Invalid Date - Re: Notice (LTB)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID:	795
Page Categories:	Defective Notice (LTB)
Citation:	Invalid Date - Re: Notice (LTB), CLNP 795, <https://rvt.link/8->, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2023/10/02

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17

43 (1) Where this Act permits a landlord or tenant to give a notice of termination, the notice shall be in a form approved by the Board and shall,

(a) identify the rental unit for which the notice is given;

(b) state the date on which the tenancy is to terminate; and

(c) be signed by the person giving the notice, or the person’s agent. 2006, c. 17, s. 43 (1).

(2) If the notice is given by a landlord, it shall also set out the reasons and details respecting the termination and inform the tenant that,

(a) if the tenant vacates the rental unit in accordance with the notice, the tenancy terminates on the date set out in clause (1) (b);

(b) if the tenant does not vacate the rental unit, the landlord may apply to the Board for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant; and

(c) if the landlord applies for an order, the tenant is entitled to dispute the application. 2006, c. 17, s. 43 (2).

...

48 (1) A landlord may, by notice, terminate a tenancy if the landlord in good faith requires possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation for a period of at least one year by,

(a) the landlord;

(b) the landlord’s spouse;

(c) a child or parent of the landlord or the landlord’s spouse; or

(d) a person who provides or will provide care services to the landlord, the landlord’s spouse, or a child or parent of the landlord or the landlord’s spouse, if the person receiving the care services resides or will reside in the building, related group of buildings, mobile home park or land lease community in which the rental unit is located. 2006, c. 17, s. 48 (1); 2017, c. 13, s. 7 (1); 2021, c. 4, Sched. 11, s. 31 (1).

(2) The date for termination specified in the notice shall be at least 60 days after the notice is given and shall be the day a period of the tenancy ends or, where the tenancy is for a fixed term, the end of the term. 2006, c. 17, s. 48 (2).

Fiorella & Attilio Boiago v Szorady, 2021 CanLII 139837 (ON LTB)

1. The rental period runs from the first day of the month to the last day of the month.

2. The Landlord’s gave the Tenant an N12 notice of termination with a termination date of August 16, 2021.

3. The N12 notice of termination that the Landlord gave the Tenant is defective because the termination date is not the last day of the rental period as required by subsection 48(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’). Therefore, the N12 notice is defective.

4. The Board lacks jurisdiction to terminate the tenancy based on a defective notice. Therefore, the Landlord’s application must be dismissed.

TSL-12115-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 13467 (ON LTB)

1. The Landlord served the Tenant a Termination Notice (Form N12) because the Landlord has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale of the rental unit and the purchaser requires possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation. The termination date set out in the notice was March 15, 2011.

2. Pursuant to section 49(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the “Act”), the date of termination specified in the notice must be the day a period of the tenancy ends.

3. In this case the rent is payable on the 1st day of the month, therefore, the last day of the rental period is the last day of the month.

4. The termination date set out in the Form N12 is not the last day of the rental period. As such the Form N12 is defective.

5. The Landlord cannot make an application to terminate a tenancy based on a defective notice to terminate a tenancy.

Shaul v Gavrilov, 2020 CanLII 117693 (ON LTB)

16. While the wording of subsection 43(1) would appear to render invalid any notice not in a form approved by the Board even if it included all of the information listed in the subparagraphs, section 212 of the Act provides that substantial compliance is sufficient for notices under the Act:

212. Substantial compliance with this Act respecting the contents of forms, notices or documents is sufficient.

17. In other words, a form may be produced by a party, rather than using a pre-printed from form the Board.1 However, section 212 refers only to the “contents” of forms, notices or documents and does not apply to the failure to meet the substantive requirements of the form in question. Ironically, like the Landlord, the Tenant failed to comply with section 44 of the Act with respect to the period of notice required for the termination of a fixed term tenancy. Subsection 44(4) of the Act with respect to the period of notice for the fixed tenancy:

44. (4) A notice under section 47, 58 or 144 to terminate a tenancy for a fixed term shall be given at least 60 days before the expiration date specified in the tenancy agreement, to be effective on that expiration date.

