Naming Purchaser (Bad Faith)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-01
CLNP Page ID:	2361
Page Categories:	Personal Use Application (LTB)
Citation:	Naming Purchaser (Bad Faith), CLNP 2361, <https://rvt.link/br>, retrieved on 2024-11-01
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2024/03/28

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Elkins v. Van Wissen, 2023 ONCA 789 (CanLII)

[55] Section 49(1) empowers the landlord to give the tenant a termination notice “on behalf of the purchaser…if the purchaser in good faith requires possession” of the rental unit “for the purposes of residential occupation”. Accordingly, an unlawful eviction under s. 49(1) can occur in one of three ways: (1) the landlord gives the s. 49 termination notice in bad faith but the purchaser genuinely requires personal possession of the rental unit; (2) the landlord gives the s. 49 termination notice in good faith but the purchaser does not genuinely require personal possession; or (3) the landlord and purchaser each independently act in bad faith or collude, in bad faith, to evict the tenant by means of a s. 49 termination notice. If the Board considers only the landlord’s bad faith, and it was the purchaser who was not acting in good faith, the purchaser is shielded from any consequence under the RTA and the tenant loses an opportunity for redress as against the purchaser. Such a result undermines the RTA’s stated purpose, in s. 1, to protect tenants from unlawful evictions.

(...)

[58] This interpretation finds further support in s. 57(3) of the RTA. While s. 57(3) sets out specific orders that can be made against a landlord who acts in bad faith in giving a s. 49 termination notice, it also empowers the Board to make any order it “considers appropriate”. Thus, if the Board finds that a landlord did not act in bad faith but the purchaser did, s. 57(3) gives the Board the power to make appropriate orders against the purchaser. This “gives teeth” to the good faith requirement on the part of purchasers in s. 49(1).

(...)

[65] Additionally, in TST-42753-13-RV (Re), 2014 CanLII 28557 (Ont. L.T.B.), aff’d 2016 ONSC 3116, the Board found that the purchasers, through their agent, caused the landlord to give the tenant a s. 49 termination notice. However, because the Board found that only the purchaser had acted in bad faith, it made orders only in respect of the purchaser.

Wojcik v Pinpoint Properties Ltd., 2016 ONSC 3116 (CanLII)

[4] In this case, it is clear that the Board found that the appellants caused the former landlord to give the respondent tenant a notice saying that they require the premises for their own use when this was clearly untrue. Furthermore, the Board found and it is uncontested, that once the appellants received vacant possession of the property they proceeded to rent it for more money than the respondent tenant had been paying. This conduct is conduct that is infused with some element of deceit, prompted by some interested motive which, as the appellants point out, is a necessary condition for a finding of bad faith.

(...)

[8] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.