Hotel Room (Rental Unit)

TST-64688-15-RV-IN-AM (Re), 2017 CanLII 9473 (ON LTB)

4. The Tenants in response to the on-line advertisement contacted the Landlord to inquire about renting a two bedroom unit on the third floor of the complex for the entire school year. The Landlord and Tenants RG and JA signed a “Booking Agreement” which outlines the term of the agreement including the duration August 21, 2014 to May 21, 2015. The total amount the Tenants were to pay for the nine month stay is $17,010.00 payment to be made in four installments. The document also sets out what is provided or not, amounts for key and damage deposits, and costs associated with overnight guests.

18. In Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp. while the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the proper interpretation of the Act and its applicability to land leases for recreational land lease homes, the Court, nonetheless, engages in an extensive analysis of the applicability of subsection 5(a) of the Act and the appropriate interpretation in connection therewith. While some of the facts in Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp. are certainly different from those in the instant case, in keeping with Glanville Williams, above, it is the ratio decidendi [reason of deciding] of a case, the material facts of the case plus the decision thereon that matters. Moreover, the Court in Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp. does, at paragraphs 28, 29 and 33 to 35, inclusive, and as will be referred to below, directly address the very relevant issue of whether a type of occupation is for a temporary period, which issue is at the heart of the Member’s decision in the instant case.

22. In my view, the unit herein meets the definition of a “rental unit”. That is, the unit was “living accommodation” and intended for use as “rented residential premises”. The Tenants lived in the unit and the unit contained a sleeping and living area. No evidence was presented that the Tenants, during the time that they lived in the unit, engaged in activities other than what people ordinarily do in a residential unit.

23. With respect to the unit being “rented residential premises”, I am satisfied, based on the evidence presented, that this requirement is also met. There is no suggestion that the unit was “commercial”. More importantly, the Tenants paid rent to the Landlord in order to be entitled to occupy the unit and, as such, the unit was “rented”.

27. I agree with Tenants’ counsel that to give effect to the scheme and the object of the legislation and in keeping with the intent of the Legislature, section 5(a) must be interpreted narrowly so as not to carve out too large a segment and bring housing, which the Act was intended to protect, within its ambit. This position is supported by Grenadier (Tenants of) v. We-Care Retirement Homes of Canada, (1993) O.J. No.1550 (Div. Court.) where the Divisional Court for Ontario stated, in part, as follows:

“3. With great respect, and recognizing that the matter is by no means beyond doubt, I have concluded that, given the remedial nature of this legislation, the language of the whole clause, the burden on one who seeks to invoke an exemption, the opportunities for abuse opened up by a lesser standard and the use of the words “the purpose” (emphasis added) in the section, it was the legislature’s intent to exempt accommodation only where the enumerated purpose is the primary reason why the occupant is occupying that particular accommodation.”

29. Tenants’ counsel further submitted that an appropriate interpretation of subsection 5(a), as it generally applies, would involve the phrase “seasonal or temporary period” being assisted by “travelling or vacationing public” and “vacation home” being analogous to a hotel, motel and the other accommodation examples listed and such interpretation would bring the analysis within the narrow scope of the exemption sought to be achieved by the Legislature and leave out the vast majority of occupations, which the Act aims to protect. In my view, the noscitur a sociis rule, which permits the determination of the meaning of a term through its relation to other terms, is not applicable here. In R. v. Daoust, (2004) 1 SCR 217, 2004 SCC 6 (CanLII), the Supreme Court of Canada stated, in part, as follows:

61.In the present case, the words “conceal” and “convert” are not part of a list. On the contrary, they are two distinct terms with distinct meanings. This is demonstrated by Parliament’s use of the expression “with intent to conceal or convert”, as the use of the word “or” shows an intent to distinguish the two terms from each other. For this reason, these two terms should not be read together, and the noscitur a sociis rule does not apply. [Emphasis added]

31. What is required is a purposive and plain reading of subsection 5(a) of the Act and such sets out three elements: (1) the accommodation must be living accommodation; (2) it must be provided to the travelling or vacationing public or occupied for a seasonal or temporary period (my emphasis) and (3) be situated in a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast or other listed establishment

