Building Permits

From Riverview Legal Group
Revision as of 00:39, 28 April 2023 by MKent (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Category:Renovations and Repairs (LTB) ==<i>Jia v De Oliveira,</i> 2022 CanLII 94603 (ON LTB)<ref name="Jia"/>== 8. This means the Landlords must meet a two-part tes...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Jia v De Oliveira, 2022 CanLII 94603 (ON LTB)[1]

8. This means the Landlords must meet a two-part test: that the work proposed is so extensive that it requires a building permit and that in order for the work to be conducted, vacant possession is required.


9. The problem with the Landlords’ application is that the Landlords have failed to obtain any building permits for the proposed work as mandated by subsection 50(1)(c) which is a condition or taken all reasonable steps to do so. In fact, the Landlords’ evidence was, according to the City, no permits are required for this work.


10. A plain reading of subsection 50(1)(c) is clear that a landlord’s application may not succeed if no building permits are required to do the repairs or renovations. The Board cannot terminate a tenancy if no permits are necessary.


11. Had the legislature intended that a landlord be able to terminate a tenancy and evict a tenant for the purpose of performing renovations or repairs that do not require a building permit it would not have drafted s. 50(1)(c) as it did so. The language of the section expressly says that the renovations be “so extensive” that they require both a building permit and vacant possession.


12. Based on the evidence before the Board, I am not satisfied that the Landlords have met the two-part test and established that it had taken all reasonable steps to obtain the necessary permits to conduct the extensive repairs and renovations or that it is necessary to have vacant possession of the rental unit to conduct these extensive repairs or renovations. As such, the Landlords’ application must be dismissed.

[1]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Jia v De Oliveira, 2022 CanLII 94603 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jsd1p>, retrieved on 2023-04-27