Bad Faith - s. 202 (Tenant): Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "Category:Personal Use Application (LTB) ==<i>Residential Tenancies Act,</i> 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17<ref name="RTA"/>== <b>Findings of Board</b> 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...")
 
Line 21: Line 21:


<ref name="Pinto"><i>Pinto v. Regan and White v. Regan,</i> 2021 ONSC 5502 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jhlfr>, retrieved on 2024-10-20</ref>
<ref name="Pinto"><i>Pinto v. Regan and White v. Regan,</i> 2021 ONSC 5502 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jhlfr>, retrieved on 2024-10-20</ref>
==References==

Revision as of 21:38, 20 October 2024


Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17[1]

Findings of Board

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. 2006, c. 17, s. 202.

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an application made under Part V.1.

[1]

Pinto v. Regan and White v. Regan, 2021 ONSC 5502 (CanLII)[2]

[40] Section 202 of the RTA imposed a statutory duty on the Member to determine questions of fact and to apply governing principles of law to ascertain the real substance of the transactions and activities regarding the rental units at issue, and the good faith of the parties to the N11. The Member did not consider all the evidence to determine the element of good faith on the part of the respondent other than making a passing reference in the Reasons. The Member did not take the totality of the evidence into account when he applied the substantive law. This amounted to an error of law.

[2]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17#BK300>, retrieved on 2024-10-20
  2. 2.0 2.1 Pinto v. Regan and White v. Regan, 2021 ONSC 5502 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jhlfr>, retrieved on 2024-10-20