N12 Affidavit Requirements: Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
{{Citation:  
{{Citation:  
| categories = N12 Affidavit Requirements
| categories = N12 Affidavit Requirements
| shortlink =  r/7q
| shortlink =  https://rvt.link/54
}}
}}


==Residential Tenancies Act, 2006<ref name="RTA"/>==
==Residential Tenancies Act, 2006<ref name="RTA"/>==
71.1 (1) A landlord who, on or after the day subsection 11 (1) of Schedule 4 to the Protecting Tenants and Strengthening Community Housing Act, 2020 comes into force<sup><b>(01/09/2021)</b></sup>, files an application under section 69 based on a notice of termination given under section 48 or 49 shall file the affidavit required under subsection 72 (1) at the same time as the application is filed. 2020, c. 16, Sched. 4, s. 11 (1).
:(2) The Board shall refuse to accept the application for filing if the landlord has not complied with subsection (1). 2020, c. 16, Sched. 4, s. 11 (1).
:...


72 (1) The Board shall not make an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant in an application under section 69 based on,
72 (1) The Board shall not make an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant in an application under section 69 based on,
Line 13: Line 18:


::(b) a notice of termination under section 49, unless the landlord has filed with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use. 2017, c. 13, s. 13.
::(b) a notice of termination under section 49, unless the landlord has filed with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use. 2017, c. 13, s. 13.
<ref name="RTA">Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17#BK68>, reterived 2021-03-16</ref>
==Nanko B.V. Holdings Inc. v Babasola, 2021 CanLII 139854 (ON LTB)==
4. The first reason why this application must be dismissed is because the affidavit filed by the Landlord does not provide all of the information required by paragraph 72(1)(b) of the Act. In particular, to meet the requirements, the affidavit must certify that the purchaser requires “the rental unit” for his or her own personal use. The affidavit proffered by the Landlord does not provide this information.


:...
:...


CanLII Logo
<b>Alternatives to affidavits</b>
9
of
12
Nanko B.V. Holdings Inc. v Babasola, 2021 CanLII 139854 (ON LTB)
Document
History (0)
Cited documents (0)
Treatment (0)
CanLII Connects (0)
PDF
Date:
2021-10-18
File number:
TNL-32121-21
Citation:
Nanko B.V. Holdings Inc. v Babasola, 2021 CanLII 139854 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jltph>, retrieved on 2022-07-10


192.1 Where a provision of this Act requires an affidavit from a person with respect to a specified statement or specified information, the Rules may,


::(a) authorize the use of another document, which may be unsworn, from that person with respect to that specified statement or specified information; and


::(b) require that the document may be used only if it is provided to the Board in accordance with the Rules. 2017, c. 13, s. 27.




<ref name="RTA">Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17#BK68>, reterived 2021-03-16</ref>


==Landlord and Tenant Board Specific Rules<ref name="RTA-Rules"/>==


Order under Section 69
1.5 Where the RTA requires an affidavit respecting a specified statement or specified information, the LTB will also accept a signed and dated declaration <b><u>containing the specified statement or specified information</b></u> provided the declaration confirms the truth of the information or statement and acknowledges that making a false declaration is an offense.


Residential Tenancies Act, 2006
<ref name="RTA-Rules">Landlord and Tenant Board Specific Rules, <https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Rules/LTB%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.html>, retrieved 2022-07-11</ref>


File Number: TNL-32121-21
==Latham v. Marazzi, 2022 ONSC 6912 (CanLII)<ref name="Latham"/>==


[15] The test for the proposed appellant to demonstrate merit to the appeal is not stringent. As set out in <i>Duca Community Credit Union Ltd. v. Diovannoli, 2001 CanLII 24017</i><ref name="Giovannoli"/> and reproduced in <i>Go Fleet Corporation v. So, 2021 ONSC 2199</i><ref name="Go Fleet"/>, where there is a right of appeal, the question is whether there is “so little merit to the proposed appeal that the appellant should be denied [his] important right of appeal.”


