Email & Text - Re: Notice of Entry (LTB)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-24
CLNP Page ID:	1999
Page Categories:	[Defective Notice (LTB)]
Citation:	Email & Text - Re: Notice of Entry (LTB), CLNP 1999, <https://rvt.link/10>, retrieved on 2024-11-24
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2023/02/08

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

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

27 (1) A landlord may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry under the following circumstances:

1. To carry out a repair or replacement or do work in the rental unit.

2. To allow a potential mortgagee or insurer of the residential complex to view the rental unit.

3. To allow a person who holds a certificate of authorization within the meaning of the Professional Engineers Act or a certificate of practice within the meaning of the Architects Act or another qualified person to make a physical inspection of the rental unit to satisfy a requirement imposed under subsection 9 (4) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

4. To carry out an inspection of the rental unit, if,

i. the inspection is for the purpose of determining whether or not the rental unit is in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and complies with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards, consistent with the landlord’s obligations under subsection 20 (1) or section 161, and

ii. it is reasonable to carry out the inspection.

5. For any other reasonable reason for entry specified in the tenancy agreement. 2006, c. 17, s. 27 (1).

(2) A landlord or, with the written authorization of a landlord, a broker or salesperson registered under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry to allow a potential purchaser to view the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 27 (2).

(3) The written notice under subsection (1) or (2) shall specify the reason for entry, the day of entry and a time of entry between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. 2006, c. 17, s. 27 (3).

Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.11

1. (1) The provisions of this Act apply to every Act of the Legislature contained in these Revised Statutes or here-after passed, except in so far as any such provision,

(a) is inconsistent with the intent or object of the Act;

(b) would give to a word, expression or provision of the Act an interpretation inconsistent with the context; or

(c) is in the Act declared not applicable thereto. R.S.O. 1990, c. I.11, s. 1 (1).

...

29. (1) In every Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

...

“writing”, “written”, or any term of like import, includes words printed, painted, engraved, lithographed, photographed, or represented or reproduced by any other mode in a visible form; (“écrit”)

TET-69036-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 49115 (ON LTB)

...

33. The privacy provisions in the Act are set out in sections 25, 26 and 27. Section 25 says a landlord shall not enter a rental unit except in accordance with the Act. Section 26 is about entries that are permitted without notice. Section 27 is about entry on notice.

34. The right to enter on notice is restricted to one of the listed purposes for notice set out in ss. 27(1) and (2). Parties can add to the list of permitted purposes by setting out additional reasonable reasons for entry in their tenancy agreement but otherwise, the purpose of the entry must be listed in section 27.

35. Here, the tenancy agreement between the parties did not add additional reasonable grounds of entry so the Landlords were restricted in their right to serve notice to enter in that entry had to be for one of the listed purposes in s. 27.

36. Although s. 27(2) permits a landlord or an authorised real estate agent to enter to show the rental unit to prospective purchasers, it does not include agents coming to appraise the property. That is not a permitted purpose.

37. Further, s. 27(2) specifically says that to show the unit to prospective purchasers the landlord or real estate agent must give a minimum of 24 hours advance written notice to the tenant.

38. What this means is that when the Landlord’s realtor telephoned the Tenant to tell her about a showing - that was not permissible notice because s. 27(2) says notice must be in writing.

39. In addition, section 191 sets out the permissible methods of giving written notice. E-mail and text are not permissible methods of service. That being said, s. 191(2) says that if a notice is served by a different method, then it will be deemed to have been validly given if it can be proven it came to the recipient’s attention within the required time period.

40. So this also means that all of the texts or e-mails sent to the Tenant by the realtor with respect to showings were not proper notice unless the Landlords can prove the Tenant received the texts and e-mails at least 24 hours prior to the showing itself. As the Landlords pretty much have no way of knowing when the Tenant actually looked at her texts or e-mails, the evidence supports the conclusion that between mid-December, 2015 and mid-March, 2016 there were at least 80 illegal entries into the rental unit.

...

SOT-98356-18 (Re), 2019 CanLII 126931 (ON LTB)

18. It is clear however that the Landlord has not complied with the consent orders, specifying the agreed method of communication. He has posted notes on the Tenant’s door or left notes in her mailbox, instead of communicating by email or texting. Considering the Tenant’s stress, aggravation and frustration, I find that the Landlord has, by such non-compliance, substantially interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit.

19. The Tenant did not request an order for rent abatement; rather, she requested an order for damages in the sum of $100.00. I find that the Tenant is entitled to an order for damages in the sum of $100.00 to compensate her for her stress and frustration as a result of the Landlord’s breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

EAT-60472-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 48436 (ON LTB)

16. I will accept at face value CF’s assertion that he received advice from the Board itself that text messaging is an acceptable form of communication for the purpose of a Landlord providing a Tenant with notice of entry. However, I am not aware that there is any legal basis to that advice. The wording of the Act specifically indicates that the notice must be in the form of “written notice” , which I understand to mean, in paper format, and therefore excludes any form of electronic communication, such as email or text messaging.

17. As for the Landlords’ attempts to show the unit to prospective tenants before the Tenants had given formal notice in writing of their intention to terminate the tenancy, the Tenant was obviously correct in having asserted her right not to allow entry for that purpose until such time as notice of termination had been provided. This is exactly what s. 27(3) of the Act states. Rather than accept this fact when it was pointed out to him by the Tenant, CF reacted by trying to intimidate the tenants and their parents. Eventually, he relented. In the meantime, the situation created unnecessary stress for the tenants and their parents.

18. Insofar as concerns the notices of entry in March and April, I agree with the Tenant that the notices did not fully comply with the requirements of the Act. Subsection 27(3) of the Act requires that “a time of entry” be included in the notice, which implies that a specific time will be provided. That is not what the Landlords did when they indicated a window of as much as 10 hours during which entry might occur. The way the Landlords handled this matter made a mockery of the Act’s requirement that a time of entry be specified, and not merely the date on which entry would occur.

19. In Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2007 CanLII 3228 (ON SCDC), the Divisional Court held that a notice of entry must specify an actual time of entry, and it is not sufficient to simply set out a broad window of time during which the Landlord may enter. The Court in that case affirmed the Board’s view that a six-hour entry was too broad. The same conclusion must therefore necessarily be drawn in the case of the seven notices of entry served on the Tenant between March 2nd and April 16th Each of the seven entries that occurred on those date were therefore illegal.