Former Landlord Not a Landlord (RTA)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-27
CLNP Page ID:	1822
Page Categories:	[Contract Law, Leases, & Sub-Letting (LTB)]
Citation:	Former Landlord Not a Landlord (RTA), CLNP 1822, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-27
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2021/11/29

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

TST-72086-16-RV (Re), 2017 CanLII 60139 (ON LTB)

7. The essence of the Tenant’s position is that the original order takes an erroneously narrow interpretation of the definition of “landlord” in s.2(1) of the Act. This definition is specifically stated in the provision to be inclusive – rather than exclusive. Accordingly, the thrust of his argument is that I should take a broad, purposive interpretation of the term “landlord” as used in the Act, having regard to the totality of the use of the term “landlord” within the scheme of the Act. In JJK’s submission, employing such a perspective contemplates an application against former landlords as initiated in this case.

8. I do not agree. While JJK has provided a wealth of authorities in both his written position and in conjunction with his oral argument, I find nothing in these materials – or the oral submissions made, which, to my mind displaces the fundamental principle expressed in s.18 of the Act which reads:

“Covenants concerning things related to a rental unit or the residential complex in which it is located run with the land whether or not the things are in existence at the time the covenants are made”.

9. To my mind, this means that when a property is transferred – through a land transfer – as in this case, the covenants of the contract of the tenancy go with it and the purchaser steps into the shoes of the vendor for the purposes of responding to applications like this one.

10. Accordingly, I find myself in agreement with my colleague Jean-Paul Pilon who, in TST-66256-16 IN (which was among the authorities provided by IS) removed a former landlord as a respondent to an application alleging breach of s.20 of the Act with the following comments (at para. 1):

“The fact that the previous landlord might have acted as agent for the Landlord at the hearing does not displace the principle set out in s.18 of the Act that covenants run with the land. As a result, the previous landlord was removed as a party to this application.”

11. While JJK has also contended that the original order was erroneous in failing to make a “clear and full analysis” of the definition of “landlord” within the scheme of the Act and in contemplation of the “confusion and chaos” which might be caused with respect other provisions of the Act, I am not persuaded that any error lies in the succinct and concise reasoning of the original order, particularly in the absence of specific and compelling authority on point to demonstrate to the contrary.