[16] Here, <span style=background:yellow>the Tenant has raised a question of law regarding the interpretation of sections 71.1(1) and (2) and 72(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17. These sections require a landlord who seeks to terminate a tenancy for their own residential occupation to file an affidavit stating that they in good faith require the unit for their own personal use for a period of at least one year. The Landlord did not file affidavit with the specific required wording in this case.</span> However, the LTB in the original order relied on <i>Sertic v. Mergarten, 2017 ONSC 263</i><ref name="Sertic"/>, in which this Court affirmed the entitlement of the LTB to accept the required affirmation by viva voce evidence when the affidavit was insufficient.


In the matter of:
<span style=background:yellow>[17] The wording of the statutory provisions has changed since this Court’s decision in Sertic v. Mergarten. The Tenant has raised a question of law. Although I anticipate he may have an uphill challenge on appeal, his appeal is not of so little merit to be denied his right of appeal.</span>


# 1 - BASEMENT, 2931 BUR OAK AVENUE MARKHAM ON L6B1E6
::<b>F. Overall Justice</b>


[18] The overall justice of this case militates in favour of granting an extension of time to appeal the original order. The Tenant sought a review of that order, but, due to an administrative error, the LTB did not release the review order to the parties when it was first made. The Tenant is entitled to appeal the review order. In these circumstances, it is in the interests of justice for the appeal to also include the original order.


Between:


Nanko B.V. Holdings Inc.
<ref name="Go Fleet">Go Fleet Corporation v. So., 2021 ONSC 2199 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jdvm9>, retrieved on 2023-08-16</ref>
<ref name="Giovannoli">Duca Community Credit Union Limited v. Giovannoli, 2001 CanLII 24017 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/1fbkm>, retrieved on 2023-08-16</ref>
<ref name="Latham">Latham v. Marazzi, 2022 ONSC 6912 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jtd3d>, retrieved on 2023-08-16</ref>


Landlord
==Sertic v Mergarten, 2017 ONSC 263 (CanLII)<ref name="Sertic"/>==


   
[7] While the tenant raises issues regarding the bona fides of the landlord’s desire to occupy the premises for her own purposes, the Vice-Chair heard the evidence on this point, and was satisfied that was the intention of the landlord. <span style=background:yellow>The tenant submits that that finding was not open to the Board because the landlord’s affidavit did not so state.  <b><u>I am unaware of any legal principle that provides that the contents of an affidavit overrules the viva voce evidence heard.  While conflicts between the two are always a matter of concern, it is ultimately up to the trier of fact to decide what evidence they accept and what they do not.</b></u></span>  The Board accepted the viva voce evidence of the landlord.  There is no basis for this court to interfere with his conclusion on the evidence that he heard.




And
<ref name="Sertic">Sertic v Mergarten, 2017 ONSC 263 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gwv8p>, retrieved on 2023-08-16</ref>


==Nanko B.V. Holdings Inc. v Babasola, 2021 CanLII 139854 (ON LTB)==


4. The first reason why this application must be dismissed is because the affidavit filed by the Landlord does not provide all of the information required by paragraph 72(1)(b) of the Act. In particular, to meet the requirements, the affidavit must certify that the purchaser requires “the rental unit” for his or her own personal use. The affidavit proffered by the Landlord does not provide this information.


Abiola Babasola Krystal Babasola
:...


Tenants
6. The rental unit is also in the basement of the residential complex. As noted above, one of the requirements of subsection 49(1) of the Act is that the purchaser must in good faith require possession “of the residential complex or the unit for the purpose of residential occupation”. And, as noted above, the affidavit itself must certify that the purchaser “requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use”. Even if I am wrong to find that the affidavit is deficient for not specifying the rental unit or the residential complex, the affidavit in this case only states that the Purchaser “will be moving into the main level upon purchase for at least 12 months”. This affidavit gives no indication as to what use if any the Purchaser will make of the basement unit. When I gave the Landlord an opportunity to provide evidence on this issue, the Landlord testified that the Purchaser wanted to stay on the main level and that he was not sure about the Purchaser’s intentions for the basement. Once this issue became apparent, the Landlord then testified that the Purchaser previously told him that he would use other aspects of the residential complex for business purposes. I preferred the Landlord’s testimony before the issue became apparent and, in any event, subsection 49(1) of the Act requires “residential occupation” not occupation for business purposes. There was no basis upon which I could conclude that the substantive or affidavit requirements of the legal test were satisfied and the Landlord’s application must therefore be dismissed.


