Talk:Third-Party Property Managers

R & B Properties v Thompson, 2021 CanLII 149663 (ON LTB)

1. At the outset of the hearing, the Tenant's Legal Representative raised the following preliminary issues:

a) R & B Properties is not a Landlord. In support of this position, the Tenant's Legal Representative relies on Board files TEL-97410-18, EAL-81351-19, and Law Society of Upper Canada v. Chiarelli, 2014 ONCA 391 (‘Chiarelli’).

b) The Tenant, Ashley Perry (‘AP’), moved out of the rental unit and was not in possession of the rental unit when the application was filed. Therefore, she should be removed as a party to this application.

2. I find that R&B Properties is a Landlord pursuant to section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’). I say this because the definition of “landlord” in the Act is broad and includes “any other person who permits occupancy of a rental unit”. The uncontradicted testimony of RD is that R & B Properties is hired by the owner of the residential complex and they are responsible for all aspects of managing the property including renting units to prospective tenants, collecting rent, taking complaints, responding to maintenance issues, giving tenants notices of termination for reasons set out in the Act, etc. Therefore, I am satisfied that R & B Properties permits occupancy of the rental unit.

3. TEL-97410-18 and EAL-81351-19 are not binding on me. Chiarelli is not applicable to the facts of this case. The issue decided by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Chiarelli was whether the appellant (who operated a property management company) has a right to self-represent (Chiarelli, at para. 25). In framing this issue, the court accepted that the appellant qualifies as a landlord pursuant to the Act.

4. With regards to the second preliminary issue, I am satisfied that AP was not in possession of the rental unit when the application was filed as required by the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’), and therefore is removed as a party to the application. I say this because GT testified that he broke up with AP in May 2020 and she moved out of the rental unit. While DT testified that he had conversations with AP this past spring through emails and phone calls wherein she continued to represent herself as still living in the unit, this evidence is hearsay. I place more weight on GT’s testimony which I found to be credible.