Alternative Unit (N12)

🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 ©
Date Retrieved:	2025-06-19
CLNP Page ID:	2510
Page Categories:	[Personal Use Application (LTB)]
Citation:	Alternative Unit (N12), CLNP 2510, <https://rvt.link/ft>, retrieved on 2025-06-19
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2025/06/17

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

71.1 (1) A landlord who, on or after the day subsection 11 (1) of Schedule 4 to the Protecting Tenants and Strengthening Community Housing Act, 2020 comes into force, files an application under section 69 based on a notice of termination given under section 48 or 49 shall file the affidavit required under subsection 72 (1) at the same time as the application is filed. 2020, c. 16, Sched. 4, s. 11 (1).

...

72 (1) The Board shall not make an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant in an application under section 69 based on,

(a) a notice of termination given under section 48 on or after the day section 13 of the Rental Fairness Act, 2017 comes into force, unless the landlord has filed with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use for a period of at least one year; or

(b) a notice of termination under section 49, unless the landlord has filed with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use. 2017, c. 13, s. 13.

(1.1) The Board shall not make an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant in an application under section 69 based on a notice of termination given under section 48 before the day section 13 of the Rental Fairness Act, 2017 comes into force, unless the landlord has filed with the Board an affidavit sworn by the person who personally requires the rental unit certifying that the person in good faith requires the rental unit for his or her own personal use. 2017, c. 13, s. 13.

Asare v Clapp, 2024 ONLTB 62700 (CanLII)

19. The Tenant testified that he has been diagnosed with cancer which has metastasized. The Tenant testified that he is on strong medication which weakens him and had tumours removed from his bladder a week prior to the hearing.

20. The Tenant is currently scheduled to undergo a round of radiation therapy. This will consist of 30 sessions total, one per day over the course of 30 days. The Tenant indicated that this treatment, which he has undergone before, necessitates a lengthy recovery and the pain will be significant. The Tenant testified that if he were evicted, he would be required to postpone these treatments, and does not know when they will be rescheduled.

21. The Tenant testified that he met with a radiologist on July 8, 2024, to determine when these treatments would start. The Tenant testified that he was not certain when the treatment would begin, but predicted the treatments would start during the second week of August, run for a month, and would necessitate at minimum two months of recovery time during which time the Tenant will be essentially bedridden. The Tenant testified that he underwent a similar treatment two years ago and was in significant pain for several months afterwards. The Tenant provided a doctor’s letter dated July 8, 2024 in support of this testimony.

22. The Tenant testified also that he has been undergoing some form of cancer treatment for 5 years and will be under treatment for the rest of his life. The Tenant testified that if he were evicted, he would in all likelihood be priced out of the area in which the rental unit is located. The Tenant testified that this may require his obtaining a new care team if he is forced to relocate a considerable distance and will likely impact his treatment.

23. The Tenant testified that he has engaged a realtor and searched for other rental properties in the area but could not find anything in the area he could afford. The Tenant testified that he has spoken to his hospital and other organizations to determine if there are any support he could access in order to secure an alternate unit, but they have been unable to assist him.

24. I am also mindful of the Landlord’s circumstances, the Landlord testified that since his dispute with his wife he has been essentially homeless and has been staying with friends or sleeping in his office. The Landlord also testified that he requires the rental unit so that he can have a safe place for himself and his family, and expressed concerns related to their safety.

25. While I am sympathetic to the Landlord’s situation, I am not satisfied that it is akin to homelessness. The Landlord did not dispute the Tenant’s testimony that he is a wealthy man who owns several properties, and I am not satisfied that the Landlord can be considered homeless when he has been staying in his marital home prior to the hearing, and owns several other properties, one of which is being used exclusively for storage.

26. While I accept that the existence of this second, unoccupied property is largely irrelevant to the issue of whether the Landlord requires the unit in good faith, I do find that this consideration is relevant when considering relief from eviction under section 83 of the Act.

27. I accept the Tenant’s testimony with regards to his cancer treatment and I am prepared to accept that as the Tenant is likely to have this treatment seriously impacted if he is evicted.

28. When I consider all of the circumstance, I am satisfied that it would not be unfair to grant relief by denying the eviction. The Landlord owns several units, and while the Landlord may be inconvenienced if the eviction is denied, he will not be prejudiced to the extent that the Tenant will. I accept that the rental housing market is in a tumultuous state, especially in the city where the Tenant resides, and I also accept that the Tenant will experience difficulty in securing another unit and will likely have his treatment seriously impacted by an eviction. While the Act is careful to balance the rights of landlords and tenants it does have a tenant-protection focus, and the Act allows me to exercise discretion and consider all circumstances when contemplating whether a denial or delay of eviction is appropriate. In this case, in spite of the fact that the Landlord has met the requirements of the Act, I find that it is appropriate to exercise that discretion to deny eviction, and I am satisfied that it would not be unfair to do so.

29. I have considered all of the disclosed circumstances in accordance with subsection 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'), and find that it would not be unfair to grant relief from eviction pursuant to subsection 83(1)(a) of the Act.

Ottawa Hospital v Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2018 CanLII 34647 (ON LA)

In the Durham case, relied on by the employer, the arbitrator disagrees with the prevailing view of the meaning of “required to work.” As the arbitrator points out in the award, the Durham case did not involve the hospital central agreement combined with local provisions. The Durham collective agreement provided for premium pay if an employee was “required to work” consecutive weekends. The employee was not forced to work the shift in question. The decision analyzes the use of the word “required” as follows (paragraphs 18-22:

The word “required” is a word which has two related but different meanings. It takes its meaning from the context in which it is used. “Required” can mean needed, necessary, or essential, as in a prerequisite. It can also mean obligatory, compulsory, or mandatory. Of course, the word can have elements of both meanings in a particular instance. Perhaps more revealing than the synonyms are the common antonyms of “required”; namely, voluntary or optional. This demonstrates the substantial difference between the two meanings of the word.

...