Evicting a Non-Member

🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 ©
Date Retrieved:	2025-05-30
CLNP Page ID:	2505
Page Categories:	[Co-Operative Housing (LTB)]
Citation:	Evicting a Non-Member, CLNP 2505, <>, retrieved on 2025-05-30
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2025/05/20

Ojarikreh v. Ascot Co-Operative Homes Inc., 2025 ONSC 1155 (CanLII)

[1] This is an appeal of the order of Chalmers J. dated September 27, 2024, which granted the Respondent, Ascot Co-Operative Homes Inc. (the “Co-op”), a writ of possession over a unit in its housing co-operative. The unit was occupied by the Appellant, Ms. Ojarikreh and her son, neither of whom are members of the Co-op. The writ was sought pursuant to s. 171.13 of the Co-operative Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.35 (the “Act”), which provides that a housing co-operative may apply for a writ of possession of a unit if no member is occupying it.

...

[14] There is no merit to this argument. This is clear from s. 171.11 of the Act, which states:

Effect of acceptance of arrears

171.11 The acceptance by a non-profit housing co-operative of arrears of housing charges or compensation for occupation of a member unit does not operate as a waiver of any right the co-operative has, or any step the co-operative has taken, to terminate a person’s membership and occupancy rights or to take possession of the unit.

[15] The payments made by the Appellant to the Co-op were “compensation for occupation of a member unit”. By accepting those payments, the Co-op in no way altered their rights to move to terminate the Appellant’s possession of that unit if her application for membership was not accepted. Only members are entitled to occupy member units.

[16] The argument is also contrary to ss. 171.7(1) and (1.1) of the Act, which state:

171.7(1) The common law relating to landlord and tenant relationships and the Commercial Tenancies Act do not apply with respect to the member units of a non-profit housing co-operative.

(1.1) The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not apply with respect to the member units of a non-profit housing co-operative, except as otherwise provided in this Act or the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

[17] In addition, the Appellant’s argument is contrary to s. 94.1(2) of the RTA that nothing in the RTA “shall be construed as altering the relationship between a non-profit housing co-operative and a member, and in particular, the relationship shall not be construed as being one of landlord and tenant.” While the Appellant was not a member, the Act is clear that a person who has been authorized by a member to occupy a member unit ceases to have any rights to occupy that unit once the member ceases to be a member (which Ms. Iziegbuwa did in January 2024). As an unauthorized occupant, the Appellant’s rights cannot be greater than those of a member.

[18] The final submission made by the Appellant is that the application judge erred when he failed to grant the Appellant more than 60 days to vacate the unit. This was a discretionary decision that is entitled to deference and should only be set aside if the application judge made an error in principle or exercised his discretion in a manner that was clearly wrong. In this case, the application judge made no error in principle and his decision was not clearly wrong.

[19] For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. The Co-op is entitled to costs. In view of the Appellant’s financial circumstances, we fix those costs at $1,000. We also order that the Sheriff shall not enforce the writ of possession until April 20, 2025.