|
RTA - Landlord Entry. Dean v. McDonald
In Dean v. McDonald (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an RTA s.210 appeal, this brought against the dismissal of an LTB application alleging that the landlord "entered the tenant’s unit illegally, substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment of the unit and harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the tenants".
Here the court considered the 'size' of the time window required for LL notices of entry [under RTA 27(3)]:[11] I also do not find any error in the review order on the notice issue. In the that order, the Board member considered the court’s decision in Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2007 CanLII 3228 (Div. Ct.). Wrona finds a six-hour window was not permissible. The Board noted the current case involved a three-hour window and concluded there was no serious error that would justify interfering in the initial order. Wrona did not find that a three-hour window was impermissible, and the Board member therefore was not required to find any serious error in the original order. . Shearer v. Oz
In Shearer v. Oz (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed an appeal in an extended RTA struggle that continued years after the tenant had "moved out of the house about eighteen months later [SS: after the tenants taking possession], on July 26, 2019".
Here the court considers the landlord entry provisions of RTA s.27 ['Entry with notice'], specifically considering the term "living accomodation":(d) Section 27 of the RTA
[41] Section 27 of the RTA provides the landlord a limited right of entry to leased residential premises on notice to the tenants. The Tenants argue that the Board erred in its interpretation of this provision, and thus erred in failing to find that the Landlords breached the provision multiple times and thereby interfered with the Tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the leased premises.
[42] Subsection 27(1) of the RTA provides:A landlord may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry under the following circumstances:
1. To carry out a repair or replacement or do work in the rental unit.
2. To allow a potential mortgagee or insurer of the residential complex to view the rental unit.
3. To allow a person who holds a certificate of authorization within the meaning of the Professional Engineers Act or a certificate of practice within the meaning of the Architects Act or another qualified person to make a physical inspection of the rental unit to satisfy a requirement imposed under subsection 9(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998.
4. To carry out an inspection of the rental unit, if,
i. the inspection is for the purpose of determining whether or not the rental unit is in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and complies with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards, consistent with the landlord’s obligations under subsection 20(1) or section 161, and
ii. it is reasonable to carry out the inspection.
5. For any other reasonable reason for entry specified in the tenancy agreement. [43] “Rental unit” is defined in the Act as “any living accommodation used or intended for use as rented residential premises…. [Act, s. 2(1)].
[44] The Board found as follows: “in this case, the living accommodation is inside the house.” The Tenants argue that this finding is an error of law – they are entitled to quiet enjoyment of the entire leased property, not just “inside the house”.
[45] I agree with the Tenants in respect to their legal argument. Entry into exterior portions of leased premises could interfere with a tenant’s quite enjoyment of the premises. However, I would not interfere with the Board’s decision on this issue, for the reasons that follow.
[46] Tenants are entitled to quiet enjoyment of all of the leased premises which, in this case, includes land around the house, such as the front and back yards.
|
