Severance of a Party to a Lease (LTB): Difference between revisions
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Properties v Northmore, 2018 CanLII 153456 (ON LTB)== | ==Properties v Northmore, 2018 CanLII 153456 (ON LTB)<ref name="Northmore"/>== | ||
64. Where one joint tenant wants to vacate a unit and the other wants to remain, three distinct interests are engaged: the Landlord’s contractual interest in holding both tenants liable for the tenancy; the vacating tenant’s interest in divesting themself of a liability for which they will no longer receive any benefit; and the remaining tenant’s interest in keeping their home. Ultimately, it is the role of the Legislature, not the Board, to decide how those interests should be balanced. | 64. Where one joint tenant wants to vacate a unit and the other wants to remain, three distinct interests are engaged: the Landlord’s contractual interest in holding both tenants liable for the tenancy; the vacating tenant’s interest in divesting themself of a liability for which they will no longer receive any benefit; and the remaining tenant’s interest in keeping their home. Ultimately, it is the role of the Legislature, not the Board, to decide how those interests should be balanced. | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
69. Although evidence was adduced as to whether or not Ms. Huntley is currently living in the unit, I make no finding on that question as it does not affect the outcome of this case. | 69. Although evidence was adduced as to whether or not Ms. Huntley is currently living in the unit, I make no finding on that question as it does not affect the outcome of this case. | ||
<ref name="Properties v Northmore, 2018 CanLII 153456 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jj70l>, retrieved on 2023-09-25</ref> | <ref name="Northmore">Properties v Northmore, 2018 CanLII 153456 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jj70l>, retrieved on 2023-09-25</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 22:40, 25 September 2023
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-06-02 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2284 |
| Page Categories: | Contract Law, Leases, & Sub-Letting (LTB) |
| Citation: | Severance of a Party to a Lease (LTB), CLNP 2284, <https://rvt.link/8z>, retrieved on 2024-06-02 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2023/09/25 |
Properties v Northmore, 2018 CanLII 153456 (ON LTB)[1]
64. Where one joint tenant wants to vacate a unit and the other wants to remain, three distinct interests are engaged: the Landlord’s contractual interest in holding both tenants liable for the tenancy; the vacating tenant’s interest in divesting themself of a liability for which they will no longer receive any benefit; and the remaining tenant’s interest in keeping their home. Ultimately, it is the role of the Legislature, not the Board, to decide how those interests should be balanced.
65. I have concluded that, in the current state of the law, the vacating tenant is not able to divest themself of the tenancy. They may potentially be found liable for contraventions long after they have vacated. Fair or not, in my view that is how the law currently balances the parties’ interests.
66. That being said, the law is not entirely settled. It is possible that I am wrong and that the vacating tenant can unilaterally terminate the entire tenancy. That would certainly not be a fair outcome for the tenant who wants to remain, and in my view it would run counter to the fundamental purposes of the RTA. However, there is a line of cases taking that approach, and the question has not been settled by any binding precedent.
67. Unless the Landlord consents, I have concluded that the law does not permit Ms. Huntley to remove herself from the tenancy unless the entire tenancy is terminated. In short, the Landlord’s interest in holding both Respondents liable trumps Ms. Huntley’s interest in divestment. Whether that is the best way to balance the parties’ competing interests is not for me to say.
68. In the result, I find that the tenancy has not been severed and Ms. Huntley’s interest in it has not terminated. The Respondents are joint tenants. The settlement the parties have agreed to will be effective against both of them.
69. Although evidence was adduced as to whether or not Ms. Huntley is currently living in the unit, I make no finding on that question as it does not affect the outcome of this case.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Properties v Northmore, 2018 CanLII 153456 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jj70l>, retrieved on 2023-09-25
