Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

(Ontario/Canada)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / Fairness (Administrative)
SMALL CLAIMS / CIVIL LITIGATION / CIVIL APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW / Practice Directives / Civil Portals

Home / About / Democracy, Law and Duty / Testimonials / Conditions of Use

Civil and Administrative
Litigation Opinions
for Self-Reppers

Simon's Favourite Charity -
Little Friends Lefkada (Greece)
Cat and Dog Rescue


TOPICS


RTA - Demolition

. Equity Builders Ltd. et al. v. Landlord and Tenant Board et al.

In Equity Builders Ltd. et al. v. Landlord and Tenant Board et al. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court (mostly) dismissed a multiple-proceeding combination of both LL-initiated JRs and RTA s.210 appeals, here respecting multiple units in a Sarnia apartment building. After a fire "the Chief Building Official for the City of Sarnia issued an order to the Landlord directing that the premises be vacated", followed by a second order several days later restricting access to a lesser number of units. The LL subsequently refused re-entry to tenants not covered by the later less restrictive order, eventually resulting in RTA orders of illegal lock-out for numerous units - and that "the Landlords had substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment by the Tenants of their units; and found that the Landlords obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the Tenants".

Here the court considers the RTA law of lock-outs [RTA s.24], that of termination for "demolition, conversion, repairs" [RTA s.50] and other non-RTA statutes that can effect possession of a unit - here in this fire context. This law can be involved other situations where possession is sought to be denied tenants (by both authorities and the LL) due to emergency.

Note that 'possession' and 'termination' are distinct legal statuses, and IMHO - while the RTA has exclusive jurisdiction over 'termination' of a tenancy - there is ambiguity respecting RTA jurisdiction over 'possession' and the possession jurisdiction of other statutes such as the BCA, HPPA and FPPA:
The Provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act respecting a landlord’s ability to lock a tenant out of their unit.

[15] In White v. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, 2022 ONCA 146, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (the “RTA”) “enjoys primacy over all other legislation, save the Ontario Human Rights Code”: at para. 10. The Court further stated, at para. 20:
The circumstances in which a landlord may take possession of rental unit from a tenant are strictly limited to lawful termination, abandonment, death, assignment, eviction, or a Board order – in other words, the end of a tenancy in accordance with the Act. Nothing in the Act authorizes a landlord to take possession of a residential unit during an ongoing tenancy or assists the landlord in doing so.
[16] The RTA contains a specific provision setting out the process a landlord must use if they require possession of a unit for the purpose of repairs.
Notice, demolition, conversion, repairs

50(1) A landlord may give notice of termination of a tenancy if the landlord requires possession of the rental unit in order to,

(a) demolish it;

(b) convert it to use for a purpose other than residential premises; or

(c) do repairs or renovations to it that are so extensive that they require a building permit and vacant possession of the rental unit. (emphasis added).
[17] Thus, a landlord who needs vacant possession of a unit to do repairs must first deliver a notice of termination. Certain rights accrue to a tenant who receives a notice to terminate their tenancy for repairs. First, the tenant who receives the notice may choose to terminate their tenancy. If they do not, s. 53 of the RTA grants the tenant a right of first refusal to occupy the premises once the repairs are completed. Second, the tenant a right to compensation equal to three months rent unless the tenant is provided with a right to rent another unit acceptable to them or the repair was ordered to be carried out under the authority of the Act or any other Act: RTA, s. 54.

[18] The landlord’s obligation to pay may be attenuated if the repair is ordered to be carried out under the Act or another Act. There are a number of statutes that provide authority to order repairs. Under s. 15.9 of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, a building inspector can declare a building unsafe if is structurally inadequate or it is “in a condition that could be hazardous to the health or safety of persons in the normal use of the building, persons outside the building or persons whose access to the building has not been reasonably prevented”: s. 15.9(2)(b). A building inspector can, by order, prohibit the use or occupancy of a building that they find to be unsafe: s. 15.9(6)(a).