<ref name="Nanko">Nanko B.V. Holdings Inc. v Babasola, 2021 CanLII 139854 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jltph>, retrieved on 2022-07-10</ref>
 
 
Nanko B.V. Holdings Inc. (the 'Landlord') applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict Krystal Babasola and Abiola Babasola (the 'Tenants') because the Landlord has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale of the rental unit and the purchaser requires possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation. The Landlord also claimed compensation for each day the Tenants remained in the unit after the termination date.
 
 
This application was heard by videoconference on August 5, 2021.


==Dorus v Ghannam, 2021 CanLII 145505 (ON LTB)==


The Landlord's agent Vijay Kumar, the Landlord's legal representative Christopher Holder and the Tenanat Abiola Babasola attended the hearing.
2. The Landlord has not met the requirements under section 72(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’), which requires the filing with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who needs the unit. The declaration must certify that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for her own personal use for a period of at least one year.


3. The Landlords submitted a declaration signed by the Landlord, Julius Dorus, dated June 10, 2021 indicating that their daughter intends to move into the rental unit in good faith for at least one year. <b><u>The affidavit does not meet the requirements under section 72(1)(a) of the Act because the person that signed and completed the declaration is not the person that personally requires the unit.</b></u> Moreover, the declaration was provided to the Board during the hearing of the matter.


Reasons:


1.  These reasons explain why the Landlord’s application is dismissed.




1.    The Landlord’s N12 Notice of Termination is given under subsection 49(1) of the
<ref name="Dorus">Dorus v Ghannam, 2021 CanLII 145505 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jn96v>, retrieved on 2022-07-10</ref>


Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’), which provides, in part:


   
==Taillon v Ackerman, 2021 CanLII 143577 (ON LTB)==


49 (1) A landlord of a residential complex that contains no more than three residential units who has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale of the residential complex may, on behalf of the purchaser, give the tenant of a unit in the residential complex a notice terminating the tenancy, if the purchaser in good faith requires possession of the residential complex or the unit for the purpose of residential occupation by,
8. With respect to the N12 notice, the Landlord’s Representative submitted that the N12 Notice was ‘very brief’ and did not meet the requirements under the Act.


9.     Section 72(1) of the Act states the following:


(a)     the purchaser [.]
:72 (1) The Board shall not make an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant in an application under section 69 based on,
::(a) a notice of termination given under section 48 on or after the day section 13 of the Rental Fairness Act, 2017 comes into force, unless the landlord has filed with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use for a period of at least one year; or
::(b) a notice of termination under section 49, unless the landlord has filed with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use. 2017, c. 13, s. 13.


10. In this case, the declaration filed with the Board was signed by Jason Taillon, the son of the Landlord. <b><u>In the declaration, Jason Taillon states that he intends to move into the rental unit in good faith and live there for at least one year.


2.     To obtain eviction under this provision, several requirements must be satisfied. First, the residential complex must have no more than three residential units. Second, there must be an agreement of purchase and sale. Third, in a case such as this where it is the
11. While succinct, I find that the declaration filed in support of the Landlord’s application does meet the statutory requirements under section 72(1) of the Act.</b></u>


<ref name="Taillon">Taillon v Ackerman, 2021 CanLII 143577 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jmq8m>, retrieved on 2022-07-10</ref>


==TSL-05638-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 134551 (ON LTB)<ref name="TSL-05638"/>==


purchaser who intends to live in the rental unit, the purchaser must in good faith require possession of the residential complex or the unit for the purpose of residential occupation.
24. The Act does not require that the person moving into the unit give <i>viva voce</i> evidence regarding their own intentions. There is no requirement that a landlord call as a witness the intended occupant. <span style=background:yellow><b><u>Section 72 of Act does require that the intended occupant provide an affidavit or sworn statement respecting their intention to move into the rental unit,</span></b></u> and the Landlord has complied with this requirement


<ref name="TSL-05638">TSL-05638-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 134551 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/j6vw8>, retrieved on 2023-04-02</ref>
 
3.    Additionally, paragraph 72(1)(b) and subsection 72(1.1) provide, in part:
 
 
72 (1) The Board shall not make an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant in an application under section 69 based on,
 
 
(a)    a notice of termination under section 49, unless the landlord has filed with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use.
 
