Abandoned Rental Unit (RTA): Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
Line 15: Line 15:
==SWT-12392-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42489 (ON LTB)==
==SWT-12392-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42489 (ON LTB)==


19. While section 79 of the Act is discretionary in that the landlord may apply to the Board for an order terminating the tenancy, pursuant to subsection 37(1) of the Act, a tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with the Act.  In other words, absent some action by the landlord, such as obtaining an order under section 79 of the Act, the fact of abandonment in and of itself does not terminate the tenancy.  In other words, even where a tenant has abandoned the rental unit, this alone does not result in termination of the tenancy.
19. While section 79 of the Act is discretionary in that <b><u>the landlord may apply to the Board for an order terminating the tenancy, pursuant to subsection 37(1) of the Act, a tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with the Act.  In other words, absent some action by the landlord, such as obtaining an order under section 79 of the Act, the fact of abandonment in and of itself does not terminate the tenancy.  In other words, even where a tenant has abandoned the rental unit, this alone does not result in termination of the tenancy.</b></u>


20. As the Superior Court held in Borges v. Amici Holdings Ltd., when the Landlord has direct knowledge of a tenant’s intent to remain in the rental unit, the only proper method to retake possession is through an order.[4]  In Borges, evidence of the tenant’s intent to remain in the rental unit included a specific statement to both the landlord’s agent and property manager that he intended to remain in the rental unit.  
20. As the Superior Court held in Borges v. Amici Holdings Ltd., when the Landlord has direct knowledge of a tenant’s intent to remain in the rental unit, the only proper method to retake possession is through an order.[4]  In Borges, evidence of the tenant’s intent to remain in the rental unit included a specific statement to both the landlord’s agent and property manager that he intended to remain in the rental unit.  

Revision as of 00:16, 30 March 2021


Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17

79 If a landlord believes that a tenant has abandoned a rental unit, the landlord may apply to the Board for an order terminating the tenancy. 2006, c. 17, s. 79.

[1]

SWT-86973-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 44311 (ON LTB)

12. The Courts have consistently held that a landlord’s reasonable belief that the tenant has abandoned the rental unit, however genuine, is not sufficient authority to recover possession under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'). Pursuant to section 79 of the Act, a landlord may apply for an order from the Board determining that the tenant has in fact abandoned the rental unit. The Landlord in the present case never sought such an order. Given the Tenant’s uncontested evidence that he informed P.S. on February 22, 2016 that he intended to remain in his room and continue the tenancy, on the balance of probabilities, I do not find that P.S.’s purported belief that the Tenant had abandoned the rental unit was even reasonable.

[2]

SWT-12392-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42489 (ON LTB)

19. While section 79 of the Act is discretionary in that the landlord may apply to the Board for an order terminating the tenancy, pursuant to subsection 37(1) of the Act, a tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with the Act. In other words, absent some action by the landlord, such as obtaining an order under section 79 of the Act, the fact of abandonment in and of itself does not terminate the tenancy. In other words, even where a tenant has abandoned the rental unit, this alone does not result in termination of the tenancy.

20. As the Superior Court held in Borges v. Amici Holdings Ltd., when the Landlord has direct knowledge of a tenant’s intent to remain in the rental unit, the only proper method to retake possession is through an order.[4] In Borges, evidence of the tenant’s intent to remain in the rental unit included a specific statement to both the landlord’s agent and property manager that he intended to remain in the rental unit.

[3]

References

  1. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17>, retrieved 2021-03-29
  2. SWT-86973-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 44311 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/gsk4f>, retrieved on 2021-03-29
  3. SWT-12392-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42489 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/hs082>, retrieved on 2021-03-29