Evicting a Non-Member

🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 ©
Date Retrieved:	2025-05-30
CLNP Page ID:	2505
Page Categories:	[Co-Operative Housing (LTB)]
Citation:	Evicting a Non-Member, CLNP 2505, <>, retrieved on 2025-05-30
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2025/05/20

Co-operative Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.35

171.13 (1) After a person’s membership and occupancy rights are terminated under section 171.8, or if there is no member occupying a member unit, the non-profit housing co-operative may apply to the court for an order,

(a) declaring that the person’s membership and occupancy rights are terminated or that there is no member occupying the unit, as applicable; and

(b) directing that a writ of possession be issued. 1992, c. 19, s. 23; 2006, c. 19, Sched. C, s. 1 (1); 2013, c. 3, s. 9 (1).

Application for eviction order

(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply in the circumstances in which Part V.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 applies. 2013, c. 3, s. 9 (2).

Ojarikreh v. Ascot Co-Operative Homes Inc., 2025 ONSC 1155 (CanLII)

[1] This is an appeal of the order of Chalmers J. dated September 27, 2024, which granted the Respondent, Ascot Co-Operative Homes Inc. (the “Co-op”), a writ of possession over a unit in its housing co-operative. The unit was occupied by the Appellant, Ms. Ojarikreh and her son, neither of whom are members of the Co-op. The writ was sought pursuant to s. 171.13 of the Co-operative Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.35 (the “Act”), which provides that a housing co-operative may apply for a writ of possession of a unit if no member is occupying it.

...

[14] There is no merit to this argument. This is clear from s. 171.11 of the Act, which states:

Effect of acceptance of arrears

171.11 The acceptance by a non-profit housing co-operative of arrears of housing charges or compensation for occupation of a member unit does not operate as a waiver of any right the co-operative has, or any step the co-operative has taken, to terminate a person’s membership and occupancy rights or to take possession of the unit.

[15] The payments made by the Appellant to the Co-op were “compensation for occupation of a member unit”. By accepting those payments, the Co-op in no way altered their rights to move to terminate the Appellant’s possession of that unit if her application for membership was not accepted. Only members are entitled to occupy member units.

[16] The argument is also contrary to ss. 171.7(1) and (1.1) of the Act, which state:

171.7(1) The common law relating to landlord and tenant relationships and the Commercial Tenancies Act do not apply with respect to the member units of a non-profit housing co-operative.

(1.1) The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not apply with respect to the member units of a non-profit housing co-operative, except as otherwise provided in this Act or the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

[17] In addition, the Appellant’s argument is contrary to s. 94.1(2) of the RTA that nothing in the RTA “shall be construed as altering the relationship between a non-profit housing co-operative and a member, and in particular, the relationship shall not be construed as being one of landlord and tenant.” While the Appellant was not a member, the Act is clear that a person who has been authorized by a member to occupy a member unit ceases to have any rights to occupy that unit once the member ceases to be a member (which Ms. Iziegbuwa did in January 2024). As an unauthorized occupant, the Appellant’s rights cannot be greater than those of a member.

[18] The final submission made by the Appellant is that the application judge erred when he failed to grant the Appellant more than 60 days to vacate the unit. This was a discretionary decision that is entitled to deference and should only be set aside if the application judge made an error in principle or exercised his discretion in a manner that was clearly wrong. In this case, the application judge made no error in principle and his decision was not clearly wrong.

[19] For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. The Co-op is entitled to costs. In view of the Appellant’s financial circumstances, we fix those costs at $1,000. We also order that the Sheriff shall not enforce the writ of possession until April 20, 2025.