Tenant Insurance (Condition of Lease): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Category:Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB) {{Citation: | categories = [Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)] | shortlink = }} ==STANBAR PROPERTIES LIMIT...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Citation: | {{Citation: | ||
| categories = [Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)] | | categories = [Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)] | ||
| shortlink = | | shortlink = 7J | ||
}} | }} | ||
==STANBAR PROPERTIES LIMITED v. JOSEPH ROOKE ONSCDC 04-212DV== | ==STANBAR PROPERTIES LIMITED v. JOSEPH ROOKE ONSCDC 04-212DV== | ||
[10] As well, it is my respectful view that the Tribunal erred in declining jurisdiction. The refusals of the respondent to arrange for pre-authorized direct debit and to provide proof of insurance coverage were in breach of consensual provisions of the tenancy agreement to which he was a party and, in the language of section 64 (1) of the Act, his refusals substantially interfered with the appellant's lawful rights acquired by it as a result of the agreement. Accordingly, the Act authorized the appellant to give notice of termination of the respondent's tenancy and, subsequently, to apply to the Tribunal. | <b><u>[10] As well, it is my respectful view that the Tribunal erred in declining jurisdiction. The refusals of the respondent to arrange for</b></u> pre-authorized direct debit and to provide <b><u>proof of insurance coverage were in breach of consensual provisions of the tenancy agreement to which he was a party and, in the language of section 64 (1) of the Act, his refusals substantially interfered with the appellant's lawful rights acquired by it as a result of the agreement. Accordingly, the Act authorized the appellant to give notice of termination of the respondent's tenancy and, subsequently, to apply to the Tribunal.</b></u> | ||
[11] This interpretation of the Act is in accordance with the language of the Act and reflects the very wide jurisdiction which the Legislature has conferred on the Tribunal, particularly with respect to matters relating to the obligations of landlords and tenants and security of tenure. | [11] This interpretation of the Act is in accordance with the language of the Act and reflects the very wide jurisdiction which the Legislature has conferred on the Tribunal, particularly with respect to matters relating to the obligations of landlords and tenants and security of tenure. | ||
Latest revision as of 14:02, 30 May 2022
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-23 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 1922 |
| Page Categories: | [Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)] |
| Citation: | Tenant Insurance (Condition of Lease), CLNP 1922, <7J>, retrieved on 2024-11-23 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2022/05/30 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today
STANBAR PROPERTIES LIMITED v. JOSEPH ROOKE ONSCDC 04-212DV
[10] As well, it is my respectful view that the Tribunal erred in declining jurisdiction. The refusals of the respondent to arrange for pre-authorized direct debit and to provide proof of insurance coverage were in breach of consensual provisions of the tenancy agreement to which he was a party and, in the language of section 64 (1) of the Act, his refusals substantially interfered with the appellant's lawful rights acquired by it as a result of the agreement. Accordingly, the Act authorized the appellant to give notice of termination of the respondent's tenancy and, subsequently, to apply to the Tribunal.
[11] This interpretation of the Act is in accordance with the language of the Act and reflects the very wide jurisdiction which the Legislature has conferred on the Tribunal, particularly with respect to matters relating to the obligations of landlords and tenants and security of tenure.
[12] I am persuaded, therefore, that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to grant the order sought and that it erred in holding that it did not.
References
- ↑ STANBAR PROPERTIES LIMITED v. JOSEPH ROOKE ONSCDC 04-212DV, <https://caselaw.ninja/r/7H>, retrieved 2022-05-30
