Jurisdiction to Claim Rent Arrears (LTB): Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
VisualWikitext
Line 9: Line 9:
==Shi v Wohl, 2023 ONLTB 78070 (LTB-L-047618-22)<ref name="Shi"/>==
==Shi v Wohl, 2023 ONLTB 78070 (LTB-L-047618-22)<ref name="Shi"/>==


1. This application must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.   
# This application must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.   
 
# This application was filed with the Board on March 23, 2022. But the residential complex was sold by the named Landlord applicant to the Purchaser prior to that date, on March 10, 2022. What this means is that as of the date of filing the Landlord was no longer the landlord by virtue of being an owner of the property. The Landlord was also not an assignee of the Purchaser. No agreement assigning the arrears to the Landlord was ever entered into. In other words, the Landlord is not a landlord under the Act for the purpose of this application.  
2. This application was filed with the Board on March 23, 2022. But the residential complex was sold by the named Landlord applicant to the Purchaser prior to that date, on March 10, 2022. What this means is that as of the date of filing the Landlord was no longer the landlord by virtue of being an owner of the property. The Landlord was also not an assignee of the Purchaser. No agreement assigning the arrears to the Landlord was ever entered into. In other words, the Landlord is not a landlord under the Act for the purpose of this application.  
# In addition, the tenancy did not end on or before March 10, 2022. Pursuant to Board order SWL-57980-22-SA issued on September 28, 2022, the tenancy was on-going after the sale and the Tenant was still in possession after March 10, 2022.   
 
# Pursuant to s. 18 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) covenants run with the land. That means when the property was sold on March 10, 2022, all of the debts, obligations, assets and liabilities related to the property including those related to the tenancy passed to the Purchaser. The Purchaser stepped into the shoes of the Landlord. Absent an assignment agreement or an acknowledgement in the purchase and sale agreement that the pre-sale arrears are the Landlord’s to pursue, it is the Purchaser who has the legal right to pursue any rent arrears outstanding.  
3. In addition, the tenancy did not end on or before March 10, 2022. Pursuant to Board order SWL-57980-22-SA issued on September 28, 2022, the tenancy was on-going after the sale and the Tenant was still in possession after March 10, 2022.   
# Therefore, this application must be dismissed.
 
4. Pursuant to s. 18 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) covenants run with the land. That means when the property was sold on March 10, 2022, all of the debts, obligations, assets and liabilities related to the property including those related to the tenancy passed to the Purchaser. The Purchaser stepped into the shoes of the Landlord. Absent an assignment agreement or an acknowledgement in the purchase and sale agreement that the pre-sale arrears are the Landlord’s to pursue, it is the Purchaser who has the legal right to pursue any rent arrears outstanding.  
 
5. Therefore, this application must be dismissed.




Revision as of 17:54, 30 November 2023


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID: 2321
Page Categories: [Jurisdiction], [Payment of Rent (LTB)]
Citation: Jurisdiction to Claim Rent Arrears (LTB), CLNP 2321, <https://rvt.link/a5>, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor: P08916
Last Updated: 2023/11/30

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today


Shi v Wohl, 2023 ONLTB 78070 (LTB-L-047618-22)[1]

  1. This application must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  2. This application was filed with the Board on March 23, 2022. But the residential complex was sold by the named Landlord applicant to the Purchaser prior to that date, on March 10, 2022. What this means is that as of the date of filing the Landlord was no longer the landlord by virtue of being an owner of the property. The Landlord was also not an assignee of the Purchaser. No agreement assigning the arrears to the Landlord was ever entered into. In other words, the Landlord is not a landlord under the Act for the purpose of this application.
  3. In addition, the tenancy did not end on or before March 10, 2022. Pursuant to Board order SWL-57980-22-SA issued on September 28, 2022, the tenancy was on-going after the sale and the Tenant was still in possession after March 10, 2022.
  4. Pursuant to s. 18 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) covenants run with the land. That means when the property was sold on March 10, 2022, all of the debts, obligations, assets and liabilities related to the property including those related to the tenancy passed to the Purchaser. The Purchaser stepped into the shoes of the Landlord. Absent an assignment agreement or an acknowledgement in the purchase and sale agreement that the pre-sale arrears are the Landlord’s to pursue, it is the Purchaser who has the legal right to pursue any rent arrears outstanding.
  5. Therefore, this application must be dismissed.



[1]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Shi v Wohl, 2023 ONLTB 78070 (LTB-L-047618-22), <File:LTB-L-047618-22 HR certified.pdf>, <https://rvt.link/a4>, retrieved 2023-11-30
Retrieved from "https://riverview.legal/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Jurisdiction_to_Claim_Rent_Arrears_(LTB)&oldid=22375"