Trailer Parks (RTA)

Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corporation, 2010 ONCA 468 (CanLII)

[24] The definition of a "rental unit" in s. 2(1) contains two components. First, the unit must be "living accommodation". Second, it must be used or intended for use as "rented residential premises". As I have indicated, s. 3(1) provides that the Act applies despite any term in the lease to the contrary and s. 4 provides that "a provision in a tenancy agreement that is inconsistent with this Act or the regulations is void". Section 202 requires the Board to "ascertain the real substance of the activities" relating to the rental unit and to do so disregarding "the outward form of [the] transaction". Accordingly, a term in the lease providing that a site is not residential nor a rental unit 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".

[25] In this case, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the premises constituted "living accommodation". The lessees' families lived in the cottages. All the cottages contained sleeping and living quarters as well as kitchen facilities. All were equipped with outhouses approved by the public health authority. Families attended at these cottages for varying periods of time at different times of the year. During their stays, the lessees carried on the normal activities of persons living in accommodation. In these circumstances, it seems the cottages unequivocally satisfy the first requirement of being "living accommodation". [page599]

[26] In my view, the second requirement, that the premises be used or intended for use as "rented residential premises", is also satisfied. Certainly, the lessees paid rent to "occupy" the land upon which they constructed their cottages. Thus, they were "rented" premises. In addition, in my view, the premises were clearly "residential" as that term is used in the Act. They certainly were not "commercial". The documentation demonstrates ACR's intention that the "camps" were leased for single-family private use and not as commercial campsite enterprises. "Commercial" tenancies are dealt with separately in the ACR documentation and are governed by different legislative provisions. [See Note 4 below]

[27] However, the Divisional Court was of the view that because the premises were used for recreational purposes, they are not "residential". Yet there is no Recreational Tenancies Act. And the Residential Tenancies Act makes no reference to "recreational" premises as a separate category of living accommodation. Although s. 5 of the Act contains a list of specific exemptions, there is no blanket exemption of, or any reference to, "recreational" properties.

[28] In my view, occupants of residential units are entitled to the protection of the Act, whatever they do inside or outside of their premises during their waking hours. The Act applies whether the occupants spend their days at work or at leisure, whether they live in their accommodation 52 weeks a year or some lesser amount of time, and whether the unit in question is their primary or secondary residence.

[29] If it were otherwise, a person primarily residing elsewhere who rents a city apartment for convenience, as a pied-à-terre, or as any type of secondary residence, would be denied the tenant protections that would be available to his or her neighbour across the hall. As well, Ontario tenants who "reside" in warmer locations as "snowbirds" during the winter months could lose the tenant protections available to them under Ontario law. Moreover, individuals who rent premises in locations such as Collingwood for golf and skiing would be denied the protections provided by the Act because they would be occupying the premises for "recreational" rather than "residential" purposes. In my view, there can be no difference between the [page600] Collingwood residential and "recreational" rental apartment from which the occupant has access to golf and skiing and the ACR residential and "recreational" rental premises from which the occupant has access to fishing and hunting. The recreational attributes of t he particular area do not mean that the rental units are not residential within the meaning of the Act.

Kaiman v. Graham, 2009 ONCA 77 (CanLII)

[9] As stated above, the appellants neither pleaded nor raised the RTA at trial. The question is thus whether the appellants should be allowed to rely on it for the first time on appeal. Since the appellants’ argument goes to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, it may be raised for the first time on appeal: see W.(V.) v. S.(D.), 1996 CanLII 192 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 108, at para. 17.

[17] The appellants rely on s. 3 of the RTA which states that the Act applies “with respect to rental units in residential complexes, despite any other Act and despite any agreement or waiver to the contrary”. They argue that the exception in s. 5(a) of the Act does not apply. That section provides:

5. This Act does not apply with respect to,

(a) living accommodation intended to be provided to the travelling or vacationing public or occupied for a seasonal or temporary period in a hotel, motel or motor hotel, resort, lodge, tourist camp, cottage or cabin establishment, inn, campground, trailer park, tourist home, bed and breakfast vacation establishment or vacation home.

The appellants place particular reliance on the Divisional Court decision in Putnam v. Grand River Conservation Authority (2006), 2006 CanLII 18526 (ON SCDC), 210 O.A.C. 191 which held that year-round cottage properties did not fall within the predecessor to s. 5(a) of the RTA since the properties were not “part of a cottage or cabin establishment” that was analogous to a hotel, motel or the other types of accommodation set out in the definition. Accordingly, the appellants wish us to make a determination on appeal as to the applicability of the RTA or to refer the matter for hearing before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

R. v. Parker v. Yundt et al, 2012 ONSC 244 (CanLII)

[4] The Parkers, purchased a property in April 2010 from Antonio and Irene Tavares (“the Tavareses”) known as Mountain Trout Camp. The property is a recreational site for tents and trailers and also has five cabins. Between 2005 and 2007 the Tavareses sold the five cabins to the Respondents and to a fifth person who is now not a party to the application. Following the purchase of the cabins, the Respondents paid rent to the former owners of the site, the Tavareses.

[5] When the Parkers purchased the campsite from the Tavareses they were aware that the cabins were separately owned by the Respondents, as purchasers of the cabins. Thus, the Parkers were aware of the rents and a lease arrangement with the Respondents when they made the purchase of the campsite.

[6] On or about November 15, 2010 the Parkers provided each of the cabin owners with an invoice for the 2011 rental period (January 1 to December 31, 2011) increasing the rent. There was a significant increase in the rent. The annual site fee was increased from $1,500.00 to $7,000.00 annually.

[7] The Respondents Yundt & Buehlow relies on a lease agreement which was entered into in 2005. The Bartletts entered into their lease agreement in 2006. The Ecsedis rely on an agreement entered into in September 2007. The Barnhums also rely on a lease agreement containing the same terms. All of the Respondents rely on the duration of the lease being “for as long as the cabin is owned by the lessees”.

[8] Following the receipt of the notice to increase the rent, the Bartletts applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) to determine whether the cabin they owned was within the jurisdiction of the RTA, on January 31, 2011. The LTB determined that the RTA applied and the matter was adjourned to the next available date. In April 21, 2011 the Parkers commenced their application in this court. Their application to this court was amended in May, 2011. There was no appeal launched from the LTB’s decision and interim order that was made.