Severance of a Party to a Lease (LTB)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-06-02
CLNP Page ID:	2284
Page Categories:	Contract Law, Leases, & Sub-Letting (LTB)
Citation:	Severance of a Party to a Lease (LTB), CLNP 2284, <https://rvt.link/8z>, retrieved on 2024-06-02
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2023/09/26

Properties v Northmore, 2018 CanLII 153456 (ON LTB)

64. Where one joint tenant wants to vacate a unit and the other wants to remain, three distinct interests are engaged: the Landlord’s contractual interest in holding both tenants liable for the tenancy; the vacating tenant’s interest in divesting themself of a liability for which they will no longer receive any benefit; and the remaining tenant’s interest in keeping their home. Ultimately, it is the role of the Legislature, not the Board, to decide how those interests should be balanced.

65. I have concluded that, in the current state of the law, the vacating tenant is not able to divest themself of the tenancy. They may potentially be found liable for contraventions long after they have vacated. Fair or not, in my view that is how the law currently balances the parties’ interests.

66. That being said, the law is not entirely settled. It is possible that I am wrong and that the vacating tenant can unilaterally terminate the entire tenancy. That would certainly not be a fair outcome for the tenant who wants to remain, and in my view it would run counter to the fundamental purposes of the RTA. However, there is a line of cases taking that approach, and the question has not been settled by any binding precedent.

67. Unless the Landlord consents, I have concluded that the law does not permit Ms. Huntley to remove herself from the tenancy unless the entire tenancy is terminated. In short, the Landlord’s interest in holding both Respondents liable trumps Ms. Huntley’s interest in divestment. Whether that is the best way to balance the parties’ competing interests is not for me to say.

68. In the result, I find that the tenancy has not been severed and Ms. Huntley’s interest in it has not terminated. The Respondents are joint tenants. The settlement the parties have agreed to will be effective against both of them.

69. Although evidence was adduced as to whether or not Ms. Huntley is currently living in the unit, I make no finding on that question as it does not affect the outcome of this case.

Opara v. Cook, 2008 CanLII 22923 (ON SCDC)

[6] A tenancy agreement came into effect on December 11, 2006 upon the agreement being reached between the parties and the deposit being paid. There is no real dispute that such an agreement was reached. Mr. Opara purported to unilaterally terminate that agreement on December 13, 2006. The only real issue is whether he was entitled to do so. In this regard, ss. 9(1) and 9(2) of the Tenant Protection Act are irrelevant as they deal only with when the “term” of the tenancy commences. This has nothing to do with whether either party can rescind the agreement prior to the date of occupancy. Ordinary rules of contract law apply. There is no unilateral right to rescind a contract that has been duly entered into by the parties simply because the effective date of the contract has not yet been reached.

TET-05754-10 (Re), 2010 CanLII 52145 (ON LTB)

2. In a ruling by the Divisional Court in “Opara v Cook” the Court stated “Ordinary rules of contract law apply. There is no unilateral right to rescind a contract that has been duly entered into by the parties simply because the effective date of the contract has not been reached”. In this matter the parties entered into a rental contract and the Tenant wanted to unilaterally rescind his offer to rent. The Tenant resolved his domestic situation and decided to back out of the contract. As cited above this is not permitted under the ordinary rules of contract law.