 
(1.1) The Board shall not make an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant in an application under section 69 based on a notice of termination given under section 48 before the day section 13 of the Rental Fairness Act, 2017 comes into force, unless the landlord has filed with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use.
 
 
4.    The first reason why this application must be dismissed is because the affidavit filed by the Landlord does not provide all of the information required by paragraph 72(1)(b) of the Act. In particular, to meet the requirements, the affidavit must certify that the purchaser requires “the rental unit” for his or her own personal use. The affidavit proffered by the Landlord does not provide this information.
 
 
5.    The affidavit sworn by Mr. Veer Tharwani (the ‘Purchaser’) on April 29, 2021 does not refer to the residential complex or the rental unit. Although it refers to an agreement of purchase and sale (‘APS’), it does not reference the date of the APS or provide any other information upon which to link it to the APS filed by the Landlord. Additionally, as the Tenant pointed out, the APS itself references a different address than the Tenant’s: it refers to “2921 Bur Oak Avenue”, not “2931 Bur Oak Avenue”. Although the Landlord testified that the legal description found on the APS is correct, the Landlord provided no evidence to corroborate this assertion. The Purchaser did not attend to provide testimony on whether his affidavit was meant to refer to the rental unit in question. In these circumstances, I cannot find that the Purchaser’s affidavit satisfies or is substantially complaint with the requirements of paragraph 72(1)(b) of the Act.
 
 
6.    The rental unit is also in the basement of the residential complex. As noted above, one of the requirements of subsection 49(1) of the Act is that the purchaser must in good faith require possession “of the residential complex or the unit for the purpose of residential occupation”. And, as noted above, the affidavit itself must certify that the purchaser “requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use”. Even if I am wrong to find that the affidavit is deficient for not specifying the rental unit or the residential complex, the affidavit in this case only states that the Purchaser “will be moving into the main level upon purchase for at least 12 months”. This affidavit gives no indication as to what use if any the Purchaser will make of the basement unit. When I gave the Landlord an opportunity to provide evidence on this issue, the Landlord testified that the Purchaser wanted to stay on the main level and that he was not sure about the Purchaser’s intentions for the basement. Once this issue became apparent, the Landlord then testified that the Purchaser previously told him that he would use other aspects of the residential complex for business purposes. I preferred the Landlord’s testimony before the issue became apparent and, in any event, subsection 49(1) of the Act requires “residential occupation” not occupation for business purposes. There was no basis upon which I could conclude that the substantive or affidavit requirements of the legal test were satisfied and the Landlord’s application must therefore be dismissed.
 
<ref name="Nanko">Nanko B.V. Holdings Inc. v Babasola, 2021 CanLII 139854 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jltph>, retrieved on 2022-07-10</ref>


==References==
==References==

Latest revision as of 19:45, 16 August 2023


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-06-01
CLNP Page ID: 1955
Page Categories: N12 Affidavit Requirements
Citation: N12 Affidavit Requirements, CLNP 1955, <https://rvt.link/54>, retrieved on 2024-06-01
Editor: Sharvey
Last Updated: 2023/08/16


Residential Tenancies Act, 2006[1]

71.1 (1) A landlord who, on or after the day subsection 11 (1) of Schedule 4 to the Protecting Tenants and Strengthening Community Housing Act, 2020 comes into force(01/09/2021), files an application under section 69 based on a notice of termination given under section 48 or 49 shall file the affidavit required under subsection 72 (1) at the same time as the application is filed. 2020, c. 16, Sched. 4, s. 11 (1).

(2) The Board shall refuse to accept the application for filing if the landlord has not complied with subsection (1). 2020, c. 16, Sched. 4, s. 11 (1).
...

