Demolition - Re: Requirements

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-05-18
CLNP Page ID:	1917
Page Categories:	[Renovation & Demolition (LTB)]
Citation:	Demolition - Re: Requirements, CLNP 1917, <79>, retrieved on 2024-05-18
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2022/05/13

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

50 (1) A landlord may give notice of termination of a tenancy if the landlord requires possession of the rental unit in order to,

(a) demolish it;

(b) convert it to use for a purpose other than residential premises; or

(c) do repairs or renovations to it that are so extensive that they require a building permit and vacant possession of the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 50 (1).

(2) The date for termination specified in the notice shall be at least 120 days after the notice is given and shall be the day a period of the tenancy ends or, where the tenancy is for a fixed term, the end of the term. 2006, c. 17, s. 50 (2).

SWT-13439-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88681 (ON LTB)

24. Subsection 73(b)(ii) of the Act sets out that the Board shall not terminate a tenancy unless it is satisfied that the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to obtain all necessary permits or other authority that may be required to carry out the activity on which the notice of termination was based, if it is not possible to obtain the permits or other authority until the rental unit is vacant (emphasis added).

25. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Landlords failed to take all reasonable steps to obtain the approval to demolish the rental unit, and therefore the Landlords served the N13 application in bad faith.

26. At the hearing of the Landlords’ application in July 2017, the Landlords asserted that the reason they did not have a demolition permit was because it was not possible to obtain a demolition permit on an occupied unit. At this hearing, KS testified that once the municipality approved the redevelopment plan as a whole, the demolition of the two rear units would be included in the approved plans. In other words, one of the steps necessary to carry out the demolition of the rental unit was for the City to finally approve the Landlords’ revised redevelopment plan.

27. The facts before me are that the Landlords did not submit their revised redevelopment plan to the City for final approval. The Landlords were “optimistic” that their plans would be approved. I am unclear as to the basis for that optimism, given that the Landlords never submitted the plans to the City. It may be that, based on previous experience, the Landlords presumed they would be able to submit their plans for final approval without the extra expense of full architectural drawings; but that is not what ended up happening in this case. The drafters of the legislation anticipated these types of obstacles, which is why the statue requires landlords to take all reasonable steps to carry out the work they intend to complete prior to applying to the Board to terminate a tenancy.