The appellant rented a unit and subsequently rented a bedroom in that unit to the respondent.
The appellant locked the respondent out of the unit without an eviction order.
The Landlord and Tenant Board found the respondent was a subtenant and awarded damages for unlawful eviction.
On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Board erred in its application of the subtenancy provisions, as the appellant had not vacated the unit for a specified term.
However, the Court upheld the Board's remedial order, finding that the Residential Tenancies Act still applied because the appellant met the broad statutory definition of a landlord and the respondent met the definition of a tenant.