72 (1) The Board shall not make an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant in an application under section 69 based on,

(a) a notice of termination given under section 48 on or after the day section 13 of the Rental Fairness Act, 2017 comes into force, unless the landlord has filed with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use for a period of at least one year; or
(b) a notice of termination under section 49, unless the landlord has filed with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use. 2017, c. 13, s. 13.
...

Alternatives to affidavits

192.1 Where a provision of this Act requires an affidavit from a person with respect to a specified statement or specified information, the Rules may,

(a) authorize the use of another document, which may be unsworn, from that person with respect to that specified statement or specified information; and
(b) require that the document may be used only if it is provided to the Board in accordance with the Rules. 2017, c. 13, s. 27.


[1]

Landlord and Tenant Board Specific Rules[2]

1.5 Where the RTA requires an affidavit respecting a specified statement or specified information, the LTB will also accept a signed and dated declaration containing the specified statement or specified information provided the declaration confirms the truth of the information or statement and acknowledges that making a false declaration is an offense.

[2]

Latham v. Marazzi, 2022 ONSC 6912 (CanLII)[3]

[15] The test for the proposed appellant to demonstrate merit to the appeal is not stringent. As set out in Duca Community Credit Union Ltd. v. Diovannoli, 2001 CanLII 24017[4] and reproduced in Go Fleet Corporation v. So, 2021 ONSC 2199[5], where there is a right of appeal, the question is whether there is “so little merit to the proposed appeal that the appellant should be denied [his] important right of appeal.”

[16] Here, the Tenant has raised a question of law regarding the interpretation of sections 71.1(1) and (2) and 72(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17. These sections require a landlord who seeks to terminate a tenancy for their own residential occupation to file an affidavit stating that they in good faith require the unit for their own personal use for a period of at least one year. The Landlord did not file affidavit with the specific required wording in this case. However, the LTB in the original order relied on Sertic v. Mergarten, 2017 ONSC 263[6], in which this Court affirmed the entitlement of the LTB to accept the required affirmation by viva voce evidence when the affidavit was insufficient.

[17] The wording of the statutory provisions has changed since this Court’s decision in Sertic v. Mergarten. The Tenant has raised a question of law. Although I anticipate he may have an uphill challenge on appeal, his appeal is not of so little merit to be denied his right of appeal.

F. Overall Justice

[18] The overall justice of this case militates in favour of granting an extension of time to appeal the original order. The Tenant sought a review of that order, but, due to an administrative error, the LTB did not release the review order to the parties when it was first made. The Tenant is entitled to appeal the review order. In these circumstances, it is in the interests of justice for the appeal to also include the original order.


[5] [4] [3]

Sertic v Mergarten, 2017 ONSC 263 (CanLII)[6]

[7] While the tenant raises issues regarding the bona fides of the landlord’s desire to occupy the premises for her own purposes, the Vice-Chair heard the evidence on this point, and was satisfied that was the intention of the landlord. The tenant submits that that finding was not open to the Board because the landlord’s affidavit did not so state. I am unaware of any legal principle that provides that the contents of an affidavit overrules the viva voce evidence heard. While conflicts between the two are always a matter of concern, it is ultimately up to the trier of fact to decide what evidence they accept and what they do not. The Board accepted the viva voce evidence of the landlord. There is no basis for this court to interfere with his conclusion on the evidence that he heard.


[6]

Nanko B.V. Holdings Inc. v Babasola, 2021 CanLII 139854 (ON LTB)

4. The first reason why this application must be dismissed is because the affidavit filed by the Landlord does not provide all of the information required by paragraph 72(1)(b) of the Act. In particular, to meet the requirements, the affidavit must certify that the purchaser requires “the rental unit” for his or her own personal use. The affidavit proffered by the Landlord does not provide this information.

...

