Guarantors and Co-Signers Liability (RTA Leases)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-10-01
CLNP Page ID:	2167
Page Categories:	[Contract Law, Leases, & Sub-Letting (LTB)]
Citation:	Guarantors and Co-Signers Liability (RTA Leases), CLNP 2167, <https://rvt.link/4k>, retrieved on 2024-10-01
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2023/02/28

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Stamm Investments Limited v Ryan, 2015 CanLII 52577 (ON SCSM)

3. The tenancy started on February 1, 2012. Mr. Ryan and Ms. Marks were the tenants and Ms. Brooks signed on as a guarantor of their obligations under the lease. The terms of the guarantee refer to the guarantor’s obligations being co-extensive with those of the tenants, stating that the guarantor’s obligations continue until “lawful termination of the Tenancy Agreement”.

...

18. I accept the plaintiff’s submission that the Landlord and Tenant Board has no jurisdiction over guarantors. In other words where a landlord is owed arrears of rent by tenants it can proceed before the board against the tenants but the board cannot make an order against the guarantor because a guarantor is not a “tenant” within the meaning of the Act: 501606 Ontario Ltd. v. Manbauhar, 1998 CarswellOnt 6412 (ORHT).

19. Accordingly I find that the board’s exclusive jurisdiction under s. 168(2) of the Act cannot oust the court’s jurisdiction to entertain a claim against a guarantor of a residential tenancy.

20. However, on the merits I find that no amount is owed by the tenants and so there is no basis for a judgment against the guarantor in this case.

21. Regarding the narrow question whether the sheriff’s fee of $325 can be claimed in this court from the guarantor, in my view it cannot. The board’s order makes no award for that item and therefore the tenants are not liable for it. The guarantor’s liability being co-extensive with that of the tenants, she is not liable for the sheriff’s fee.

Singh v Fitzgerald, 2020 CanLII 117594 (ON LTB)

10. With respect to Rita Fletcher, I find that she is a guarantor (and occupant), but not a tenant. First, Rita did not actually sign the agreement, rather her name was written on the lease. Further, according to the Landlord’s evidence this was only done because the Tenant did not have proof of her income. Furthermore, aside from her phone number, no other information concerning Rita was requested or obtained by the Landlord.

11. In the context of finances and residential tenancies, a guarantor, while not defined in the Act, is generally understood as someone who takes responsibility on behalf of a debtor in the event that a debtor ceases to pay. However, the Board does not have the authority to make an order against a guarantor and only tenants can be named as respondents in rent arrears applications.

12. Finally, with respect to Ryan, I find him to be an occupant of the rental unit and not a tenant. The evidence of both parties was that he was asked to sign the lease by the Landlord simply because he was present on the day the parties entered into the agreement. I take this to mean an acknowledgement of his intended occupation of the rental unit as opposed to an intention to become a party to the tenancy agreement.

13. The application is amended accordingly to identify the proper parties.

Billion v Vaillancourt, 2016 ONSC 5820 (CanLII)

[11] Although the landlord testified that the property he found in the tenant’s apartment was junk, the landlord did bring in Ronald Branton (described as “an entrepreneur, percussionist and recorded music producer”) to do an appraisal of the property. Based on the seven or eight items he looked at, Mr. Branton said the tenant’s property was worth well over $10,000.00. On the tenant’s evidence, the monetary value of his collection was over $70,000.00 and there were also many items of great sentimental value. The Member held that in these circumstances the landlord had an obligation to notify the tenant’s parents before simply throwing away the tenant’s property, particularly given his knowledge that the tenant’s parents had been trying to reach him and that he had contact information for them.

[12] It is not clear that this finding is a question of law. It seems to us that it is at best a question of mixed fact and law and that any legal principle is inextricably bound up with facts. However, even if there is an extricable question of law (which we believe there is not) and even if the standard of review is correctness (which we say it is not) we would uphold it.

[13] This decision must be viewed in light of its underlying and unique facts. In Mputu v. Wright, [2004] O.J. No. 6055 (S.C.J.) Wilson J. held at paragraph 41 that: “Landlords that fail to act reasonably in the circumstances face risk of liability.” She further held at paragraph 39 that circumstances of the case before her that, “reasonable positive steps should be taken to make arrangements for the tenants to remove their belongings.” While the Member in this case appears to have misquoted Mputu somewhat, her decision is fully consistent with the principles established in that case. A landlord must act reasonably. A landlord cannot simply ignore attempts on behalf of the tenant to contact him or turn a blind eye to what he knows is not simple abandonment of property. The landlord’s conduct in this case was egregious and easily meets any test for abuse of process. Such a finding is also supported by the case law, see Mputu v. Wright; Cruickshank v. Mobal Khan Enterprises, [2002] O.J. No. 3355 (S.C.J.); Maturell v. Dunelm Holdings [2000] O.J. No. 1880 (S.C.J.).