|
RTA - Statutory Interpretation. 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 notes the 'remedial' (similar to 'consumer') law interpretation applicable to the RTA, immediately followed by the RTA s.183 'expeditious proceedings' provisions:[54] In Elkins v. Van Wissen, 2023 ONCA 789, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized that the RTA is “remedial legislation with a tenant protection focus. The purposes of the [Act] are set out in s. 1. The first purpose listed is ‘to provide protection for residential tenants from…unlawful evictions’”: at para. 42. This case concerns an allegation of unlawful evictions.
[55] In White v. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, 2022 ONCA 146, the Court of Appeal elaborates on the tenant protection focus of the Act as follows, at para. 10:The Act is remedial legislation designed to redress the imbalance of power between landlords and tenants. It removes leases from the ordinary contract law principles that would otherwise govern and establishes extensive statutory rights for tenants. The Act enjoys primacy over all other legislation, save the Ontario Human Rights Code, and the parties are prohibited from waiving or limiting the protection the Act provides. [56] With respect to the allegation regarding procedural fairness, it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of the RTA is to “encourage speedy, fair and efficient access to justice in residential tenancy matters”: Ontario (Rental Housing Tribunal) v. Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, 2002 CanLII 41961 (ON CA), [2002] 161 O.A.C. 57, at para. 16. Section 183 of the RTA requires the Board to “adopt the most expeditious method of determining the questions arising in a proceeding that affords to all persons directly affected by the proceeding an adequate opportunity to know the issues and be heard on the matter.” . Miller Estate v. Arguelles
In Miller Estate v. Arguelles (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court considered statutory interpretation of the RTA:[15] The Act is remedial, having a “tenant protection focus” and must receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the Act according to its true intent, meaning and sprit. [See Price v. Turnbull’s Grove Inc., 2007 ONCA 408]. . Akbari et al. v. Blenkinsop et al.
In Akbari et al. v. Blenkinsop et al. (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court considers RTA s.1 as a statutory interpretation provision, addressing the 'purpose' of the RTA as it does (the third of the text/context/purpose elements of Rizzo):[19] However, the Appellant submits that the LTB committed an error of law by concluding that he was jointly liable for the amounts ordered by the LTB without considering or analyzing the separate roles and responsibilities that the Landlords and the Applicant had with respect to the Complex. He notes the fact that the Appellant was not an owner of the property. Therefore, as he did not have legal authority to sell the property, he could not be legally responsible for a breach of section s. 48 of the RTA by selling the Complex within one year of the Respondents vacating the Complex.
[20] The Appellant submits that a proper interpretation of s. 57 of the RTA is that in situations of multipleLandlords, ionly landlords who are owners of a property can be held legally responsible for acting in bad faith termination of a tenancy where a sale is involved contrary to the provisions of s. 48.
[21] Had the LTB conducted this necessary inquiry to consider to what degree the Appellant was legally responsible, they would have concluded he was not liable because while he was a landlord; he was not an owner with the legal ability to sell the property.
....
[30] For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed. There is no requirement in the RTA for the LTB to adjudicate and apportion responsibility and liability as between multiple Landlords in the event of a breach of the s. 48 of the RTA.
[31] Section 1 of the RTA states as follows:The purposes of this act are to provide protection for residential tenants from unlawful rent increases and unlawful evictions, to establish a framework for the regulation of residential rents, to balance the rights and responsibilities of residential Landlords and tenants and to provide for the adjudication of disputes and for other processes to informally resolve disputes. 2006, c. 17, s. 1. [32] The balancing of rights referenced in this section is between residential Landlords and Tenants. It is, specifically, not a statute designed to address the balancing of rights between multiple Landlords with respect to a specific residential unit.
[33] Nowhere in this consumer protection legislation is there language requiring the LTB to make such inquiries and determine issues as between multiple Landlords.
[34] If the legislation required the LTB to make an inquiry and determination with respect to determining and apportioning responsibilities and liability as between multiple Landlords, as part of an inquiry to determine whether there has been a breach of s. 48 of the RTA, the RTA would clearly and unequivocally state this. It does not.
[35] As well, such a statutory scheme runs contrary to the general purpose of the legislation. For example, it would require tenants who file a bad faith application pursuant to s. 57 to participate in a process that could stretch out extensively beyond a finding a violation of s. 48 in order for the Tribunal to apportion responsibility and liability among multiple Landlords.
[36] Such a process could be factually complicated and legally lengthy. It could involve extensive evidence determining contractual rights and responsibilities between any number of Landlords with respect to a specific property.
[37] There are also numerous other methods or processes to apportion liability among multiple Landlords, including, but not limited to, contractual arrangements between Landlords who are owners and their agents, such as the Appellant. In many (if not most) instances that would involve the hearing of evidence with respect to the contractual relationships between Landlords. In many instances, the Tenants would have no knowledge of any such contracted arrangements.
[38] The purpose of s. 202 of the RTA is to assist the Tribunal in determining the real nature of the relationship between Landlords and Tenants. It is not to require the Tribunal to determine the relationship between multiple Landlords in the event of a breach of the RTA.
[39] Had the legislature mandated that the LTB address and apportion responsibility for breaches of s. 48 of the RTA, it would have been an error in law for the LTB not to undertake such an inquiry. However, as this requirement is not mandated or directed by the RTA, there can be no error of law due to a failure of the LTB to make such an inquiry and determination.
|
