Ownership Interest and N12s

🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 ©
Date Retrieved:	2025-09-15
CLNP Page ID:	2050
Page Categories:	[Personal Use Application (LTB)]
Citation:	Ownership Interest and N12s, CLNP 2050, <https://rvt.link/bf>, retrieved on 2025-09-15
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2025/09/11

Akbari et al. v. Blenkinsop et al., 2024 ONSC 1184 (CanLII)

[4] The owners of this property were Kalanithy Sriskandamoothy and Thirunavukkarasu Sriskandamoothy (collectively the “Landlords”). Although named as Appellants, these two persons did not participate in the appeal.

[5] The Appellant was a tenant in a unit in the Complex. He was not an owner of the property. However, he was responsible for providing Sydney Blenkinsop and Emily Wilson (the “Respondents”) with vacant possession of a rental unit in the complex on behalf of the Landlords.

[6] On November 2, 2020, the Appellant provided the Tenants with an N12 Notice To Terminate The Tenancy (the “Eviction Notice”) pursuant to s. 48 of the RTA, effective on December 30, 2020. He did this on behalf of the Landlords. In that notice, the Appellant indicated on the N12 form that the Landlord intended to occupy the rental unit for at least one year. He identified himself on the Notice as both “a Landlord and a Representative.”

[7] As a result of receiving the N12 notice, the Tenants vacated the property on November 30, 2020.

...

[16] At the hearing of this appeal, the Appellant only advanced one ground of appeal.

[17] The Appellant asserts that the LTB committed an error in law by finding him jointly liable, pursuant to s. 57 of the RTA, for serving the Eviction Notice in bad faith because the LTB did not analyze the separate roles and responsibilities of the Landlords and the Appellant in the serving of the N12 Notice of Eviction.

...

[30] For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed. There is no requirement in the RTA for the LTB to adjudicate and apportion responsibility and liability as between multiple Landlords in the event of a breach of the s. 48 of the RTA.

[31] Section 1 of the RTA states as follows:

The purposes of this act are to provide protection for residential tenants from unlawful rent increases and unlawful evictions, to establish a framework for the regulation of residential rents, to balance the rights and responsibilities of residential Landlords and tenants and to provide for the adjudication of disputes and for other processes to informally resolve disputes. 2006, c. 17, s. 1.

[32] The balancing of rights referenced in this section is between residential Landlords and Tenants. It is, specifically, not a statute designed to address the balancing of rights between multiple Landlords with respect to a specific residential unit.

[33] Nowhere in this consumer protection legislation is there language requiring the LTB to make such inquiries and determine issues as between multiple Landlords.

[34] If the legislation required the LTB to make an inquiry and determination with respect to determining and apportioning responsibilities and liability as between multiple Landlords, as part of an inquiry to determine whether there has been a breach of s. 48 of the RTA, the RTA would clearly and unequivocally state this. It does not.

[35] As well, such a statutory scheme runs contrary to the general purpose of the legislation. For example, it would require tenants who file a bad faith application pursuant to s. 57 to participate in a process that could stretch out extensively beyond a finding a violation of s. 48 in order for the Tribunal to apportion responsibility and liability among multiple Landlords.

[36] Such a process could be factually complicated and legally lengthy. It could involve extensive evidence determining contractual rights and responsibilities between any number of Landlords with respect to a specific property.

[37] There are also numerous other methods or processes to apportion liability among multiple Landlords, including, but not limited to, contractual arrangements between Landlords who are owners and their agents, such as the Appellant. In many (if not most) instances that would involve the hearing of evidence with respect to the contractual relationships between Landlords. In many instances, the Tenants would have no knowledge of any such contracted arrangements.

[38] The purpose of s. 202 of the RTA is to assist the Tribunal in determining the real nature of the relationship between Landlords and Tenants. It is not to require the Tribunal to determine the relationship between multiple Landlords in the event of a breach of the RTA.

[39] Had the legislature mandated that the LTB address and apportion responsibility for breaches of s. 48 of the RTA, it would have been an error in law for the LTB not to undertake such an inquiry. However, as this requirement is not mandated or directed by the RTA, there can be no error of law due to a failure of the LTB to make such an inquiry and determination.

Agnew v Bourgette, 2025 ONLTB 30736

6. The Landlords agreed that they now have a 1% ownership of the rental unit and that 99% of the rental unit is owned by their corporation, and as noted above this transfer of ownership was completed immediately prior to the N12 notice of termination being served. The Landlords also told the Board that they are 100% shareholders of the Corporation.

7. The parties agreed that in June 2024, the Corporation purchased the rental unit, and the entire residential complex. The parties also further agreed that on October 25, 2024, the Landlords purchased a 1% ownership from the Corporation and that 5 days after obtaining the 1% ownership of the rental unit, they served the Tenants with the N12 notice.

...

14. Taking into consideration Section 202 (1) of the Act and the facts before me, I find that although the Landlords own a nominal interest in the rental unit, the true Landlord is the Corporation, a corporate entity. All parties agreed that the Tenants pay their rent solely to the Corporation and have done this since June 2024. When I asked the Landlords about why the Tenants only pay the Corporation, the Landlords stated it was done this way at the request of their accountant. In other words, it was an intentional decision to have the Corporation as the Tenants’ landlord when they obtained ownership of the building.

