Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
|
|
| (15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Category:Landlord Tenant]]
| |
|
| |
|
| ==[https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17#BK68 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006]==
| |
|
| |
| 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,
| |
| ::(a) the purchaser;
| |
| ::(b) the purchaser’s spouse;
| |
| ::(c) a child or parent of the purchaser or the purchaser’s spouse; or
| |
| ::(d) a person who provides or will provide care services to the purchaser, the purchaser’s spouse, or a child or parent of the purchaser or the purchaser’s spouse, if the person receiving the care services resides or will reside in the building, related group of buildings, mobile home park or land lease community in which the rental unit is located. 2006, c. 17, s. 49 (1).
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ==[http://canlii.ca/t/gs695 TSL-62768-15-RV2 (Re), 2015 CanLII 100191 (ON LTB)]==
| |
|
| |
| 10. It is my belief that the Legislature intended to use the term “residential occupation” in section 48 of the Act to apply to those situations where the rental unit will either be lived in by the landlord or becomes incorporated into the landlord’s main living quarters. If a landlord is living in a house in which the basement of the complex is rented out, I am satisfied they are entitled to effectively reclaim use of the entire house by seeking possession of the rental unit for residential storage. <b><u>It is not uncommon in many single family homes to have the basement used in whole or in part for storage of property owned by its occupants.</b></u> Where the intended purpose of the rental unit is to become incorporated into the landlord’s main living quarters there is no change of use, it is residential occupation. <b><u>“Residential occupation” cannot reasonably be restricted in these circumstances to only include that portion of a house used for activities such as sleeping, cooking or entertaining. To suggest otherwise would mean that a landlord would have to effectively abandon the remainder of the house and live solely in the basement in order to establish an intention to use a basement for residential occupation.</b></u>
| |
|
| |
| ==[http://canlii.ca/t/hwqdg TST-94128-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 123282 (ON LTB)]==
| |
|
| |
| 17. The law is clear that “residential occupation” as it is used in s.48(1) of the Act (under which the Landlords served the N12) does not include temporary full-time use.
| |
|
| |
| 18. The Ontario Divisional Court in the case of MacDonald v. Richard [2008] O.J. 6076 (Ont. Div. Ct.) (“MacDonald”), ruled that <b><u>temporary full-time occupancy of a residential unit (which in MacDonald was four months) does not constitute “residential occupation” as contemplated in s.48(1) of the Act</b></u>. MacDonald has been followed by the Board in a number of decisions, including TSL-2128-11; TSL-52712-14; TSL-62689-15; TSL-76374-16; and TSL-80318-16.
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ==[http://canlii.ca/t/h3qz0 TSL-80642-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28814 (ON LTB)]==
| |
|
| |
| 15. <b><u>I agree with the Tenant that vacancy does not change the status of a residential unit. If the Landlord had used the vacant units for a purpose that was not residential (storage of the Landlord’s property, for example), the status of the units may have changed. However, choosing to keep units unoccupied does not, in itself, convert the units from residential to otherwise. Residential units may remain residential whether they are occupied or not. Thus, there continue to be four residential units in the residential complex.</b></u>
| |
|
| |
| 16. This interpretation is also consistent with the objective of the Act. In Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp., [2010] O.J. No. 2710 (C.A.) (‘Matthews v. Algoma’), the Court of Appeal states, at paragraph 22: “Given the remedial nature of the [Residential Tenancies] Act, its provisions must be interpreted liberally to ensure the realization of its objectives.” At paragraph 32, the Court concludes: “The purpose of the legislation is to provide protections to tenants.”
| |