34. This is consistent with Curtis Property Management v. Rezai (unreported, March 28, 1989, Ont. Dist. Ct.), where Justice Conant found that a rented hotel room fell within the realm of “rented residential premises” based on a number of factors, including: whether the occupant had demonstrated an intention to reside there on a "somewhat permanent basis" (i.e., having moved in what most people might consider fixtures, such as stereo equipment, rugs, pictures lamps, etc.); whether typical hotel services (e.g. room service and cleaning) were included; and, the degree of control the occupant had over the suite or, conversely, whether the owner was free to enter the unit at will. In his reasons, Conant, J. wrote that, “If the premises are residential, then the landlord's calling the building a ‘hotel’ was an invalid attempt to evade the provisions of the [then] Landlord and Tenant Act.”

38. In light of all of the evidence submitted, and the submissions of the parties, I do not find that the Landlord met its evidentiary burden to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the exemption at subsection 5(a) of the Act applies to this residential accommodation. Therefore, I am satisfied that there is a serious error in the order and the Tenants’ request for review must be granted.

SWT-94673-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88156 (ON LTB)

2. This jurisdictional issue arose when F.P. informed the Applicant on October 9, 2016 that her room was no longer available and that she would be required to vacate the unit immediately. This notice of termination would not comply with the notice requirements of the Act. However, the Respondent takes the position that the Act does not apply since the residential complex is a motel.

3. Notwithstanding that the Applicant filed this application, if a party takes the position that the premises in question are subject to an exemption from the Act, the burden of proof is on the party claiming the exemption.[1] As a result, in this instance, the Respondent bears the evidentiary onus to prove that the Act does not apply.

7. F.P. was present when the Applicant moved into the unit on September 1, 2015 and described this process as “checking her in.” He testified that the Applicant was informed at this meeting that the complex was a motel. While she did not recall receiving this information, she also could not contest F.P.’s evidence on this point. She acknowledged that she was required to sign a guest card when she first moved into the complex and did not question why she was required to sign this document upon moving into the unit. F.P. testified that all guests are required to sign these cards upon continuation of their occupancy. However, the evidence indicated that the Respondent may not have consistently required the Applicant to sign a new card on the first of every month since September, 2015. Her uncontested recollection was that she signed approximately six subsequent guest cards on a monthly basis since moving into the unit.

10. Section 202 of the Act requires the Board to “ascertain the real substance of the activities” relating to the occupancy and to do so disregarding “the outward form of [the] transaction.” Accordingly, a term in the lease, or in this case, a verbal declaration that the Act does not apply, will not have the effect of avoiding the application of the Act, provided that the premises otherwise fit within the statutory definition of a “rental unit.” Similarly, the City’s policy with respect to zoning cannot be equated with evidence that the premises are exempted from the Act if the circumstances of the residency indicate otherwise.

13. By this principle, each of the exclusions in subsection 5(a) of the Act must be read in the context of the provision as a whole. The premises at issue must provide “living accommodations,” that are “intended to be provided to the travelling or vacationing public” or, for the same purposes, “occupied for a seasonal or temporary period.” In other words, if the rental unit falls under either of these clauses, it may be excluded from the protection of the Act, pursuant to subsection 5(a) of the Act.

14. In the present case, because the rental unit is the Applicant’s sole residence, she cannot be deemed to be a member of the “travelling or vacationing public.” As a result, the first clause of the exemption does not apply to this living accommodation.[5] The Respondent therefore necessarily relies upon the latter clause of the exemption that lists a number of included living situations that are “occupied for a seasonal or temporary period.” Unlike the first clause of the exemption, this clause does not consider the intent of the parties, but rather their actual conduct in relation to the premises.

15. It is the use made of the particular rental unit which must be considered, not the overall use of the building or complex.[6] In other words, if other units in the residential complex are used in a different manner compared to the Applicant’s residence, this is not determinative of whether the exemption applies to her unit.[7] Similarly, while the complex may be zoned for specific uses, the actual conduct of the parties may or may not conform to these restrictions. Furthermore, it is the current occupant’s use of the rental unit that is at issue, rather than the past history of the unit. In the present situation, the evidence indicated that the Applicant’s use of the rental unit remained consistent from September 1, 2015 to the date of the hearing.