Administrative Fines (Bad Faith N12 or N13)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-24
CLNP Page ID:	2060
Page Categories:	[Hearing Process (LTB)]]
Citation:	Administrative Fines (Bad Faith N12 or N13), CLNP 2060, <https://rvt.link/31>, retrieved on 2024-11-24
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2023/04/28

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006

57 (1) The Board may make an order described in subsection (3) if, on application by a former tenant of a rental unit, the Board determines that,

(a) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 48 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and no person referred to in clause 48 (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit;

(b) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 49 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and no person referred to in clause 49 (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) or 49 (2) (a), (b), (c) or (d) occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit; or

(c) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 50 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and the landlord did not demolish, convert or repair or renovate the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 57 (1).

...

(3) The orders referred to in subsection (1) are the following:

...

3. An order that the landlord pay to the Board an administrative fine not exceeding the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

...

196 (1) Upon receiving information that an applicant owes money to the Board as a result of having failed to pay any fine, fee or costs,

(a) if the information is received on or before the day the applicant submits an application, an employee in the Board shall, in such circumstances as may be specified in the Rules, refuse to allow the application to be filed;

(b) if the information is received after the application has been filed but before a hearing is held, the Board shall stay the proceeding until the fee, fine or costs have been paid and may discontinue the application in such circumstances as may be specified in the Rules;

(c) if the information is received after a hearing with respect to the application has begun, the Board shall not issue an order until the fine, fee or costs have been paid and may discontinue the application in such circumstances as may be specified in the Rules. 2006, c. 17, s. 196 (1); 2013, c. 3, s. 43 (1).

...

236 Any person who knowingly attempts to commit any offence referred to in section 233, 234 or 235 is guilty of an offence. 2006, c. 17, s. 236.

237 Every director or officer of a corporation who knowingly concurs in an offence under this Act is guilty of an offence. 2006, c. 17, s. 237.

238 (1) A person, other than a corporation, who is guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $50,000. 2006, c. 17, s. 238 (1); 2020, c. 16, Sched. 4, s. 35 (1).

(2) A corporation that is guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $250,000. 2006, c. 17, s. 238 (2); 2020, c. 16, Sched. 4, s. 35 (2).

TST-90503-17 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87012 (ON LTB)

73. The Board’s Interpretation Guideline 16, which I will follow in this case, suggests the following approach:

An administrative fine is a remedy to be used by the Board to encourage compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the "RTA"), and to deter landlords from engaging in similar activity in the future. This remedy is not normally imposed unless a landlord has shown a blatant disregard for the RTA and other remedies will not provide adequate deterrence and compliance.

74. There is no doubt that in this matter, the Landlord has shown a blatant disregard for the RTA. The Landlord was well aware of its obligation to provide rights of first refusal. It has given no explanation for ignoring that obligation. The only question is whether fines are necessary to provide adequate deterrence and compliance, and in what amounts.

75. The Landlord is profiting enormously from its contraventions of the RTA. Before the tenancies were terminated, the rent for each of the three units was around $1,250. The Landlord has re-rented the units for $4,150.00, $4,200.00, and $4,200.00, respectively. This means that on each of the three contraventions, the Landlord is realizing a profit of over $2,900 monthly. In the first year alone, it will have profited by over $34,800 for each contravention. The Tenants testified that they all planned to keep living in the units for many years. Even if I estimate, conservatively, that the tenancies would only have continued for another two years, that is a profit of around $70,000 for each contravention.

76. The Tenants could have requested monetary remedies. However, even if they had each been awarded the Board’s maximum monetary jurisdiction of $25,000.00, those remedies would not have been sufficient to provide adequate deterrence and compliance in these circumstances. The profit the Landlord is realizing from its actions vastly exceeds $25,000.00 per rental unit.

77. In light of the above, I find that the appropriate fines in this case would be $45,000.00 per rental unit. Since those amounts exceed the maximum, fines of $25,000.00 will be awarded in respect of each unit, for a total of $75,000.00 in fines.

78. The Tenants argue that the fines should be higher because the Landlord’s disregard for the RTA was particularly blatant. They argue that in the original eviction proceedings, the Landlord misled the Board by falsely claiming that it intended to honour the Tenants’ right of first refusal. I do not need to consider that argument, because even without that potential aggravating factor, I am awarding the maximum fines.

TNT-98923-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42639 (ON LTB)

12. The Tenants found a comparable rental unit for $1,850.00 a month, a $500.00 increase in rent. They are now required to pay for hydro, gas, water and sewerage, which were previously included in the rent. Thus, the Tenants are entitled to a rent differential in the amount of $8,588.82. ($6,000.00 base rent plus $2,588.82 for utilities).

