In Browne v. Henley Crescent (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed an RTA appeal, here brought against a landlord's successful review (reconsideration) application and the resultant second hearing which resulted in the appellant spouse of the tenant being evicted.
Here the court makes a useful comment on the meaning of the term 'prejudice'. While it makes this comment specifically in the RTA General Reg s.3(2) ['spousal assumption of tenancy on death or abandonment'] context, under conventional statutory interpretation principles (ie. 'consistent meaning within statute' - see http://www.isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=statutory-interpretation.consistent-meaning) it may carry through to other RTA contexts:
[45] The only prejudice the landlord has suffered by having Ms. Browne remain in the unit is the loss of the opportunity to double the rent that it receives for the unit. This is not the kind of prejudice that the drafters of the Regulation were concerned about alleviating. In fact, the purpose of the Regulation is to offer the remaining spouse the ability to remain in their home if that home was their principal residence and they are prepared to honour the rental obligations associated with that unit. Enabling a landlord to behave in a way that facilitates its ability to double the rent it receives for the unit would undermine that purpose.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
