The Impact of Newman v. Glanville, 2019 ONSC on Vulnerable and High Risk Tenants

Overview

Under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 S.O ("RTA") there are several classes of landlord tenant relationsips that are excluded from the protections granted by the RTA. Broadly speaking the following classes of tenancies are exempted by the RTA:

• Tenancies where the Landlord and Tenant are required to share a kitchene and/or a bathroom [section 5. (i)]
• Seasonal or temporary period in a hotel or the like
• Tenancies connected to ones employment
• Tenancies connected to emergency shelters
• Tenancies connection to post-secondary education instututes
• Tenancies connected to rehabilitative or therapeutic services

Generally speaking the policy reason for allowing the above exceptions is that the above classes of tenancies exist for a specific purpose where the general framework of the RTA would not fit the express purposes of those tenancie purposes. What is not addressed in the RTA is what happens to those tenancies classes as a result of their exclusion from the RTA.

There has been much speculation in the landlord and tenant advociate professions over the last few years about what happens when an member of an excluded classes requires to be evicted for one reason or another. Generally speaking there have been three beliefs about what the remedy a landlord has to remove a tenant that falls under an excluded class of the RTA:

1. The landlord simply changes the locks as the landlord believes that only contract law applies.
2. The tenant can be forced to leave by the landlord calling the police and having them removed under the authority of the Tresspass to Property Act.
3. The landlord is required to make an application to the Superior Court of Justice and obtain a writ of posession, which must be enforced by a sheriff.

The third belief has not been a very common belief. The focus of this summary is on the class of tenants exempted because they share a kitchen and/or a bathroom with their landlord. Along comes the case of Newman v. Glanville, 2019 ONSC 1040 (CanLII). In that decision the Superior Court of Justice found at paragraph [7] that:

[7] Mr. Newman initially sought to evict Mr. Glanville from the home by applying to the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act 2006. The board declined jurisdiction to hear the application citing section 5(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act which excludes jurisdiction in circumstances where the landlord and tenant share either a bathroom or a kitchen. Mr. Newman and Mr. Glanville share both. In those circumstances, the Commercial Tenancies Act applies rather than the Residential Tenancies Act.