Overnight Guests Policy (RTA)

From Riverview Legal Group
Revision as of 19:54, 3 December 2024 by Sharvey (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-12-27
CLNP Page ID: 872
Page Categories: [Interference of aReasonable Enjoyment (LTB)]
Citation: Overnight Guests Policy (RTA), CLNP 872, <https://rvt.link/eg>, retrieved on 2024-12-27
Editor: Sharvey
Last Updated: 2024/12/03

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076



Jemiola v. Firchuk (2005) O.J. NO.6085 (Divisional Court)[1]

13 We are satisfied that there was evidence before the Tribunal that entitled it to conclude that an implied tenancy agreement did not arise between the appellant and the landlords. The Member was not prepared to characterize the single payment of rent and the July letter as amounting to an agreement to create a tenancy. The landlord and his agents acknowledged that Mr. Jemiola was living in the unit, but the legislation does not prohibit tenants from having room-mates, family and friends living with them. The Member found, correctly in our view, that this does not necessarily confer on them the status of tenant.

[1]

TET-67453-16-RV (Re), 2016 CanLII 72233 (ON LTB)[2]

12. The Tenant says that on February 4, 2016, she woke up to the sounds of screaming related to a fight between one of the other tenants and her boyfriend. She says that she immediately texted SH to notify him that she “felt unsafe” in the house and that she wanted him to “do something” about the boyfriend. The Tenant did not produce a copy of this text.

13. SH says that he vaguely remembers receiving a text on February 4, 2016, from the Tenant, but it only reported to him that the other tenant had a guest staying in her unit who was not paying rent. SH says that he is sure that the text said nothing about the Tenant feeling “unsafe” or he would have done something about it.

14. SH says that he thinks he responded to the Tenant’s text and advised her that he would contact the other tenant to discuss the matter. He too could not provide the Board with a copy of any texts from February 4, 2016. He says that he thinks he called the other tenant and reminded her that the tenancy agreement states overnight guests are not allowed for more than three consecutive days. SH showed us a text saying something like this at the hearing but it was sent well after the incident of February 22 or 23, 2016.

16. We would note at this point that a tenant is entitled to reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit and limiting a tenant’s right to overnight guests arbitrarily is arguably a breach of that right. Tenants are entitled to have overnight guests on as many nights as they wish until and unless it somehow interferes with the rights of other tenants or the landlord.

17. The problem is that the parties’ evidence with respect to what happened prior to February 22 or 23, 2016, is in essence a he-said-she-said contest with little to choose between them. In such a scenario, the claim of the person who bears the burden of proof must always fail because the onus is on them to lead sufficient evidence to establish that their version of events is more likely than the other person’s.

18. Given the evidence described above, we find that the Tenant has failed to meet her burden of proof with respect to what happened prior to February 22 or 23, 2016. The application shall be dismissed accordingly.

[2]

TET-78781-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 48803 (ON LTB)[3]

5. The Landlord may have advised the Tenant that she could not have overnight guests but she never tried. If she had tried and the Landlord raised the issue I might be able to determine that there was an interference with the reasonable enjoyment by the Tenant. But until such time as there has been the implementation of this condition there has been no breach of the RTA by the Landlord. Therefore, there will be no award for this issue.

[3]

SOT-78396-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 48994 (ON LTB)[4]

32. While the tenancy agreement provides that there will be no overnight guests except by permission of the landlords, I find that such term offends the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. The Tenants have every right to invite guests in the unit, as part of their reasonable enjoyment of the unit. The Landlords cannot prohibit the Tenants from having invited guests at their unit, or they run afoul of Section 22 of the Act. Paragraph 12 of the tenancy agreement which prohibits overnight guests except by permission of the Landlord, is void, as the parties cannot contract out of the Act. I find that the Landlords substantially interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment by prohibiting them from having invited guests stay overnight at the unit, and by confronting them about ST being in the unit.

[4]

TET-73420-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 100357 (ON LTB)[5]

On Consent it is ordered that:

2. The Landlord shall not interfere with the Tenant’s right to have overnight guests subject to the City of Toronto’s by-law regarding overcrowding and the Landlord’s rights under the Act with respect to poor behaviour on the part of guests.

[5]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Jemiola v. Firchuk, 2005 CarswellOnt 7363, [2005] O.J. No. 6085, 144 A.C.W.S. (3d) 552, 206 O.A.C. 251, <https://rvt.link/e>, retrieved 2021-08-12
  2. 2.0 2.1 TET-67453-16-RV (Re), 2016 CanLII 72233 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/gv97j>, retrieved on 2020-08-24
  3. 3.0 3.1 TET-78781-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 48803 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/h53cp>, retrieved on 2020-08-24
  4. 4.0 4.1 SOT-78396-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 48994 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/h532h>, retrieved on 2020-08-24
  5. 5.0 5.1 TET-73420-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 100357 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/gxq9w>, retrieved on 2020-08-24