[19] Under s. 13(1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7 a medical officer of health or a health inspector can order that premises be vacated in the event of a “health hazard”, which includes “(a) a condition of a premises, (b) a substance, thing, plant or animal other than man, or (c) a solid, liquid, gas or combination of any of them, that has or that is likely to have an adverse effect on the health of any person”: (s.1).

[20] Similarly, under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 4, s. 21, an inspector, with the approval of the Fire Marshall, can prevent people, including tenants, from entering premises until certain corrective actions are taken.
Next the court cites a similar 2011 LTB order against the same LL, with similar issues:
Previous Board Fine Against EQB

[22] In 2010, there was a fire in a Mississauga building Mr. Singh operated through EQB. Following the fire, Mr. Singh, through EQB, locked the tenants out of their homes without serving any notice of termination under the RTA, and in the absence of any order restricting access.

[23] Two tenants applied to the Board for remedies. Mr. Singh attended the hearing and asserted that he was justified in locking out the tenants because “the insurance company has put the restoration of the rental unit on hold until the tenants provide proof of content insurance”, and that, because of the fire, the landlord needed to update the “outdated wiring” in the building, prior to which the units would be unsafe to occupy. In a decision reported as CET-10108-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 13385 (Ont. LTB), at para. 3, the Board rejected Mr. Singh’s argument, holding that the insurance company “does not control the Landlord’s obligations” under the Act, and finding that the landlord did not have the right to change the locks without serving a lawful notice of termination under the Act. The Board also continued:
6. The Landlord did not support his assertion that he is required by another authority that supersedes the Board’s authority to secure the rental unit by changing the locks to it with any evidence, documentary or other. The Landlord does not have a right to do this in accordance with the Act unless the Tenants were served with a notice under section 50(1)(c) of the Act, to terminate the Tenancy because the Landlord requires possession of the rental unit to do repairs or renovations. The Tenants are entitled to compensation and security of tenure in accordance with the Act.

...

11. It has been determined that the Landlord illegally evicted the Tenants and does not want the Tenants to regain possession of the rental unit. This has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenants. The Landlord did not have a legal right to alter the locking system, to ask the Tenants to remove all of the belongings from the rental unit and to delay the process to restore the rental unit to a habitable condition. The Landlord has also been difficult for the Tenants to communicate with and has not provided them with any documentation and/or other information throughout the process which justifies the manner in which the Landlord dealt with this issue.

...

14. The Landlord shall pay a fine to the Board of $500.00 for illegally evicting the Tenants from the rental unit. The Board finds that a fine is appropriate to deter the Landlord from contravening the Act in the future.
[24] The Landlord’s appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed: Gouge v. EQB Ltd., Brampton Court File No. DC-11-0009 (October 20, 2011).
. Noffke v Deol

In Noffke v Deol (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed an RTA s.210 appeal, here focussing on "the interpretation and application of “demolish” under s. 50 of the RTA, and with respect to a permit requirement under s. 73 of the RTA.", as opposed to 'renovation':
[6] In the reasons for the Merits Decision, the Member addressed the evidence at some length and found that the respondents in good faith intended to carry out a demolition. The Member found that proper notice had been given and compensation paid and that the respondents had obtained the necessary permits to do the work.

[7] On the issue raised by the appellant regarding revocation or demolition, the Member applied the definition of “demolition” from this Court’s decision in Two Clarendon Apartments Limited v. Sinclair, 2019 ONSC 3845, at para. 10, where the Court adopted the following definition from para. 6:
In a situation where the rental unit continues to exist, albeit in an extremely altered form, it is possible for the tenant to exercise a right of first refusal, because the rental unit is still there: the tenant may move back and continue the tenancy. In a situation where the rental unit is gone, it is not possible for the tenant to exercise a right of first refusal: the rental unit is no longer there and so the tenant cannot move back. The fact that the Act distinguishes renovations and demolitions by the tenant’s right of first refusal shows that the intention of these sections of the Act is to preserve tenancies where it is possible to do so.
[8] The appellant agrees that the above is the correct legal test.

[9] The Member found that the plan was to transform the entire second floor into one dwelling unit to such an extent that the appellant’s rental unit was no longer there. The Member found, under s. 73(1)(a) of the RTA, that the respondents’ intended, in good faith, to carry out the activity on which their notice of termination was based – a demolition.

