Building Permits

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-27
CLNP Page ID:	2190
Page Categories:	Renovations and Repairs (LTB)
Citation:	Building Permits, CLNP 2190, <https://rvt.link/5h>, retrieved on 2024-11-27
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2023/04/28

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Jia v De Oliveira, 2022 CanLII 94603 (ON LTB)

8. This means the Landlords must meet a two-part test: that the work proposed is so extensive that it requires a building permit and that in order for the work to be conducted, vacant possession is required.

9. The problem with the Landlords’ application is that the Landlords have failed to obtain any building permits for the proposed work as mandated by subsection 50(1)(c) which is a condition or taken all reasonable steps to do so. In fact, the Landlords’ evidence was, according to the City, no permits are required for this work.

10. A plain reading of subsection 50(1)(c) is clear that a landlord’s application may not succeed if no building permits are required to do the repairs or renovations. The Board cannot terminate a tenancy if no permits are necessary.

11. Had the legislature intended that a landlord be able to terminate a tenancy and evict a tenant for the purpose of performing renovations or repairs that do not require a building permit it would not have drafted s. 50(1)(c) as it did so. The language of the section expressly says that the renovations be “so extensive” that they require both a building permit and vacant possession.

12. Based on the evidence before the Board, I am not satisfied that the Landlords have met the two-part test and established that it had taken all reasonable steps to obtain the necessary permits to conduct the extensive repairs and renovations or that it is necessary to have vacant possession of the rental unit to conduct these extensive repairs or renovations. As such, the Landlords’ application must be dismissed.

TSL-04926-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87561 (ON LTB)

7. There is no dispute that a building permit is not required for replacement of knob and tube wiring since the only authority legally authorized to approve electrical work and to issue a permit to undertake electrical work is the ESA. While there is an argument to be made that an ESA “permit” is an “other authority” as stipulated in s. 73, the provision of the Act which allows a Landlord to seek termination is s. 50 a liberal interpretation of s. 73(a) cannot be employed to cure the defect under s. 50(1)(c).

8. The Landlord’s Legal Representative submitted that his clients attempted to obtain the necessary building permits but were refused by the City staff because building permits are not generally issued for electrical work.

9. The Landlord called their general contractor SM as a witness, but not the master electrician who would be performing the work. The general contractor confirmed that a building permit is not necessary to replace knob and tube but stressed that one may subsequently be required on the advice of an architect depending upon the state of the wiring. However, he was not able to address the scope of the electrical work, nor was he able to explain why the wiring work could not be performed in cascading fashion to minimize the disruption to the Tenants.

10. SM also testified that water and power would be shut off during the work and stressed that in his opinion the residential complex would be uninhabitable during the work.

11. I am of the view that had the legislature intended that a Landlord be able to terminate a tenancy and evict a Tenant for the purpose of performing renovations or repairs that do not require a building permit it would not have drafted s. 50(1)(c) as it did. The language of the section expressly says that the renovations be “so extensive” that they require a building permit and vacant possession. I do acknowledge that it may be necessary to obtain a building permit should the scope of the work require it, but the application seems premature until that need is known.