Rescind Notice of Termination (N9)

TET-88074-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113147 (ON LTB)

28. So the first question for the Board is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to make a finding that the Tenant did not understand that he was ending his tenancy when he signed the Form N9.

29. Based on the evidence before the Board I accept that the Tenant regrets the decision now but I do not accept the argument that he did not understand he was ending his tenancy. The Support Worker testified that after she read the notice to him line by line she asked him if he understood what signing it would mean. He replied that it meant he would be ending his tenancy. That is convincing evidence of capacity to terminate a tenancy. In other words, he understood it meant he would be moving. The fact that he may not have understood what was waiting for him in the long-term care setting and might not have consented to terminate the tenancy if he did does not negate the evidence that he understood the nature of the document he was signing and the consequences of doing so.

...

35. The doctrine of undue influence leads to rescission of contracts where:

… one party is deemed not to have exercised its free and independent judgment in entering into the contract because another party exercised improper influence on him…

Cases of undue influence are divided into two broad categories. Presumed undue influence covers cases where the transaction at issue occurred between parties involved in specific relationships. Transactions occurring outside the bounds of these relationships fall into the category of undue influence.

… in cases of presumed undue influence, the presumption requires that the transaction is one that calls for an explanation in the sense that it is a transaction that ::lies beyond transaction ordinarily encountered in such relationships.

A. S. and J. A. (Contributors), Halsbury’s Laws of Canada – Contracts (2013 Reissue) at HCO-145.

[Emphasis in original.]

TST-67898-15-RV (Re), 2016 CanLII 38258 (ON LTB)

11. What appears to have happened according to the text messages is that after the agreement was entered into the Landlord called the Board for information and was correctly told that where there is a fixed term lease the earliest date of termination on a notice to terminate by a tenant is the last day of the fixed term and where rent is payable monthly the notice must be given at least 60 days prior to the date of termination. On October 15, 2014, he sent a text to the Tenants saying he had discovered this information and was reneging on the part of the agreement that pertained to returning the deposit. The Landlord was not entitled to do that. Once parties enter into a tenancy agreement or enter into an agreement to terminate that tenancy, one party to the agreement is not free to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the agreement or cancel it. (See: Musilla v. Avcan Management Inc., 2011 ONCA 502 (CanLII).)

SWL-47601-13 (Re), 2013 CanLII 40026 (ON LTB)

5. The Tenants gave the Landlord a notice to terminate their tenancy effective May 15, 2013 and they did not move out of the rental unit by the termination date set out in the notice. This notice lead to the Landlord filing an application to terminate the tenancy under Form L3. The Tenants issued this notice to terminate the tenancy in writing to the Landlord as part of an ultimatum over their demands that the Landlord effect repairs to a number of maintenance issues they had with the house. As part of these demands, the Tenants declared their intention to withhold payment of rent. While the Tenants clearly had no authority to withhold payment of rent, I find that the wording of the notice of the Tenants’ notice to terminate too ambiguous to be relied upon as a bona fide intention to terminate the tenancy on a specific date, in part because it was contingent on the Landlord providing a receipt for a $500.00 deposit that the Tenants ultimately never paid. Therefore, the Landlord’s application for termination on this ground is dismissed.