....

[14] The main issue on this appeal is whether there was an error of law in concluding that the respondents’ plan amounted to a demolition rather than a renovation. If it is a renovation, the appellant has a right of first refusal to occupy the unit after the work is completed, as set out in s. 53 of the RTA.

[15] The appellant acknowledges that the LTB expressly quoted the correct test for a “demolition” from Two Clarendon in the Merits Decision. The appellant submits that the Member erred in the application of that test to the evidence.

[16] The appellant begins with the nature of the legislation. I agree that the RTA is remedial legislation that is designed to redress the imbalance of power between landlords and tenants. Further, it is important to properly distinguish between a demolition and a renovation because a renovation offers different protections to a tenant. Both have significant requirements for notice and compensation but only a renovation provides the right to re-occupy the unit afterward.

[17] The appellant submits that the planned new single premises, which is described as having one bedroom and a den, is really a two-bedroom apartment. The appellant submits that each of the two tenants on the second floor have the right to re-occupy their unit. The appellant acknowledges, as set out in Two Clarendon, that it is the right to re-occupy the appellant’s unit, not any unit. For the appellant that would mean one bedroom (or the den). For the other tenant that would mean the bedroom (or the den) and possibly the kitchen. The appellant submits that it is arbitrary to distinguish the newly planned premises from two rental units with a shared common bathroom.

[18] There are a number of difficulties with this submission. First, as noted at the LTB hearing, the Building Code requires that each unit have its own dedicated staircase to the street. The new premises have only one. Also under the Building Code, the respondents submit that the den would not meet the legal requirements for a bedroom because there is no egress window. The appellant objects to the submission about the window because it was not raised at the LTB, and it would be unfair to consider it. I will disregard it. Next, the concept of re-occupying the new premises may give rise to issues involving a second tenant. The other tenant who objected at the LTB is not seeking to overturn the Merits Decision and re-occupy. However, this does not mean that the appellant would have the right to occupy what he says is someone else’s unit. The appellant’s position is that someone could move in and they could be “tenants in common” in the new premises but the appellant does not address how that would work. In any event, most significantly, the appellant is really asking this Court to permit a challenge to findings of fact of the LTB, for which there is no right of appeal.

[19] The appellant makes submissions about the details on the permit, the plans (which do refer to demolition), the Committee of Adjustment documentation and the testimony of the witnesses. These submissions seek to re-argue the facts, and do not give rise to an issue of law or principle. The appellant submits that a plan will constitute a demolition only where the physical premises are destroyed such that the appellant’s unit no longer exists. The appellant then re-characterizes the facts to suggest that the planned changes only amount to a renovation in this case. However, the Member made a finding on the evidence that the plan was to transform the entire floor into one dwelling unit to such an extent that the rental unit was no longer there. This finding of fact does not give rise to an appealable error.

[20] The Member acknowledged that a renovation included an extremely altered form. As set out in the Merits Decision, the Member found that the plan so altered the second floor that it could not be said that the appellant’s rental unit continues to exist, even in extremely altered form. There was no error in law or principle in making this finding. Nor has the appellant shown that the Member either found a demolition without evidence or ignored relevant evidence, giving rise to an issue of law.

....

[22] On the subject of permits, s. 73(1)b)(i) of the RTA requires that the applicant obtain “all necessary permits or other authority that may be required to carry out the activity on which the notice of termination was based.” The appellant submits that the LTB erred regarding the necessary permits and relies on a potential inconsistency in the reasons for decision. In the reasons for decision, the Member expressly acknowledged that the appellant contested that the plans and permits were for demolition, submitting that they were for renovation. Later in the reasons, the Member said that it was undisputed that the respondents obtained the required permits to carry out the plans, which were for a demolition. Reading the reasons for decision as a whole and in context, I do not conclude that the Member erred in law. The appellant’s objection was expressly noted and was put forward in the context of the overarching issue of whether the application was actually for a demolition or a renovation. As set out elsewhere in the reasons for decision, the Member was satisfied that the respondents had “obtained the necessary permits for this work.”


CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.




Last modified: 06-02-25
By: admin