Refusal to Accept a Rental Payment

Pfeiffer v. Metcap Living Management Inc., 2018 ONSC 910 (CanLII)

ISSUES ON THE APPEAL:
[15] Pursuant to section 210 of the RTA a party may appeal an order of the Landlord Tenant Board to the Divisional Court, but only on a question of law.

[16] There are two issues that have been raised by the appellant in this appeal:

1. Does the landlord’s refusal to accept a rental payment satisfy the tenant’s obligation to pay rent? To use the appellant’s words in court today, has he been discharged from making those rent payments?

2. Did Member Kevin Lundy make an error of law in exercising his discretion in refusing to set aside the eviction order, including the issue raised in Issue #1?

Issue #1: Does the landlord’s refusal to accept a rental payment satisfy the tenant’s obligation to pay that rent?

[18] In this case, Member Lundy found that there was no error in the decision he was reviewing – the landlord’s mistake, refusing cash payments tendered by the tenant, did not serve to erase or satisfy the tenant’s obligation to pay the rent.

[19] The issue of whether the obligation to pay rent has been satisfied for the purpose of the RTA falls squarely within the expertise of the Landlord Tenant Board. Member Lundy’s determination is entitled to deference.

[20] As previously determined in a number of other Landlord Tenant Board cases, a landlord’s refusal to accept a rental payment does not satisfy the tenant’s obligation to pay rent.

[21] The Member’s decision to uphold the order that he was reviewing falls within the range of reasonable outcomes. There was no error of law.

[22] Nor was there an error of law in not finding estoppel or waiver by the respondent. The respondent persistently took steps to recover rental arrears.

TET-63792-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 94965 (ON LTB)

13. The Landlord is a professional running a business. At a minimum he should know and understand the basic concept that tenancies can only be terminated in accordance with the Act.

14. He should also know that the kind of behaviour on the part of a landlord that is described above is simply not permitted under the Act but whether or not the Landlord had actual knowledge is irrelevant. Section 23 says a landlord shall not harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a tenant. The text messages, the Landlord’s attempts to force the Tenant to move out without filing an application with the Board, the veiled threats to the Tenant, and the refusal to accept rent are all part of a course of conduct that a reasonable landlord ought to know would be unwelcome to any reasonable tenant. This is particular true given that the entirety of the Landlord’s conduct was aimed at forcing the Tenant to abandon the tenancy without any of the procedural protections he is entitled to under the Act.

15. As a result I am satisfied that the Landlord’s behaviour in this regard breached s. 23 of the Act.

22. As stated above, abatement is tied to the amount of the rent. Here the monthly rent is $1,100.00. It seems to me that given the nature of the behaviour complained of, the length of time it went on, the impact it had on the Tenant, and my knowledge of similar like cases before the Board, a reasonable abatement of the rent would be $1,000.00. An order shall issue accordingly.