Guarantor Obligations for Rent (LTB): Difference between revisions
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
19 Dayne Lycett's position is that the tenancy agreement that he co-signed was for a one-year term and that he had no obligation to HMV following the expiry of that term. | 19 Dayne Lycett's position is that the tenancy agreement that he co-signed was for a one-year term and that he had no obligation to HMV following the expiry of that term. | ||
20 In Kar v. Chung< | 20 In <i>Kar v. Chung</i><ref name="Kar2007ONCA"/>, a case not cited in argument, the Court of Appeal, reversing a decision of the Divisional Court, held that the deemed renewal provided for in subsection 104(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act did not apply to guarantors, that landlords and tenants are deemed to have renewed their tenancy agreements but that guarantors are not deemed to have done anything. While the language in section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 is not identical to that in subsection 104(1) of the predecessor Act, it does not differ in any material respect and accordingly, the result must be the same. | ||
21 For the reasons given, the action is dismissed. | |||
<ref name="HMV Properties">HMV Properties Inc., and Elgin Lycett and Dayne Lycett ONSCSM No. 60929/09, <[[File:HMV Properties Inc. v. Lycett.PDF]]><https://rvt.link/bp>, retrieved 2024-04-17</ref> | <ref name="HMV Properties">HMV Properties Inc., and Elgin Lycett and Dayne Lycett ONSCSM No. 60929/09, <[[File:HMV Properties Inc. v. Lycett.PDF]]><https://rvt.link/bp>, retrieved 2024-04-17</ref> | ||
<ref name="Kar2007ONCA">Kar v. Chung, 2001 CanLII 8600 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/1f8zf>, retrieved on 2024-04-17</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 17:27, 17 April 2024
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-23 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2376 |
| Page Categories: | [Payment of Rent (LTB)] |
| Citation: | Guarantor Obligations for Rent (LTB), CLNP 2376, <https://rvt.link/bq>, retrieved on 2024-11-23 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2024/04/17 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today
HMV Properties Inc., and Elgin Lycett and Dayne Lycett ONSCSM No. 60929/09 [1]
18 HMV's position is that having guaranteed the rent payable under the tenancy agreement, Dayne Lycett remained liable to pay rent during the deemed month-to-month renewal provided for by section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
19 Dayne Lycett's position is that the tenancy agreement that he co-signed was for a one-year term and that he had no obligation to HMV following the expiry of that term.
20 In Kar v. Chung[2], a case not cited in argument, the Court of Appeal, reversing a decision of the Divisional Court, held that the deemed renewal provided for in subsection 104(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act did not apply to guarantors, that landlords and tenants are deemed to have renewed their tenancy agreements but that guarantors are not deemed to have done anything. While the language in section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 is not identical to that in subsection 104(1) of the predecessor Act, it does not differ in any material respect and accordingly, the result must be the same.
21 For the reasons given, the action is dismissed.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 HMV Properties Inc., and Elgin Lycett and Dayne Lycett ONSCSM No. 60929/09, <File:HMV Properties Inc. v. Lycett.PDF><https://rvt.link/bp>, retrieved 2024-04-17
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Kar v. Chung, 2001 CanLII 8600 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/1f8zf>, retrieved on 2024-04-17
