Defining a Commercial Tenancy (CTA): Difference between revisions
m (→References) |
|||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
<ref name="CTA">Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90l07>, reterived September 22, 2020</ref> | <ref name="CTA">Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90l07>, reterived September 22, 2020</ref> | ||
==Newman v. Glanville, 2019 ONSC 1040 (CanLII)<ref name="Newman"/>== | |||
[1] Mr. Newman owns a house which is located at 446 Whitmore Avenue in Toronto. Cedric Glanville became a tenant in Mr. Newman’s home in August, 1994. It appears that the two friends never did have a written lease but Mr. Glanville paid his rent weekly and they shared the house for many years. | |||
<b><u>[2] Mr. Newman now applies under rule 14.05 for an order to evict Mr. Glanville.</b></u> | |||
[3] Mr. Newman has filed an affidavit in which he indicates that he first gave written notice to Mr. Glanville to leave the house back in 2010. He has repeatedly asked him to leave since then but Mr. Glanville has refused. In the interim, Mr. Glanville has begun to drink heavily and makes no effort to clean up after himself. He has not paid his rent since March 9, 2018 and he refuses to pay his arrears despite repeated requests by Mr. Newman. | |||
[4] Mr. Newman served a written Notice of Eviction on Mr. Glanville on August 8, 2018. The Notice gave Mr. Glanville 60 days to vacate the house. The notice clearly set out the reasons for the eviction including the failure to clean garbage from the home, a refusal to clean the bathroom leaving it in “a disgusting state” and the excessive use of utilities. Notwithstanding a very reasonable notice period, Mr. Newman has not vacated the house. | |||
<b><u>[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.</b></u> | |||
[8] Mr. Newman’s grounds to bring this application can be found in section 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act. Under that section, the court has a wide discretion to grant relief where there has been a breach of a lease agreement. The court may: | |||
::a. order the payment of rent; | |||
::b. make a costs order; | |||
::c. award damages: and | |||
::d. issue injunctive relief to restrain any future breach of the lease agreement. | |||
[9] Section 20 also permits the court to provide the respondent with an opportunity to remedy the defaults which gave rise to the breach of the leasing agreement. | |||
<b><u>[10] Under section 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act, an eviction from the property can only be obtained if proper notice has been given. The notice provided to the tenant must specify the breach of the lease that is alleged by the landlord and provide an opportunity to the tenant to remedy that breach. Under section 28 of the Act, a weekly tenancy can be terminated on one week’s notice.</b></u> | |||
[12] Mr. Glanville has had sufficient opportunity to address the failings that gave rise to his breach of the lease. Mr. Newman served him with a very clear notice in writing on August 8, 2018 and no rent has been paid since that day. Mr. Glanville has done nothing to repair the damage that he has caused. | |||
[13] Mr. Glanville is now wrongfully in possession of the home. I have received no evidence or submissions from him that would dissuade me from issuing an eviction order. | |||
[14] There will be an order declaring that the lease was terminated on October 8, 2018. | |||
<b><u>[15] There will be a further order granting a writ of possession to Mr. Newman. The writ of possession may be enforced by the Sheriff’s office if Mr. Glanville does not vacate the premises by February 28th, 2019.</b></u> | |||
<ref name="Newman">Newman v. Glanville, 2019 ONSC 1040 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hxgvv>, retrieved on 2020-09-07</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== |
Revision as of 17:54, 28 September 2020
Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7[1]
1 In this Act,
- “landlord” includes a person who is lessor, owner, the person giving or permitting the occupation of the premises in question, and these persons’ heirs and assigns and legal representatives, and in Parts II and III also includes the person entitled to possession of the premises; (“locateur”)
- “tenant” includes a person who is lessee, occupant, sub-tenant, under-tenant, and the person’s assigns and legal representatives.
2 This Act does not apply to tenancies and tenancy agreements to which the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 applies. 1997, c. 24, s. 213 (3); 2006, c. 17, s. 247.
