|
RTA - Changing Locks. 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).
|
