Rescinding an N12

From Riverview Legal Group
Revision as of 01:31, 21 September 2021 by Sharvey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Category:Personal Use Application (LTB) {{Citation: | categories = [Personal Use Application (LTB)] | shortlink = }} ==TST-99179-18-RV (Re), 2019 CanLII 134563 (ON LTB...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-11-27
CLNP Page ID: 1658
Page Categories: [Personal Use Application (LTB)]
Citation: Rescinding an N12, CLNP 1658, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-27
Editor: Sharvey
Last Updated: 2021/09/21

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today


TST-99179-18-RV (Re), 2019 CanLII 134563 (ON LTB)[1]

17. Pursuant to paragraphs 57(5)(a) and (c) of the Act, because the Landlord advertised the unit for rent and for sale within one year of the Tenants’ vacating, he is presumed to have given the notice in bad faith unless the contrary is proved on a balance of probabilities.

18. The Landlord testified that he served the N12 notice because his daughter had just got a job close to the location of the rental unit. A few weeks after he served the N12 notice, his daughter got a different job elsewhere and no longer required the rental unit. The Landlord did not, at any time, tell the Tenants that his daughter no longer required the rental unit and he did not serve any new notices of termination.

19. Based on the uncontested facts, I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities that the Tenants vacated the unit because they received the N12 notice and that the Landlord served the N12 notice in bad faith. The Landlord’s legal representative submitted that the Tenants should have been aware that the Landlord no longer required the unit for his daughter because the Landlord sent a message in June 2018 indicating that he is selling the unit. However, the Landlord made no clear statement to the Tenants about the N12 notice. Having served the N12 notice and not having rescinded it, the Landlord cannot say that it was not effective as a reason to vacate the unit. From the Tenants’ perspective, they received a notice of termination and the Landlord consistently pursued vacant possession until they vacated. As for bad faith, the Landlord testified that he had changed his mind about requiring the unit for his daughter a few weeks after serving the N12 notice. From that moment onward, he no longer, in good faith, required the unit for his daughter’s residential use. His intention changed while the Tenants were still in possession of the unit and were indicating to him that they did not want to vacate. His continued insistence that they vacate the unit, without rescinding the N12 notice, is an indication of his bad faith.

20. The Landlord’s daughter did not move into the rental unit.

21. Based on the above, I find that the Tenants have established all of the criteria set out in subs. 57(1) of the Act.


[1]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 TST-99179-18-RV (Re), 2019 CanLII 134563 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/j6w49>, retrieved on 2021-09-20