Notice of Termination Requirements (LTB - General): Difference between revisions
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/g0jz0 Braks v Bailey, 2013 CanLII 57485 (ON SCSM)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/g0jz0 Braks v Bailey, 2013 CanLII 57485 (ON SCSM)]== | ||
18. <b><u>It has been held that the notice requirements under the Act are to be strictly interpreted, whether the notice is given by the landlord or the tenant</b></u>: [https://caselaw.ninja/img_auth.php/7/73/George_V_Apartments_Ltd_v_Cobb.pdf George V. Apartments Ltd. v. Cobb, (2002) O.J. No. 5918 (Div. Ct.)]. The requirement that notice be given in writing applies despite any agreement between the parties to the contrary or any waiver, by virtue of s. 3(1): see Nistap Development Corp. v. McIntyre, | 18. <b><u>It has been held that the notice requirements under the Act are to be strictly interpreted, whether the notice is given by the landlord or the tenant</b></u>: [https://caselaw.ninja/img_auth.php/7/73/George_V_Apartments_Ltd_v_Cobb.pdf George V. Apartments Ltd. v. Cobb, (2002) O.J. No. 5918 (Div. Ct.)]. The requirement that notice be given in writing applies despite any agreement between the parties to the contrary or any waiver, by virtue of s. 3(1): see [https://caselaw.ninja/img_auth.php/c/c1/Nistap_Development_Corp_v_McIntyre.pdf Nistap Development Corp. v. McIntyre, (2009) O.J. No. 2960 (Div. Ct.)]. Those appellate authorities are binding on this court. | ||
19. I therefore find that although Ms. Bailey gave notice on January 24, 2012 of termination effective March 31, 2012, in law that notice was invalid because it was not given in writing. Ms. Bailey therefore breached the month-to-month tenancy by moving out on March 31, 2012 without having given valid notice under the Act. The question then becomes what damages result from that breach. | 19. I therefore find that although Ms. Bailey gave notice on January 24, 2012 of termination effective March 31, 2012, in law that notice was invalid because it was not given in writing. Ms. Bailey therefore breached the month-to-month tenancy by moving out on March 31, 2012 without having given valid notice under the Act. The question then becomes what damages result from that breach. | ||
Revision as of 00:15, 25 March 2020
Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17
46 (1) A notice of termination becomes void 30 days after the termination date specified in the notice unless,
- (a) the tenant vacates the rental unit before that time; or
- (b) the landlord applies for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant before that time.
Braks v Bailey, 2013 CanLII 57485 (ON SCSM)
18. It has been held that the notice requirements under the Act are to be strictly interpreted, whether the notice is given by the landlord or the tenant: George V. Apartments Ltd. v. Cobb, (2002) O.J. No. 5918 (Div. Ct.). The requirement that notice be given in writing applies despite any agreement between the parties to the contrary or any waiver, by virtue of s. 3(1): see Nistap Development Corp. v. McIntyre, (2009) O.J. No. 2960 (Div. Ct.). Those appellate authorities are binding on this court.
19. I therefore find that although Ms. Bailey gave notice on January 24, 2012 of termination effective March 31, 2012, in law that notice was invalid because it was not given in writing. Ms. Bailey therefore breached the month-to-month tenancy by moving out on March 31, 2012 without having given valid notice under the Act. The question then becomes what damages result from that breach.