18. As the tenancy ends on February 28, 2022, the Tenant’s notice of termination is invalid as it lists a termination date of February 29, 2020. In addition, while subsection 48(3) of the Act permits a tenant who receives an N12 Notice under subsection 48(1) to terminate the tenancy effective on a specified date earlier than the date set out in the landlord’s notice, this provision does not assist the Tenant as he selected a termination date one day later than the date listed in the Landlord’s N12 Notice.

CEL-08661-10-RV (Re), 2011 CanLII 34540 (ON LTB)

1. I determined that the Tenant did not receive the N4 Notice of Termination that the L1 application is based on; and that she did not receive the L1 Application or the Notice of Hearing (NOH).

2. The Certificate of Service (COS) for the N4 notice is dated October 7, 2011. On that date, the Landlord certified that he served the Tenant with the N4 notice on October 14, 2010 (7 days later). At the hearing, the Landlord could not explain how he could certify on October 7, 2010, that he served the Tenant a week into the future. He then said maybe the October 7, 2010 date was a typo.

3. At the review hearing, the Landlord said he served the Tenant the N4 notice the same day he filed “the papers” with the Board.

4. The Board’s file reveals that the Landlord filed his application on November 4, 2010. If the N4 notice was served on November 4, 2010 it would be invalid since the termination date in the notice is October 28, 2010. The N4 notice would have been served after the termination date and the Tenant would not have received the required 14 days notice.

5. The Landlord’s wife was a witness at the review hearing. She said she saw the Landlord personally serve the Tenant with the N4 notice. She said the Landlord served the N4 notice on October 4 or 9, 2010. Then she said the notice was served about a week before her birthday. She said her birthday is October 24, 2010.

6. There was no consistency between the COS, the Landlord’s testimony and the wife’s evidence. The evidence was confusing and contradictory. I could not determine what date the N4 notice was allegedly served. For this reason, I concluded that the Tenant was not served the N4 notice.

7. The evidence regarding the alleged service of the L1 Application and the NOH was just as inconsistent and confusing.

8. The date of service on the COS for the L1 application and NOH could not be read. At the review hearing, the Landlord said the date was November 19, 2010, later he said it was November 9, 2010. However, the COS was dated November 6, 2010. As with the N4 COS, it is not possible to certify on November 6, 2010 that the documents were served on either November 19, 2010, 13 days into the future, or November 9, 2010, 3 days into the future.

9. The Landlord’s wife said the Landlord served the Tenant with a second document (but she was not sure what it was) on October 19, 2010. The Landlord then corrected her and said she meant to say November instead of October. The wife’s evidence was not persuasive and could not support a conclusion that the Tenant was served with the Notice of Hearing.

10. The Tenant said that she never received a key to the Canada Post mailbox. She relied on the Landlord to collect and deliver her mail. The Landlord agreed with this.

11. The Tenant claimed her mail was often delivered late or not at all. She said that she never received the respondent letter that the Board mails when an application is filed. The Landlord gave no evidence regarding the respondent letter. Therefore, I accepted the Tenant’s evidence on this issue.

12. Since the Tenant had no independent means to receive her mail, I determined that the respondent letter was not received by the Tenant. As a result, the Tenant had no awareness of the original hearing.

TNL-17869-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 134287 (ON LTB)

3. At the hearing, the Tenant’s legal representative noted discrepancies with regard to dates on the N12 Notice of Termination and the Certificate of Service. There were dates scratched out that cast doubt on whether the termination date was at least 60 days after the Landlord served the N12 Notice of Termination.

4. Consequently, the Tenant submits that the Landlord’s application should be dismissed because there was insufficient notice given to the Tenant, in contravention of subsection 48(2) of the Act.

5. RC, who signed the Certificate of Service, testified that she served the N12 Notice of Termination on the Tenant as a favour to her mother, the Landlord. She said that she did not have an exact memory of serving the N12 Notice of Termination, but the date of service noted on the Certificate of Service is correct.

6. The Tenant did not remember exactly when he received the N12 Notice of Termination.

7. According to section 3.8e of the Rules of Procedure under the Act, a document is considered served on the person on the day it was given to the person if delivered by hand.

8. RC, who served the N12 Notice of Termination, swore that it was served on the date stated on the Certificate of Service, and not on the date scratched out, or any other date. The Tenant did not refute the testimony, but rather, said he did not remember when he received it.

9. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the N12 Notice of Termination was validly served pursuant to subsection 48(2) of the Act.