13. The Tenants requested that the Board impose an administrative fine on the Landlord because the Landlord has a history of violating tenants’ rights. The evidence shows that the Landlord owns up to 11 residential properties through numbered companies and rents them under the banner of “Russian Rental.” The Landlord tendered documents showing the sale or transfer of various properties by the Landlord to various numbered companies to avoid creditors and thwart orders or judgements. The Landlord’s conduct in this case is egregious. It illustrates the Landlord’s woeful disregard of the statutory scheme governing landlord-tenant relationship and the lengths to which she would go to avoid enforcement of the Act. It is pertinent to note that on two previous occasions the Board imposed an administrative fine on the Landlord’s numbered company ($3,500.00, pursuant to order TNL-28299-12, issued on August 1, 2012, and $2,500.00 pursuant to order TNT-87345-16, issued on March 23, 2017). The fines have not been paid and have not deterred the Landlord from engaging in conduct prohibited under the Act. Thus, a higher fine is appropriate. The Landlord must pay to the Board an administrative fine in the amount of $7,500.00.

TST-95702-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 123308 (ON LTB)

15. Although the Tenant claimed $10,000 for the cost to replace his property and another $10,000 for out-of-pocket expenses, in itemizing those claims it appears they are duplicates. At the hearing, the Tenant made a list of items he lost with their estimated values and expenses he will incur. Many of the values for lost items were obtained by reference to prices advertised by online vendors. The estimated total loss is $11,200.00, which I am satisfied is reasonable. However, as the Tenant’s T2 application only seeks a rent abatement of $10,000.00, this the maximum rent abatement I can award.

Administrative Fine

16. The Board's authority to order an administrative fine is set out in the Act under sections 31(1)(d), 41(6), 57(3) paragraph 3, and 115(3) respectively. To quote from the Board’s Guideline 16: “An administrative fine is a remedy to be used by the Board to encourage compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the "RTA"), and to deter landlords from engaging in similar activity in the future. This remedy is not normally imposed unless a landlord has shown a blatant disregard for the RTA and other remedies will not provide adequate deterrence and compliance.”

17. The Landlord’s agents acted deliberately and highhandedly when they forcefully and painfully physically escorted the Tenant out of, and away from the residential complex. They unashamedly made a show of placing all of his personal belongings on the lawn in front of the building, kept him away so that he could not retrieve any personal or work related items, not caring whether they were depriving him of a livelihood and driving him into a shelter without colour of right. I find the behaviour of the Landlord’s agents egregious in its violation of the Act and inhumane. Therefore, I will order the Landlord to pay a $10,000 administrative fine as requested in the application.

TST-90503-17 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87012 (ON LTB)

74. There is no doubt that in this matter, the Landlord has shown a blatant disregard for the RTA. The Landlord was well aware of its obligation to provide rights of first refusal. It has given no explanation for ignoring that obligation. The only question is whether fines are necessary to provide adequate deterrence and compliance, and in what amounts.

75. The Landlord is profiting enormously from its contraventions of the RTA. Before the tenancies were terminated, the rent for each of the three units was around $1,250. The Landlord has re-rented the units for $4,150.00, $4,200.00, and $4,200.00, respectively. This means that on each of the three contraventions, the Landlord is realizing a profit of over $2,900 monthly. In the first year alone, it will have profited by over $34,800 for each contravention. The Tenants testified that they all planned to keep living in the units for many years. Even if I estimate, conservatively, that the tenancies would only have continued for another two years, that is a profit of around $70,000 for each contravention.

76. The Tenants could have requested monetary remedies. However, even if they had each been awarded the Board’s maximum monetary jurisdiction of $25,000.00, those remedies would not have been sufficient to provide adequate deterrence and compliance in these circumstances. The profit the Landlord is realizing from its actions vastly exceeds $25,000.00 per rental unit.

77. In light of the above, I find that the appropriate fines in this case would be $45,000.00 per rental unit. Since those amounts exceed the maximum, fines of $25,000.00 will be awarded in respect of each unit, for a total of $75,000.00 in fines.

78. The Tenants argue that the fines should be higher because the Landlord’s disregard for the RTA was particularly blatant. They argue that in the original eviction proceedings, the Landlord misled the Board by falsely claiming that it intended to honour the Tenants’ right of first refusal. I do not need to consider that argument, because even without that potential aggravating factor, I am awarding the maximum fines.