Egan v. Kincardine Golf & Country Club: Residential Tenancies Act Applies to Long-Term Cottage Lease
Court rules Residential Tenancies Act applies to 99-year cottage lease, rejecting landlord's claim of seasonal exemption
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Jun 2023
Order Date
Aug 4, 2023
Dispute Summary
The tenant filed an application with the Landlord and Tenant Board to determine if the Residential Tenancies Act applied to his tenancy of a waterfront lot with a cottage. The landlord argued the property was exempt under s. 5(a) of the Act as seasonal or temporary accommodation. The Board ruled the Act did apply. The landlord appealed this decision to the Divisional Court.
Determinations
- The Residential Tenancies Act applies to the tenancy
- The property is not exempt under s. 5(a) of the Act
- The 99-year lease term indicates the occupation was not 'seasonal or temporary'
- There is a difference between seasonal rentals and annual rentals used seasonally
- The property is an annual rental used seasonally, not exempt under s. 5(a)
Case Study
The court analyzed whether the Board erred in law in determining that s. 5(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act did not exempt the property. The court found that the Board correctly interpreted and applied s. 5(a), considering the 99-year lease term and the purpose of the Act to protect residential tenants. The court distinguished between seasonal rentals (which may be exempt) and annual rentals used seasonally (which are not exempt).
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
The landlord argued that the property was exempt under s. 5(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act as seasonal or temporary accommodation, based on the original intent of the lease and the actual seasonal use of the property.
Actions
The landlord agreed to allow the leasehold interest to continue until November 30, 2020 after the lease expired, then posted 'No Trespass' signs and placed padlocks on the cottage on March 16, 2021.
Tenant
Arguments
The tenant argued that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to his tenancy and that the property was not exempt under s. 5(a) of the Act.
Actions
The tenant or his predecessors erected a cottage on the leased lot and used it typically from April/May to October, though there were no restrictions on use during other times of the year.
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court dismissed the landlord's appeal, finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board did not err in law when it determined that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to the tenant's lease of a waterfront lot with a cottage. The court agreed with the Board's interpretation that the property was not exempt under s. 5(a) of the Act as seasonal or temporary accommodation, given the 99-year lease term and the purpose of the Act to protect residential tenants.
Adjudicator Details
Divisional Court
Total Orders
7
Landlord Favorable
57.1%
Tenant Favorable
42.9%
Mutual Agreement
0.0%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
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.