|
RTA - Fire and Other Emergencies
COMMENT
This sub-topic is about fire and other emergencies that may require that the tenant give up possession for a time, or permanently. As I see it, the fundamental issue of legal paramouncy of the situation where fire, health, municipal building authorities and the landlord 'order' (or otherwise try to get) vacancy - and the tenants' RTA right to possession, are yet to be fully resolved.
. The Effort Trust Company v. Perron
In The Effort Trust Company v. Perron (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed an RTA s.210 appeal, here from an LTB-ordered five-month rent abatement after a fire rendered the rental unit uninhabitable:[9] .... With regards to the second claim, the adjudicator found that notwithstanding a finding that the Landlord’s delay in repairing the unit was reasonable due to the delays caused by COVID-19[1], section 20(1) required that the Landlord provide and maintain the rental unit in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing, and maintenance standards. Further the adjudicator found that it was “undisputed that the unit was uninhabitable, and the Tenant was unable to return to the unit until the repairs were completed”. The adjudicator concluded that because the Landlord was required to maintain the unit in a good state of repair and fit for habitation, in return for which the Tenant was obligated to pay rent, given that the unit was not in good state of repair or fit for habitation there was “...no rent due to the Landlord for this period of time.”[2] The adjudicator ordered the Landlord to pay $3,688.16 to the Tenant as an abatement for the rental period from 3 December 2020 to 30 April 2021.
....
[17] On the evidence, the adjudicator made a factual determination on the uncontroverted evidence that the subject unit was uninhabitable a finding that is entitled to deference. This was in violation of the clear wording of section 20(1) which then provided the member with the authority to determine and fashion the appropriate remedy permitted under the Act, which in this case was an abatement of rent. This was a question of mixed fact and law therefore there is no jurisdiction to advance this appeal.SS Note:
RTA 20(1) A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards. [18] If I am incorrect in that determination, I would still dismiss the application on the basis that the member made no error in so far as:a. the adjudicator found a breach of section 20(1) that was supported by the evidence;
b. having found a breach, the member exercised her discretion to fashion a remedy that was available to the tribunal i.e. and abatement of rent[4];
c. the adjudicator provided full reasons for this finding and for the remedy of abatement. On this basis I would find the decision in law to be correct. . 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). . 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 illustrates and considers intricacies of the municipal Building Code regulation as they effect eventually re-possession of vacated units (ie. 'occupancy permits'):Did the Board err in ordering that the Tenants in Units 201B and 205B be restored to possession of their units?
[130] In the First and Second Interim Orders the Board found that the City of Sarnia Order dated February 27, 2023 (from the Chief Building Official, Mr. MacDonald), was key to his determination that the first fourteen Tenants were entitled to be restored to possession of their units. That order has not been officially amended by Mr. MacDonald since it was first issued. However, building inspectors employed by the City of Sarnia subsequently issued occupancy permits in relation to other units, including units 201B and 205B.
[131] The Landlords submit that since the City of Sarnia Order has not been officially amended the Board erred in law in allowing the Tenants in units 201B and 205B to be restored to possession of their units. Occupancy permits are not a formal amendment of the City of Sarnia Order and the building inspectors who issued the occupancy permits in relation to the units at issue had no power to amend the City of Sarnia Order. According to the Landlords, the Board cannot on the one hand find that the City of Sarnia Order was determinative of the issue of possession (as it did in the First and Second Interim Orders) and then order possession of two more units when that Order has not been amended.
[132] There is no merit to this submission. The Board’s Interim Orders did not establish an immutable legal test by which the City’s order restricting access to certain units had to be formally amended or discharged as a precondition to the Board making an order for possession. Those orders were based on the evidence before the Board at that time concerning the Landlords’ lawful authority (or lack thereof) to restrict access to the units at issue.
[133] By the time of the June 27, 2024, hearing before the Board where the rights to possession of units 201B and 205B were being determined, circumstances had changed. Mr. MacDonald, who testified at that hearing, stated that occupancy of those units was permitted on the basis of the subsequent building department inspections that had taken place after the September 2023 hearings, and that occupancy did not depend on the City amending or discharging the City of Sarnia Order. Mr. MacDonald further confirmed the City’s practice of not amending an order under the Building Code Act with each progressive inspection that granted partial occupancy of a building. Instead, the practice is to just remove the order from title only once it has been fully complied with.
[134] The Board’s acceptance of Mr. MacDonald’s testimony that the City had permitted occupancy of units 201B and 205B despite the continued existence of the City of Sarnia Order, does not raise an issue of law nor an issue of fact or fact and law that would justify this court’s intervention. . 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".
This long [136 paras] case is useful reading for the little-litigated interaction of the RTA and 'fire law', the role of tenant insurance, and the desperate situation that fires can place tenants in.
|
