Purpose of the RTA

From Riverview Legal Group
Revision as of 18:31, 26 February 2025 by MKent (talk | contribs)

Slapsys (1406393 Ontario Inc.) v. Abrams, 2010 ONCA 676 (CanLII)[1]

[12] Section 48 is clearly an exception to the regime that protects against no fault eviction. While the legislation has a tenant protection focus, s. 48 is designed to strike a balance between the protection of tenants and the rights of landlords. Section 1 of the Act sets out a number of purposes of the Act, including “to provide protection for residential tenants from unlawful rent increases and unlawful evictions, to establish a framework for the regulation of residential rents, to balance the rights and responsibilities of residential landlords and tenants”.

[1]

Elkins v. Van Wissen, 2023 ONCA 789 (CanLII)[2]

[42] The RTA and its predecessor are remedial legislation with a tenant protection focus: Honsberger v. Grant Lake Forest Resources Ltd., 2019 ONCA 44, 431 D.L.R. (4th), at para. 19;[3] Price v. Turnbull’s Grove Inc., 2007 ONCA 408, 85 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 26.[4] The purposes of the RTA are set out in s. 1. The first purpose listed is “to provide protection for residential tenants from…unlawful evictions”. To ignore events after a landlord gives a tenant a s. 49 termination notice limits the Board from fulfilling its responsibility to determine bad faith under s. 57(1)(b) and undermines the RTA’s stated purpose of providing tenants with protection from unlawful evictions.

[2] [3] [4]

Schram v. Thompson, 2022 ONSC 6922 (CanLII)[5]

[25] The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, is remedial legislation and it is to be given a “large and liberal interpretation”: Ottawa-Carleton Association for Persons with Developmental Disabilities/Open Hands v. Séguin, 2020 ONSC 7405 at paras. 58-75.[6] One of its primary purposes is to protect residential tenants from unlawful rent increases and evictions: Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp., 2010 ONCA 468 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 369.[7]

[5] [6] [7]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Slapsys (1406393 Ontario Inc.) v. Abrams, 2010 ONCA 676 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2d05l>, retrieved on 2025-02-26
  2. 2.0 2.1 Elkins v. Van Wissen, 2023 ONCA 789 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k1dgk>, retrieved on 2025-02-26
  3. 3.0 3.1 Honsberger v. Grant Lake Forest Resources Ltd., 2019 ONCA 44 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/hx688>, retrieved on 2025-02-26
  4. 4.0 4.1 Price v. Turnbull's Grove Inc., 2007 ONCA 408 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/1rpw5>, retrieved on 2025-02-26
  5. 5.0 5.1 Schram v. Thompson, 2022 ONSC 6922 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jtdvf>, retrieved on 2025-02-26
  6. 6.0 6.1 Ottawa-Carleton Association for Persons with Developmental Disabilities/Open Hands v. Séguin, 2020 ONSC 7405 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jbw7l>, retrieved on 2025-02-26
  7. 7.0 7.1 Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corporation, 2010 ONCA 468 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2bbcz>, retrieved on 2025-02-26