DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 555/16
LTB NOS.: TST-74358-16, TST-75511-16
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, HARVISON YOUNG and LOCOCO JJ.
B E T W E E N :
CHRISTOPHER MOORE and MICHELLE MOORE
Tenants (Respondents)
– and –
2013798 ONTARIO INC. and JOEL MCLEAN
Landlords (Appellants)
Christopher Moore, acting in person
Timothy Duggan, for the Landlords (Appellants)
Eli Fellman, for the Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD at Toronto: June 14, 2018
SWINTON J. (Orally)
[1]
Background
The appellant landlords appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) dated September 30, 2016, on the ground that the Board erred in finding that there was an agreement to terminate the respondents’ tenancy in accordance with s.37(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c.17 (the “Act”). That subsection states that a notice of termination of a tenancy “need not be given if a landlord and a tenant have agreed to terminate a tenancy”.
2The Board found that there was an agreement to terminate the respondents’ tenancy. Mr. McLean, one of the landlords, had sent an e-mail to the tenants dated April 28, 2016, stating that they would try to resolve problems with the premises, but that “if you don’t feel that this is good enough let us know and we’ll be happy to end your lease at any time”. The tenants sent a reply dated May 31, 2016, stating that they would accept the offer and would leave as of June 30, 2016. The Board concluded that there was an agreement between the parties to terminate the tenancy, and the landlords interfered with the tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the property by unilaterally rescinding that agreement.
[3]
Analysis
The appellants argue that the Board made extricable legal errors in failing to apply the legal principles for a valid contract, including offer and acceptance, consideration, agreement on essential terms and a meeting of the minds. The appellants also argue that the standard of review is correctness because the Board is applying general contract principles.
4In my view, the standard of review is reasonableness, as the Board was applying a section of its home statute.
5An appeal lies to this Court only on a question of law (see s. 210 of the Act). The Board made no error of law in failing to consider the elements of a valid contract. The legislation required the Board to find whether the parties agreed to terminate the tenancy - that is, did they consent to do so? (I note that the French version of the Act uses the words “ont convenu”). The legislation does not use the term “contract”.
6The Board found as a fact that there was an agreement to terminate on the basis of the exchange of e-mails. That was a reasonable finding on the material before it.
[7]
Conclusion
The appellant has failed to identify any error of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
___________________________ SWINTON J.
I agree
HARVISON YOUNG J.
I agree
LOCOCO J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 14, 2018
Date of Release: June 15, 2018
CITATION: Moore v. 2013798 Ontario Inc., 2018 ONSC 3750
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 555/16
LTB NOS.: TST-74358-16, TST-75511-16
DATE: 20180614
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, HARVISON YOUNG and LOCOCO JJ.
B E T W E E N :
CHRISTOPHER MOORE and MICHELLE MOORE
Tenants (Respondents)
– and –
2013798 ONTARIO INC. and JOEL MCLEAN
Landlords (Appellants)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 14, 2018
Date of Release: June 15, 2018