15. Furthermore, in making my decision, I considered the fact the Landlords obtained a 1 percent ownership of the residential complex just 5 days before serving the Tenants the N12 notice. I do not find their explanation is sufficient to overcome the requirements of section 48(5) of the Act and in consideration of section 202. It was the Landlords’ own evidence that they consulted with their lawyer and accountant and determined that they had to purchase a 1% ownership from the Corporation to be able to serve the N12 notice to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenants.

16. In the case of Pinto v. Regan and White v. Regan, 2021 ONSC 5502, the Divisional Court stated that in considering the application of section 202 of the Act, the Board is obligated to ascertain the real substance of the transactions and activities regarding the rental unit and the good faith of the parties regarding the notice of termination. They held that the Board must consider the evidence to determine the elements of good faith, including how the parties conducted themselves towards each other at the end of their relationship.

17. Further, in the recent case of Lokhouse v. Ewing, 2024 ONSC 6789, the Divisional Court reaffirmed that even closely held corporations may not serve a notice of termination under section 48(5) of the Act.

18. Based on the above, I find that the Landlords did not have good faith in transferring 1 percent ownership of the Corporation to themselves in order to circumvent the Act. Therefore, I find the true Landlord is the Corporation and as per section 48(5)(b) of the Act, the Landlord is not an individual. This interpretation is consistent with the intent of section 48(5) of the Act, which is to deny corporate landlords the right to evict tenants for landlord’s own use applications.

19. The Landlords’ application must be dismissed as it fails to comply with section 48 of the Act.

G3 Harmonic Inc. v Raddie, 2022 CanLII 57969 (ON LTB)

1. The application is based on a Notice of Termination (N12) served on the Tenants on November 26, 2020 with a termination date of January 31, 2021, because the Landlords’ child required possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation pursuant to s. 48 (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act , 2006 (the “Act’).

2. At the outset of the hearing the representative for the Tenant raised the issue of corporate ownership of the rental complex and the fact the N12 was served on behalf of a corporation, specifically G3 Harmonic Inc

3. The Rental Agreement dated August 14, 2014 between the parties identifies G3 Harmonic Inc as the Landlord. The Notice of Termination (N12) served on the Tenants identifies the Landlord as G3 Harmonic Inc. and the application was filed in the name of G3 Harmonic Inc and Gail Tapiero.

4. The Tenants’ Representative also submitted a copy of the Land Registry for the rental address. On November 16, 2020 G3 Harmonic. Inc transferred 1% of ownership to Yael Tapiero. Yael Tapiero is not listed on Notice of Termination nor the application as a landlord.

5. On September 1, 2017, section 48(5) of the Act came into effect pursuant to the Rental Fairness Act, 2017. This provision provides that an own use notice under subsection 48(1) may only be given if the rental unit is owned in whole or in part by an individual and that the landlord is an individual:

48 (5) This section does not authorize a landlord to give notice of termination of a tenancy with respect to a rental until unless,

(a) the rental unit is owned in whole or in part by an individual: and

(b) the landlord is an individual.

5. Although G3 Harmonic Inc may be owned in whole or in part by an individual, the Agents were not listed on the Notice of Termination, nor the application. There is no authority in the Act to amend a notice of termination. As a result, I find the N12 is invalid and the application is dismissed.

Bruno Malfara v. Jenna Boyd ONLTB CEL-02026-21

Determinations:

4. Until July 19, 2021, MM2014 had a 100% ownership interest in the rental unit. After BM realized that a corporation could not serve an N12 Notice of Termination, he transferred part ownership of the property to himself for $1.00. On July 31, 2021, the Tenant was then served with a new Notice of Termination that named the Landlords as MM2014 and BM.

...

10. Therefore, pursuant to subsection 48(5)(b), only a landlord who is an individual is authorized to serve a tenant with an N12 Notice of Termination on the ground that the landlord in good faith requires possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation.

11. In this instance, I find that the only genuine Landlord is MM2014, a corporation. I recognize that the definition of “landlord” in section 2(1) of the Act includes an owner of a rental unit and I also recognize that there may be more than one landlord for a single rental unit given the broad definition of this term. However, BM acquired his partial ownership interest in the rental unit from a corporation that he alone controls for the token amount of $1.00 for the sole purpose of being able to evict the Tenant pursuant to section 48 of the Act.

12. Section 202 of the Act states:

202 (1) In making findings on an application, the Board shall ascertain the real substance of all transactions and activities relating to a residential complex or a rental unit and the good faith of the participants and in doing so,

(a) may disregard the outward form of a transaction or the separate corporate existence of participants; and

(b) may have regard to the pattern of activities relating to the residential complex or the rental unit

13. In this instance, the real substance of the transfer of part ownership of the property to BM was for the sole purpose of evicting the Tenant. The true Landlord was and continues to be a corporation, MM2014, not BM. Since MM2014 is not an individual, it cannot give the Tenant a Notice of Termination for owner’s own use. This interpretation is consistent with the intent of subsection 48(5) which is to deny corporate landlords to evict tenants for Landlord’s own use.

14. As I have found that MM2014, a corporation, is the only genuine Landlord, the N12 Notice of Termination served on August 9, 2021 does not comply with section 48 of the Act.

It is ordered that:

1. The Landlord’s application is dismissed