Implied Tenancy

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID:	1908
Page Categories:	Contract Law, Leases, & Sub-Letting (LTB)
Citation:	Implied Tenancy, CLNP 1908, <6u>, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2022/04/18

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

CET-59387-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88088 (ON LTB)

8. Section 2(1) of the Act defines tenant as “includes a person who pays rent in return for the right to occupy a rental unit and includes the tenant’s heirs, assigns and personal representatives…”.

(...)

12. Section 202 requires that the Board ascertain the real substance of all transactions and activities relating to a residential complex or a rental unit. In doing so, the Board may disregard the outward form of a transaction and may have regard to the pattern of activities relating to the residential complex or the rental unit.

13. There is evidence before the Board that may indicate the creation of an implied tenancy. Specifically, the Applicant pays rent in return for the right to occupy the unit, interacts with the Landlord and has continuously lived in the rental unit for one year.

SOT-66425-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 57313 (ON LTB)

14. Turning to the question of whether there is an implied tenancy, the Divisional Court recognized that at the prior hearing of this application, there was the following evidentiary indicia of an implied tenancy, which was again put forward at the re-hearing:

- EE has paid rent directly to the Respondent Landlord for more than two years;

- EE has lived in the rental unit for more than two years; and

- The Respondent Landlord was aware that EE resided in the rental unit accepted his rent payments, and approached him about filling out an "occupancy form."

15. It is worth noting that implied tenancies usually arose where, before the continuation of expired leases on a month to month basis was made automatic by statute, tenants continued to occupy rental units and continued to pay rent after fixed term tenancies had ended. However, implied tenancies could also arise where tenants moved out or died, but other persons paid rent to landlords for the right to remain in rental units.

16. In my view, consideration of the evidence in its full context in the current case did not support the creation of an implied tenancy between EE and the Respondent. The evidence did not show that EE paid rent for continuation of a lapsed or terminated tenancy. He testified that he has lived in the rental unit, and paid the rent, since the commencement of his son's tenancy, which is still in effect. The tenancy with AE has never lapsed or terminated. The Landlord's staff members have approached EE about being added in writing as an occupant, not a tenant. These facts comfortably support a conclusion that EE has lived in the rental unit as an occupant by benefit of his son's tenancy, that he has paid rent on behalf of his son, and that he has never become a tenant himself.