|
RTA - Notice of Termination. Leaf v Gonzalez
In Leaf v Gonzalez (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court held that any inadequacy in an RTA Notice of Termination was an error of (at most) mixed fact and law, and thus not appealable under RTA s.210 (which only allow appeal of 'questions of law'):[4] The first issue raised by the Appellants is not a question of law alone. They complain about the sufficiency of notice and that it did not meet the requirements of s. 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17. In particular, that by failing to state the specific times when the Tenants smoked marijuana in their unit, the notice was deficient and denied them procedural fairness.
[5] Subsection 43(2) of the Act provides that a notice of termination “shall also set out the reasons and details respecting the termination ...”. Similarly, section 65(2) of the Act requires the landlord to “set out the grounds” for the termination in the notice. It is not a question of law alone whether the details or grounds must include times. Rather, the issue of the sufficiency of the notice is dependent on the circumstances, or facts of each case.
[6] Counsel for the Appellants took us to cases she suggested make times of events a requirement of all notices. See: Metro Capital Management Inc., Re, 2002 CarswellOnt 8691, [2002] O.J. No. 5931; York University v York, 2021 CanLII 139918 (ON LTB); HOL-04139-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87555 (ON LTB); Parent v Girard, 2021 CanLII 143620 (ON LTB). However, those cases must be considered in context. In some cases, specific times may be necessary to provide adequate notice, but those cases do not amend the Act, which does not require specific times be included in notices. What the Act requires is that notice provides the “grounds” or “reasons” for termination, not times.
|
