Court File and Parties

2017 ONSC 625

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-15-941-00 TET-40273-13

DATE: 20170125

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Bay meadows park c/o castle vacation parks inc., /Appellant AND: schedule of parties, Respondents

BEFORE: Kiteley, Kruzick, Myers JJ.

COUNSEL: J. Hoffer, for the Appellant J. Schmidt, for the Respondents

HEARD at Oshawa: January 25, 2017

Endorsement

MYERS J (Orally):

[1] This case is on all fours with Colburn v. Tenants of 152 Concession 11 Road West, [2015] ONSC 42421 (Div. Ct.) in which this Court recently held that the interpretation adopted by the Landlord and Tenant Board that governs this case was reasonable.

[2] The intention of s.6 (2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 is to exempt new and only new developments from rent control. If, for example, an owner demolished a pre-existing rental building to build a new structure to try to skirt rent control, s.6 (2)(c) would stand in its way. The question then is how to define the cutoff to delineate new developments to which rent control ought not apply.

[3] The legislation requires a finding that “no part” of the mobile home park was occupied for residential purposes prior to November 1, 1991.

[4] The appellant argues that the mobile home park did not exist in 1991 and therefore no part of it could have been used for residential purposes at a time before it existed. But the definition of “mobile home park” includes the land on which units are located and land, structures, services, and facilities intended for common use and enjoyment of tenants.

[5] The appellant does not challenge the adjudicator’s findings of fact that the residence that was present on the premises prior to November 1, 1991 was used for rental residential purposes and remains integral to the mobile home park as it is constituted. As such, the mobile home park is not a newly created residential facility as part of the land and buildings that make up the mobile home park or its common areas were occupied for residential purposes before November 1, 1991.

[6] The question that the appellant wishes to raise for interpretation therefore does not arise on the facts of the case as found below. Their “new building” was not first occupied for residential purposes after 1991 given the finding that an integral part of it was previously so occupied.

[7] This is consistent with the legislative purpose to define the class of new investment to which rent control ought not apply. The legislation said “no part” of the mobile home park as defined and provided a clear cut-off.

[8] We agree with the outcome in Coburn and the member’s decision therefore was reasonable.

[9] As such, the application is dismissed. The Appellant shall pay costs fixed at $12,920.46 to the Respondents forthwith.

Myers J.

I agree _______________________________ Kiteley J.

I agree _______________________________ Kruzick J.

Date: