 28 above, it is unnecessary to consider the Landlords’ argument that the payments to the Tenants before they vacated fully compensated them for the remedies sought in this application.