Notice of Personal Use - Re: Not in approved form

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-24
CLNP Page ID:	1099
Page Categories:	Personal Use Application (LTB)
Citation:	Notice of Personal Use - Re: Not in approved form, CLNP 1099, <https://rvt.link/1i>, retrieved on 2024-11-24
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2023/11/21

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

TET-84356-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 94045 (ON LTB)

3. The letter from the Landlord clearly does not constitute proper notice to terminate under section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'). It is not in the form approved by the Board (see subsection 43(1)) nor does it inform the Tenants of their right to dispute the termination (see subsection 43(2)). But the Tenants did not know that so they set about organizing a move. The Tenants moved out on August 1, 2017.

4. Although the letter given by the Landlord does not constitute proper notice under section 48 of the Act, it is a notice of termination under section 48 for the purposes of s. 57(1)(a). In other words, the Tenants are entitled to make this application. A tenant should not be deprived of the remedies available when a bad faith notice is served just because the landlord failed to serve the notice in the proper form and in compliance with the Act. To decide otherwise would defeat the purpose of section 57 and produce an unjust result.

CET-28082-12 (Re), 2013 CanLII 4275 (ON LTB)

1. The Landlord did not serve the Tenants an N12 notice of termination or any other valid notice of termination.

2. The Tenants did not vacate the rental unit as a result of a notice of termination for the Landlord’s own use of the rental unit.

3. The rental unit was vacated pursuant to prior Board order CEL-18598-11. That order terminated the tenancy based on an L3 application since the Landlord and the Tenants entered into an agreement to terminate the tenancy as of November 30, 2011.

4. As a result, the requirements of subsection 57(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act') have not been met and the application must be dismissed.

SOT-02418-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 126911 (ON LTB)

1. At the hearing the Tenant requested to amend the application to a T5 and T1 application instead of the T2, as filed. The amended applications were served on the Landlord the day before the hearing. A review of the amended applications reveals that they are nearly identical in pleadings and remedies sought to the T2. Given that this was merely a formal change, the amendment was permitted and the applications proceeded in the absence of the Landlord.

...

4. This text message is not a notice as it is not in a form approved by the Board, it does not identify the rental unit and it is not signed by the person giving the notice. It therefore does not meet 3 of the 4 requirements for notices under subsection 43(1) of the Act. In addition, it does not inform the Tenant of the consequences of vacating or not vacating the rental unit in accordance with the notice or that the Tenant is entitled to dispute the notice as required by subsection 43(2). Nor does the notice provide all of the details and reasons required under section 48 of the Act.

5. The requirement to pay compensation under section 48.1 and the remedies under section 57 require a notice under section 48 to be given. As no such notice was given, the compensation and remedies sought are not available to the Tenant.

...

8. In TNT-07318-18, the member held at paragraph 11:

I find that the Landlord gave the Tenant a Notice of Termination in bad faith. The fact that he did not use a Board form is irrelevant to the Landlord’s liability under the Act. The Landlord cannot escape the consequences of his actions by refusing to use a Board form.

TET-84356-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 94045 (ON LTB)

2. The Landlord orally told the Tenants that she and her family were living with her parents. The parents were planning to sell their own home so the Landlord needed the rental unit to live in.

3. The letter from the Landlord clearly does not constitute proper notice to terminate under section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'). It is not in the form approved by the Board (see subsection 43(1)) nor does it inform the Tenants of their right to dispute the termination (see subsection 43(2)). But the Tenants did not know that so they set about organizing a move. The Tenants moved out on August 1, 2017.

4. Although the letter given by the Landlord does not constitute proper notice under section 48 of the Act, it is a notice of termination under section 48 for the purposes of s. 57(1)(a). In other words, the Tenants are entitled to make this application. A tenant should not be deprived of the remedies available when a bad faith notice is served just because the landlord failed to serve the notice in the proper form and in compliance with the Act. To decide otherwise would defeat the purpose of section 57 and produce an unjust result.

(...)

21. The total amount the Landlord owes the Tenants under this order is $2,233.34.