Hotel Room (Rental Unit)
TST-64688-15-RV-IN-AM (Re), 2017 CanLII 9473 (ON LTB)
4. The Tenants in response to the on-line advertisement contacted the Landlord to inquire about renting a two bedroom unit on the third floor of the complex for the entire school year. The Landlord and Tenants RG and JA signed a “Booking Agreement” which outlines the term of the agreement including the duration August 21, 2014 to May 21, 2015. The total amount the Tenants were to pay for the nine month stay is $17,010.00 payment to be made in four installments. The document also sets out what is provided or not, amounts for key and damage deposits, and costs associated with overnight guests.
15. I am unable to agree with Landlord’s counsel that the Member’s decision falls within a reasonable range of possible outcomes. In my view, and for the reasons that follow, the Member, respectfully, erred in failing to apply Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp., [2010] O.J. No. 2710 (C.A.) (“Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp.”) as binding precedent on the interpretation and applicability of the Act to types of accommodation, including that at issue herein, and, had the Member so done, this would, more likely than not, have led to a different outcome.
18. In Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp. while the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the proper interpretation of the Act and its applicability to land leases for recreational land lease homes, the Court, nonetheless, engages in an extensive analysis of the applicability of subsection 5(a) of the Act and the appropriate interpretation in connection therewith. While some of the facts in Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp. are certainly different from those in the instant case, in keeping with Glanville Williams, above, it is the ratio decidendi [reason of deciding] of a case, the material facts of the case plus the decision thereon that matters. Moreover, the Court in Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp. does, at paragraphs 28, 29 and 33 to 35, inclusive, and as will be referred to below, directly address the very relevant issue of whether a type of occupation is for a temporary period, which issue is at the heart of the Member’s decision in the instant case.
