Air BnB (LTB)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID:	381
Page Categories:	[Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)‎], [Illegal Act & Impairment of Safety (LTB)]
Citation:	Air BnB (LTB), CLNP 381, <https://rvt.link/c8>, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2024/07/05

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Resources

• City of Toronto Short-Term Rental By-Law

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17

234 A person is guilty of an offence if the person,

...

(x) charges rent in an amount greater than permitted under this Act; or

Kolta v Akhbari, 2021 CanLII 150804 (ON LTB)

11. The Tenant, RK, testified that he lived in the rental unit for two weeks at a time on several occasions. This testimony seemed to be an attempt to demonstrate that the Tenant also used the unit for his own residential occupation and not only to run his short-term rental business. However, I do not find the Tenant’s testimony credible in this regard. When the Tenant was specifically asked when he stayed in the rental unit, he was not able to provide any particular dates. The Tenant also testified that he owned a house throughout the tenancy, where he lives with his wife and children. The Tenant further testified that he runs his short-term rental business in seven units. The parties entered into agreements for two different units for the same term. Based on the evidence before me, I find it difficult to believe that the Tenant lived in the rental unit at any time. I find it more likely than not that he used the rental unit to run his short-term rental business only, that the Landlord was aware of this use and that it is more indicative of the relationship between the parties.

12. Importantly, the Tenant also treated the tenancy as frustrated when the condo corporation changed its Declaration to make short-term rentals illegal. In other words, the Tenant viewed this change and his inability to run his business in the rental unit to be fundamental to the agreement between the parties. The letter from the Tenant’s legal representative from April 2020 acknowledges that the change to the Declaration made “performance of the lease agreement illegal and impossible to execute”. If the Tenant was also using the rental unit for his own residential purposes, I find it unlikely that he would have taken this position with respect to the change to the Declaration.

13. For this reason, I also find that the caselaw the Tenants submitted (OnTheGoShipping Inc., and Kwok-Wai Leung, aka Harry Leung v. G. Khan Medicine Professional Corporation, 2020 ONSC 2789) was not relevant to the case at bar. In OnTheGoShipping Inc., the Court considered a situation in which the tenant was living in the rental unit and conducting business in the unit. The Court considered whether the Act applied to the tenancy or whether the rental unit was exempt from the Act by virtue of section 5(j). That section applies to premises occupied for business or agricultural purposes with living accommodation attached if the occupancy for both purposes is under a single lease. However, in the present case, the Tenants only occupied and used the rental unit for business purposes. They never occupied the unit for residential purposes.

14. In conclusion, I find that the parties’ relationship did not involve a residential tenancy. Accordingly, the LTB does not have jurisdiction to hear this application and it must be dismissed.

TSL-01536-18 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87095 (ON LTB)

11. With respect to the First N6 Notice, it alleges the Tenants or another occupant of the rental unit have committed an illegal act or have carried out, or permitted someone to carry out an illegal trade, business or occupation in the rental unit or the residential complex, details of which are:

September 18, 2018 – Tenant has been renting out a room and a bed on Airbnb, which is not currently permitted under the City of Toronto’s Zoning Bylaws. On September 18, 2018 an Airbnb guest was intentionally locked out without her luggage. The guest complained to the second floor tenant who contacted the property manager. The police were called as a result of the incident. The property manager advised the tenant she was not permitted to sublet on Airbnb or other short-term rental websites.

September 21- October 3, 2018 – The tenant continued to rent out the property on Airbnb. On September 21, 2018, the landlord’s lawyer, Tannis Waugh, wrote to the tenant enclosing a N5 Notice to End Tenancy Early along with a letter advising that short-term rentals were not permitted. On October 3, 2018, Ms. Waugh sent a further N5 to the tenant as the unit was still listed as available for short-term rentals on the Airbnb website.

November 5, 2018 – The Airbnb website continues to show that the premises are available for short-term rentals on Airbnb contrary to the landlord’s request as relayed by the property manager, the landlord’s lawyer and in contravention of the City of Toronto’s current Zoning Bylaws.

12. The Landlord also indicated that because of these illegal activities by the Tenants, her insurance carrier would not respond to any third party claims arising out of the operations of the Airbnb, including any property damage as a result of that operation and, indeed, as of November 14, 2018 no longer remain on the risk.

13. The Landlord presented a statement posted on the City of Toronto website that was accessed on December 14, 2018 in which the heading states: “Currently, short-term rentals are not permitted in Toronto”. In the body of the notice it is explained that the City’s amendments to the zoning bylaw to permit short-term rentals under regulated conditions are not in effect because they have been appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal which is scheduled to hear the appeal in August 2019. Without the relevant zoning bylaw excluding short-term rentals, I am not satisfied the Tenants’ activity as complained about in the First N6 Notice is illegal as contravening the City of Toronto zoning bylaw applicable to the rental unit.

It is ordered that:

1. The application is dismissed.

Thadani v Roozbahani, 2021 CanLII 106394 (ON LTB)

18. It was uncontested that the Tenant listed the unit on Airbnb in 2019. I am satisfied that by advertising and renting out the rental unit through Airbnb, the Tenant has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment or a lawful right, privilege or interest of the Landlords by contravening the terms of the tenancy agreement that state that the Tenant agrees not to have any business operation from the leased premises. As it was uncontested that the Tenant continued to have the unit on the website until early 2021, I am also satisfied the Tenant continued this conduct within seven days after receiving the notice.

Shum v Nambakhsh, 2022 CanLII 138725 (ON LTB)

3. On December 13, 2021, the Landlord gave the Tenant an N6 notice of termination deemed served on December 18, 2021. The notice of termination alleges that the Tenant was renting the rental unit out for short-term rentals and that this constituted an illegal act under the City of Toronto By-Laws, the Residential Tenancies Act, and the condominium corporation’s rules, by-laws, and declarations.

4. The Landlord and ES testified that they found a person using the rental unit as a short term rental on November 28, 2021. They brought this person to the security desk and obtained details with respect to her short-term rental. While there is a discrepancy between the information in the Landlord’s application and the testimony regarding whether it was the Landlord or ES who first went to the rental unit that day and with respect to the length of the short-term rental, I did not find this to be material or to detract from the credibility of the Landlord or ES.

5. SS’s testimony corroborated the testimony of the Landlord and ES. SS also testified to the several other incidences outlined in the notice of termination when he engaged with individuals using the rental unit as a short-term rental.

6. The Tenant denied using the rental unit for short-term rentals. The Tenant alleged that the Landlord staged the incident on November 28, 2021. The Tenant claimed that the Landlord was conspiring with other individuals to evict him from the rental unit so that the unit could be used for short-term rentals. He said that he was paying a low rent and the Landlord was trying to evict him so she could make more money.

7. I find the Tenant’s assertion that the November 28, 2021 incident was staged to be fantastical and highly unlikely.

8. I find the evidence of the Landlord, ES, and SS to be straightforward and credible and I prefer it to the Tenant’s testimony.

9. I also find use of the rental unit as a short-term rental to be an illegal act as it is contrary to Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 547.

10. As a result, I am satisfied, based on the evidence before me on a balance of probabilities, that the Tenant has committed an illegal act in the rental unit by renting the rental unit out as a short-term rental. Not every illegal act automatically gives rise to termination of the tenancy and eviction. The illegal act must have the potential to affect the character of the premises or disturb the reasonable enjoyment of the Landlord or other tenants in the residential complex. In this case, use of the rental unit for short-term rentals has the potential to affect the character of the residential complex by giving a transient or travelling population access to both the rental unit and the complex. As a result, I find that termination of the tenancy is warranted in the circumstances of this case.