Amini v. Blu Stellar Real Estate: RTA Applies to Commercial Property Basement
Divisional Court confirms RTA applies to commercial property basement, dismissing tenant's appeal against $18000 rent arrears order
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed to Landlord
$18,000
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date (Estimate)
Nov 2022
Hearing Date
Apr 2023
Order Date
May 1, 2023
We estimate Application Date using rent arrears.
Dispute Summary
Tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board Review Order requiring him to pay $18,000 plus interest in rent arrears for a basement unit. The tenant argued the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply as the lease was part of a larger commercial transaction and he never lived in the unit. The Board rejected this argument, and the tenant appealed to the Divisional Court.
Determinations
- The RTA applies to the tenancy of the basement unit
- The Board correctly applied s. 202(1) of the RTA in reaching its decision
- The tenant benefited from the Residential Tenancy Agreement and cannot now argue it does not apply
- The tenant's assertion that the RTA does not apply constitutes bad faith
Case Study
The Court found no error of law in the Board's decision that the RTA applies to the tenancy. The Court noted that the definition of 'rental unit' in the RTA includes accommodation intended for use as rented residential premises, even if not actually used for that purpose. The Board correctly considered the substance of the transaction, including the parties' intentions and the execution of a Residential Tenancy Agreement, in determining that the RTA applied.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord argued that an individual cannot rely on an agreement for one purpose and then seek to resile from this agreement when it is no longer convenient.
Actions
Landlord's representative testified that the basement unit had sleeping quarters, an operational kitchen, as well as a toilet, sink and shower. He frequently observed the tenant coming out of the basement.
Tenant
Arguments
Tenant argued that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply to the tenancy because the lease was part of a larger commercial transaction and he never lived in the unit.
Actions
Tenant executed a residential tenancy agreement for the basement unit to receive a discount on monthly payments. Tenant admitted to understanding it was a residential tenancy agreement when signing. Tenant and others used the basement for storage of unwanted items.
Aggravating Factors
The tenant benefited from the Residential Tenancy Agreement by avoiding HST on $3,000 monthly rent and exploiting RTA protections when defaulting on rent payments, then arguing in bad faith that the RTA does not apply.
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court dismissed the tenant's appeal, finding no error of law in the Landlord and Tenant Board's decision that the Residential Tenancies Act applies to the tenancy of the basement unit. The Court upheld the Board's order requiring the tenant to pay $18,000 plus interest in rent arrears.
Adjudicator Details
Divisional Court
Total Orders
1
Landlord Favorable
100.0%
Tenant Favorable
0.0%
Mutual Agreement
0.0%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Lawful Rent
$3,000
Rent Arrears
$18,000
Total Owing
$18,000 (Owed to Landlord)
Source
Similar Cases
Click to switch between case outcomes
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Goklani v Cannata
Toronto tenants' maintenance dispute against landlord dismissed by LTB
Jeff v Ferguson
Woodstock landlords awarded $35,186 in rent arrears, tenants face eviction for non-payment.
Oxford Properties Group v Benjamin
Tenant ordered to pay $22,461.70 for flood damage with conditional tenancy preservation
Sufi Properties Ltd v Nieman
Tenants ordered to pay $16,866 in rent arrears to Former Landlord after complex dispute.