3 total
The Landlord and Tenant Board must consider post-notice events and the purchaser's good faith when assessing bad faith evictions.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed the test for bad faith under s. 57(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) and the potential liability of purchasers in "own use" evictions.
The Landlord and Tenant Board (Board) and Divisional Court had erred by unduly narrowing the bad faith assessment to the landlord's knowledge at the time of notice and by failing to consider the purchaser's good faith.
The Court held that the Board must consider all relevant evidence, including events after the notice, and assess the good faith of both the landlord and the purchaser.
The appeal was granted, and the matter remitted to the Board for redetermination.
Tenant's appeal of LTB eviction order quashed for failing to raise a question of law.
The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.
The eviction was ordered after the landlord sold the residential unit and the purchasers required it for personal use.
The tenant's appeal automatically stayed the eviction.
The Divisional Court found that the tenant's grounds of appeal challenged findings of fact and did not raise any extricable questions of law as required by section 201 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
The court quashed the appeal, lifted the stay, and ordered the immediate enforcement of the eviction.
Eviction order set aside because the Board failed to consider the mandatory seven-day voiding period.
The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order granted by the Landlord and Tenant Board.
The landlord had issued an N5 notice for substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board committed an error of law by failing to make a mandatory finding under s. 64(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act regarding whether the tenant had ceased the offending conduct within the seven-day voiding period.
The review decision's reliance on unrecorded oral evidence to cure this defect was also found to be unreasonable.