6. The rental unit is also in the basement of the residential complex. As noted above, one of the requirements of subsection 49(1) of the Act is that the purchaser must in good faith require possession “of the residential complex or the unit for the purpose of residential occupation”. And, as noted above, the affidavit itself must certify that the purchaser “requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use”. Even if I am wrong to find that the affidavit is deficient for not specifying the rental unit or the residential complex, the affidavit in this case only states that the Purchaser “will be moving into the main level upon purchase for at least 12 months”. This affidavit gives no indication as to what use if any the Purchaser will make of the basement unit. When I gave the Landlord an opportunity to provide evidence on this issue, the Landlord testified that the Purchaser wanted to stay on the main level and that he was not sure about the Purchaser’s intentions for the basement. Once this issue became apparent, the Landlord then testified that the Purchaser previously told him that he would use other aspects of the residential complex for business purposes. I preferred the Landlord’s testimony before the issue became apparent and, in any event, subsection 49(1) of the Act requires “residential occupation” not occupation for business purposes. There was no basis upon which I could conclude that the substantive or affidavit requirements of the legal test were satisfied and the Landlord’s application must therefore be dismissed.

[7]

Dorus v Ghannam, 2021 CanLII 145505 (ON LTB)

2. The Landlord has not met the requirements under section 72(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’), which requires the filing with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who needs the unit. The declaration must certify that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for her own personal use for a period of at least one year.

3. The Landlords submitted a declaration signed by the Landlord, Julius Dorus, dated June 10, 2021 indicating that their daughter intends to move into the rental unit in good faith for at least one year. The affidavit does not meet the requirements under section 72(1)(a) of the Act because the person that signed and completed the declaration is not the person that personally requires the unit. Moreover, the declaration was provided to the Board during the hearing of the matter.



[8]


Taillon v Ackerman, 2021 CanLII 143577 (ON LTB)

8. With respect to the N12 notice, the Landlord’s Representative submitted that the N12 Notice was ‘very brief’ and did not meet the requirements under the Act.

9.     Section 72(1) of the Act states the following:

72 (1) The Board shall not make an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant in an application under section 69 based on,
(a) a notice of termination given under section 48 on or after the day section 13 of the Rental Fairness Act, 2017 comes into force, unless the landlord has filed with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use for a period of at least one year; or
(b) a notice of termination under section 49, unless the landlord has filed with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use. 2017, c. 13, s. 13.

10. In this case, the declaration filed with the Board was signed by Jason Taillon, the son of the Landlord. In the declaration, Jason Taillon states that he intends to move into the rental unit in good faith and live there for at least one year.

11. While succinct, I find that the declaration filed in support of the Landlord’s application does meet the statutory requirements under section 72(1) of the Act.

[9]

TSL-05638-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 134551 (ON LTB)[10]

24. The Act does not require that the person moving into the unit give viva voce evidence regarding their own intentions. There is no requirement that a landlord call as a witness the intended occupant. Section 72 of Act does require that the intended occupant provide an affidavit or sworn statement respecting their intention to move into the rental unit, and the Landlord has complied with this requirement

[10]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17#BK68>, reterived 2021-03-16
  2. 2.0 2.1 Landlord and Tenant Board Specific Rules, <https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Rules/LTB%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.html>, retrieved 2022-07-11
  3. 3.0 3.1 Latham v. Marazzi, 2022 ONSC 6912 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jtd3d>, retrieved on 2023-08-16
  4. 4.0 4.1 Duca Community Credit Union Limited v. Giovannoli, 2001 CanLII 24017 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/1fbkm>, retrieved on 2023-08-16
  5. 5.0 5.1 Go Fleet Corporation v. So., 2021 ONSC 2199 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jdvm9>, retrieved on 2023-08-16
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 Sertic v Mergarten, 2017 ONSC 263 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gwv8p>, retrieved on 2023-08-16
  7. Nanko B.V. Holdings Inc. v Babasola, 2021 CanLII 139854 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jltph>, retrieved on 2022-07-10
  8. Dorus v Ghannam, 2021 CanLII 145505 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jn96v>, retrieved on 2022-07-10
  9. Taillon v Ackerman, 2021 CanLII 143577 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jmq8m>, retrieved on 2022-07-10
  10. 10.0 10.1 TSL-05638-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 134551 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/j6vw8>, retrieved on 2023-04-02