2.1 This Act does not apply with respect to a property in which the Crown in right of Ontario has an interest if one of the following circumstances applies in respect of the property:
- 1. The property was forfeited to the Crown in right of Ontario under any Ontario statute or the Criminal Code (Canada).
- 2. Possession of the property has been or may be taken in the name of the Crown in right of Ontario under the Escheats Act, 2015.
- 3. The property is forfeited corporate property to which the Forfeited Corporate Property Act, 2015 applies. 2015, c. 38, Sched. 7, s. 46.
3 The relation of landlord and tenant does not depend on tenure, and a reversion in the lessor is not necessary in order to create the relation of landlord and tenant, or to make applicable the incidents by law belonging to that relation; nor is it necessary, in order to give a landlord the right of distress, that there is an agreement for that purpose between the parties. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7, s. 3.
(...)
15 Where a valid power of leasing is vested in, or may be exercised by, a person granting a lease, and, by reason of the determination of the estate or interest of such person or otherwise, the lease cannot have effect and continuance according to the terms thereof independently of such power, the lease shall for the purposes of sections 11 to 14 be deemed to be granted in the intended exercise of such power although such power is not referred to in the lease. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7, s. 15.
Newman v. Glanville, 2019 ONSC 1040 (CanLII)[2]
[1] Mr. Newman owns a house which is located at 446 Whitmore Avenue in Toronto. Cedric Glanville became a tenant in Mr. Newman’s home in August, 1994. It appears that the two friends never did have a written lease but Mr. Glanville paid his rent weekly and they shared the house for many years.
[2] Mr. Newman now applies under rule 14.05 for an order to evict Mr. Glanville.
[3] Mr. Newman has filed an affidavit in which he indicates that he first gave written notice to Mr. Glanville to leave the house back in 2010. He has repeatedly asked him to leave since then but Mr. Glanville has refused. In the interim, Mr. Glanville has begun to drink heavily and makes no effort to clean up after himself. He has not paid his rent since March 9, 2018 and he refuses to pay his arrears despite repeated requests by Mr. Newman.
[4] Mr. Newman served a written Notice of Eviction on Mr. Glanville on August 8, 2018. The Notice gave Mr. Glanville 60 days to vacate the house. The notice clearly set out the reasons for the eviction including the failure to clean garbage from the home, a refusal to clean the bathroom leaving it in “a disgusting state” and the excessive use of utilities. Notwithstanding a very reasonable notice period, Mr. Newman has not vacated the house.
[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.
[8] Mr. Newman’s grounds to bring this application can be found in section 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act. Under that section, the court has a wide discretion to grant relief where there has been a breach of a lease agreement. The court may:
- a. order the payment of rent;
- b. make a costs order;
- c. award damages: and
- d. issue injunctive relief to restrain any future breach of the lease agreement.
[9] Section 20 also permits the court to provide the respondent with an opportunity to remedy the defaults which gave rise to the breach of the leasing agreement.
[10] Under section 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act, an eviction from the property can only be obtained if proper notice has been given. The notice provided to the tenant must specify the breach of the lease that is alleged by the landlord and provide an opportunity to the tenant to remedy that breach. Under section 28 of the Act, a weekly tenancy can be terminated on one week’s notice.
[12] Mr. Glanville has had sufficient opportunity to address the failings that gave rise to his breach of the lease. Mr. Newman served him with a very clear notice in writing on August 8, 2018 and no rent has been paid since that day. Mr. Glanville has done nothing to repair the damage that he has caused.
[13] Mr. Glanville is now wrongfully in possession of the home. I have received no evidence or submissions from him that would dissuade me from issuing an eviction order.
[14] There will be an order declaring that the lease was terminated on October 8, 2018.
[15] There will be a further order granting a writ of possession to Mr. Newman. The writ of possession may be enforced by the Sheriff’s office if Mr. Glanville does not vacate the premises by February 28th, 2019.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90l07>, reterived September 22, 2020
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Newman v. Glanville, 2019 ONSC 1040 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hxgvv>, retrieved on 2020-09-07