Talk:Ownership Interest and N12s

Seibert v. Juhasz, 2012 ONSC 5447 (CanLII)

[5] In any event, s.72(2) does not apply. That provision states in part:

The Board shall not make an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant in an application under section 69 based on a notice of termination under section 48 or 49 where the landlord’s claim is based on a tenancy agreement or occupancy agreement that purports to entitle the landlord to reside in the rental unit unless,

(a) the application is brought in respect of premises situate in a building containing not more than four residential units. …

[6] There is no evidence that the landlord’s claim was based on a tenancy or occupancy agreement that purports to entitle the landlord to reside in the rental unit. We reject the argument that the words “purports to entitle the landlord to reside in the rental unit” apply only to an occupancy agreement.

[7] According to Interpretation Guideline 12 of the Board, the provision only has application in co-ownership situations in which individual units in a multi-unit building are marketed and sold as individual units. That is not the present case. Therefore, s.72(2) has no application here.

...

[10] The Board set out the correct test for the application of s.48 and found at p. 2 of its reasons:

I am satisfied based on the Landlord’s evidence that she genuinely intends to move into the rental unit and therefore I am satisfied the Landlord has met the “good faith” requirement set out in subsection 48(1). The Landlord’s evidence was not shaken under through cross-examination by Tenant’s counsel.

[11] We see no error of law committed by the Tribunal. There was ample evidence before the Board to support the finding of fact that the landlord had a genuine intention to possess the property for her own use.

[12] The appellant has failed to identify any error of law by the Board. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Notes

In Bruno Malfara v. Jenna Boyd ONLTB CEL-02026-21 at para 13:

13. In this instance, the real substance of the transfer of part ownership of the property to BM was for the sole purpose of evicting the Tenant. The true Landlord was and continues to be a corporation, MM2014, not BM. Since MM2014 is not an individual, it cannot give the Tenant a Notice of Termination for owner’s own use. This interpretation is consistent with the intent of subsection 48(5) which is to deny corporate landlords to evict tenants for Landlord’s own use.

14. As I have found that MM2014, a corporation, is the only genuine Landlord, the N12 Notice of Termination served on August 9, 2021 does not comply with section 48 of the Act.

The core issue that is noted above is the finding that "...Since MM2014 is not an individual, it cannot give the Tenant a Notice of Termination for owner’s own use...", meaning that if this was to be done correctly the landlord should not have listed the corporation in the Notice of Termination (N12).

In the case of G3 Harmonic Inc. v Raddie, 2022 CanLII 57969 (ON LTB) we see at para 4 and 5:

4. The Tenants’ Representative also submitted a copy of the Land Registry for the rental address. On November 16, 2020 G3 Harmonic. Inc transferred 1% of ownership to Yael Tapiero. Yael Tapiero is not listed on Notice of Termination nor the application as a landlord.

5. Although G3 Harmonic Inc may be owned in whole or in part by an individual, the Agents were not listed on the Notice of Termination, nor the application. There is no authority in the Act to amend a notice of termination. As a result, I find the N12 is invalid and the application is dismissed.

The core issue in the above case was that the 1% owner was not even listed on the Notice of Termination (N12).