Talk:Ownership Interest and N12s

Notes

In Bruno Malfara v. Jenna Boyd ONLTB CEL-02026-21 at para 13:

13. In this instance, the real substance of the transfer of part ownership of the property to BM was for the sole purpose of evicting the Tenant. The true Landlord was and continues to be a corporation, MM2014, not BM. Since MM2014 is not an individual, it cannot give the Tenant a Notice of Termination for owner’s own use. This interpretation is consistent with the intent of subsection 48(5) which is to deny corporate landlords to evict tenants for Landlord’s own use.

14. As I have found that MM2014, a corporation, is the only genuine Landlord, the N12 Notice of Termination served on August 9, 2021 does not comply with section 48 of the Act.

The core issue that is noted above is the finding that "...Since MM2014 is not an individual, it cannot give the Tenant a Notice of Termination for owner’s own use...", meaning that if this was to be done correctly the landlord should not have listed the corporation in the Notice of Termination (N12).

In the case of G3 Harmonic Inc. v Raddie, 2022 CanLII 57969 (ON LTB) we see at para 4 and 5:

4. The Tenants’ Representative also submitted a copy of the Land Registry for the rental address. On November 16, 2020 G3 Harmonic. Inc transferred 1% of ownership to Yael Tapiero. Yael Tapiero is not listed on Notice of Termination nor the application as a landlord.

5. Although G3 Harmonic Inc may be owned in whole or in part by an individual, the Agents were not listed on the Notice of Termination, nor the application. There is no authority in the Act to amend a notice of termination. As a result, I find the N12 is invalid and the application is dismissed.

The core issue in the above case was that the 1% owner was not even listed on the Notice of Termination (N12).