|
RTA - Rent. Zadeh v. Abbas
In Zadeh v. Abbas (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court considered an RTA appeal at a case management attendence, and commented on the basic duties of a tenant:[13] While I am sympathetic to Ms. Zadeh’s health issues, they do not relieve her of her obligation to pay rent. The tenant’s obligation to pay rent is fundamental to the landlord-tenant relationship: Maphangoh v. Revera Retirement Homes, 2021 ONSC 7739(Div. Ct.), at para. 15. A tenant has no right to live to live rent-free even if they run into financial difficulty or experience health problems. . Delic v. 1864447 Ontario Ltd
In Delic v. 1864447 Ontario Ltd (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court cites a prior case on the nature of rent and the automatic stay pending an appeal:[5] As this court wrote in Maphangoh v. Revera Retirement Homes, 2021 ONSC 7739, at para. 15:The obligation to pay rent as it falls due is fundamental. Where a tenant has defaulted in rent obligations for a long time, this court will require the tenant to make rent payments and reasonable payments on account of arrears to maintain a stay of eviction pending appeal. The statutory stay is intended to preserve the court’s ability to do justice at the end of the appeal, not to enable a tenant to abuse the process of the LTB and the court to live rent-free for a long time. Appropriate terms for interim payment of rent and arrears will depend on all of the circumstances of the case – to allow tenants with good faith appeals, who intend to meet their rent obligations within a reasonable period, to preserve their tenancies – and to bring an end to failed tenancies that cause further loss to the landlord every month that goes by. . Rosen v. Reed
In Rosen v. Reed (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considers a compelling non-payment of rent issue [for background see Chapter 7 - Non-Payment of Rent Terminations of the Guide], here whether the $35k monetary LTB limit [RTA s.207] applies to what I call 'catch-up-payments' [under RTA 74(4,11)] [see s.8: 'Enforceable-Order-to-Eviction "Catch-Up Payment" and Tenant's One-Time Motion to Set Aside Eviction Order']. The specific issue is whether a 'catch-up payment' can be over $35k (the tenancy here was an unusually expensive one at $10k/month).
In these quotes, the court [Corbett J] waxes large on the fundamental nature of a tenant's rent obligation, and the nature of an order to terminate a tenancy:[17] The obligation to pay rent is a tenant’s fundamental obligation: Schwartz v. Fuss, 2021 ONSC 1159 (Div. Ct.); Gencay v. Capreit Limited Partnership, 2021 ONSC 8293 (Div. Ct.); Galaxy Real Estate Core Ontario LP v. Kirpichova, 2023 ONSC 593 (Div. Ct.). A landlord is entitled to obtain an eviction order where a tenant is in default of this fundamental obligation. However, the RTA, being remedial in nature, and seeking to protect the interests of tenants in their security of tenure in their home, affords tenants an opportunity to cure their default on notice of the landlord’s claim, prior to that claim being adjudicated by the LTB, and even after the LTB’s decision. In each of these circumstances, the tenant may cure the default by making the landlord whole – that is, by paying arrears “under the tenancy agreement” plus accrued occupancy charges and the landlord’s costs.
[18] The essence of the LTB order, in each case, is an order terminating the tenancy. If the tenant does not void the order, and it is enforced by removing the tenant, the order is then spent and may not subsequently be enforced as an order for payment of money.
|
