Temporary Full-Time Occupancy (N12)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2025-02-22
CLNP Page ID:	2453
Page Categories:	[Personal Use Application (LTB)]
Citation:	Temporary Full-Time Occupancy (N12), CLNP 2453, <https://rvt.link/eq>, retrieved on 2025-02-22
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2025/01/07

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

TST-94128-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 123282 (ON LTB)

17. The law is clear that “residential occupation” as it is used in s.48(1) of the Act (under which the Landlords served the N12) does not include temporary full-time use.

18. The Ontario Divisional Court in the case of MacDonald v. Richard (2008) O.J. 6076 (Ont. Div. Ct.) (“MacDonald”), ruled that temporary full-time occupancy of a residential unit (which in MacDonald was four months) does not constitute “residential occupation” as contemplated in s.48(1) of the Act. MacDonald has been followed by the Board in a number of decisions, including TSL-2128-11; TSL-52712-14; TSL-62689-15; TSL-76374-16; and TSL-80318-16.

TSL-08570-10 (Re), 2010 CanLII 76079 (ON LTB)

4. In Wiazek v. Arnstrong [1994] O.J. No. 2737 (Gen. Div) involved a case where the Landlord wanted the house to store his personal possessions but planned to continue to live in his girlfriend’s house and would therefore only be at his own house part of the time. The court dismissed the landlord’s own use application as the landlord would not be residing on a full time basis.

5. The Landlord testified that both he and his son would use the residential unit occasionally and had no intention of making this their principal residence. Having regard for the degree and type of use intended for the rental unit, I am not satisfied that the Landlord’s use of the rental unit constitutes “residential occupation” as contemplated by the Act. Therefore, I find that the Landlord has failed to meet the burden of proof that he in good faith requires possession of the unit for the purpose of residential occupation.