|
RTA - Notice of Termination. Boomer v. Arvane Farms Ltd.
In Boomer v. Arvane Farms Ltd. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed an RTA s.210 appeal by ten mobile home park tenants from eviction orders, here where the LL sought "to close the park and convert the land to non-residential use" using the s.50 "use for a purpose other than residential premises" provision.
Section 43(2) of the RTA requires a Notice of Termination to provide "reasons and details respecting the termination". Here the court considers the detail adequacy of the Notices of Termination, where the tenants argued that they "failed to provide sufficient reasons and detail about how the Landlord intended to carry out the conversion":[22] The notices of termination served on the Tenants were identical and provided as follows:Closure and conversion to a commercial development.
The subject lands are zoned "Service Commercial" and were acquired by the land owner as an investment property for future commercial development. The Landlord wishes to convert the use of the lands to commercial, in keeping with the relevant By-Law and for this purpose, closure of the park is required.
The subject lands will be kept for commercial development, developed by the Landlord, or sold for "Service Commercial" purposes. [23] The Tenants submit that the notices were void for two reasons:(1) The notices failed to provide sufficient reasons and detail about how the Landlord intended to carry out the conversion, and that it was so vague that it was impossible for the Tenants to know the case to be met and whether/how to dispute it; and
(2) One of the stated potential intended uses, the sale of the property, is not conversion to a non-residential use. [24] On the first issue, the Tenants submit that the notices were too vague. They did not know how the conversion would take place. Thus, they could not make an informed decision about how to contest the Landlord's claim.
[25] The Tenants submit that the LTB failed to use the test as set out in Ball v. Metro Capital Property, [2002] O.J. No. 5931 (Div. Ct.), and therefore, erred in law. In Ball, this Court articulated the purpose for requiring a landlord to provide reasons and details, including that the tenant is entitled to know the case to be met and to make an informed decision about whether to dispute the allegations.
[26] The LTB refers to the test in Ball at paragraph 31 of its Review Decision, and correctly summarizes that it is necessary to consider the context of each case to determine whether there is sufficient detail.
[27] In Ball, the landlord served an N5 notice of termination. The landlord had to give sufficient details so that the tenants understood what was required to void the notice. Those facts do not apply in this case. At paragraph 16 of the Notice Decision, the LTB found that the notice served by the Landlord provides enough information for the Tenants to understand that the Landlord is asserting an intention to convert the rental units to commercial use and as a result will require closure of the mobile park. This is not an error of law but a finding of fact, a ground of appeal unavailable to the Tenants.
[28] The Notice Decision held that the name and nature of the business that will occupy the property once it has been converted is not required and that it was sufficient to state that the property will be kept for commercial development.
[29] The Review Decision provides that the notices could have provided more details and been clearer, but still met the requirements under s. 43(2). The level of specificity and the nature of detail required will change with the context of the notice. The Board then carefully considers the test set out in Ball. This decision also recognizes that in Ball, the notice had to provide sufficient details because the notice of termination was voidable under s. 64(3). The same rationale does not apply in this case, because the notice is not voidable, and the same level of detail would not be required.
[30] Having considered the test in Ball and the context of this case, the LTB was satisfied that there was sufficient detail in the notice to meet the requirements of s. 43(2). In the context of this case, the property is already zoned for commercial use and no permits are required. The only step needed to convert the property is to stop using the land as a mobile home park.
[31] I find that neither the Notice Decision nor the Review Decision contain an error of law on this issue.
[32] On the second issue, the Tenants submit that the failure to address the issue of the sale prevents them from seeking meaningful review. However, the Notice Decision addresses the issue of the sale. The LTB found that the mere fact that the notice mentions a possible future sale does not render it invalid. The Member correctly identified that if the Landlord intended to sell the property, a different notice, an N12 Notice should have been used. The sale was mentioned as something that could occur in the future. The property was not currently for sale and was not the ground for the termination.
[33] Again, the Review Decision addresses this. The possibility of a sale is at the end of the details that the Landlord provided, a reference to one of the possible outcomes, once the property was converted.
[34] I find no error of law in this regard. . Cowton v. Landlord and Tenant Board
In Cowton v. Landlord and Tenant Board (Div Court, 2024) the Ontario Divisional Court considers the duty to give notice of termination under the RTA:[17] ... The RTA doesn’t require the landlord to give the tenant notice. It only has to give an adult in the rental unit a copy of the notice. It also doesn’t require that person to give the tenant notice. As there was no dispute that Leonard gave Patrick the notice, it doesn’t matter if he then gave Rilene or Emily the notice. As a result, Rilene and Emily had notice of termination.
[18] In this court, Rilene and Emily argue that the hearing was procedurally unfair because the Board “found that the N4 was correctly served before finding that the Appellants were in a joint tenancy with the other tenants.” In other words, the Board denied the appellants procedural fairness by deciding the service issues first. They say they were denied the opportunity to argue that they weren’t a joint tenancy once the Board decided the service issue.
[19] I don’t agree with appellants. “Service is the fundamental start of the proceeding. It is the act that invites the defendant into the Court’s process. It initiates the right to take part.” See Darlind Construction, Inc. v Rooflifters, LLC, 2009 CanLII 13617, at para 31. The Board was correct to determine whether Emily and Rilene were served before it heard their arguments on the merits. As disclosed by the Board’s reasons, it then considered, at paragraphs 18 to 22 of the decision, whether Rilene and Emily were joint tenants with Patrick and Jayson. Rilene and Emily were given ample opportunity to challenge service, and then dispute Leonard’s position on the form of the tenancy. . 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.
|
