McKnight v. Kirk: Divisional Court Upholds LTB Decision on RTA Exemption
Divisional Court upholds LTB decision that RTA doesn't apply to shared living space with landlord's family member
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Jun 2022
Order Date
Jul 7, 2022
Dispute Summary
The Tenant appealed the Landlord and Tenant Board's decision that dismissed his claim against the Landlord on the basis that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply to the tenancy. The Tenant requested that the LTB decision be quashed and the matter be remitted to the LTB with a direction that the RTA applies.
Determinations
- The LTB correctly interpreted s. 5(i) of the RTA
- The LTB's factual findings were supported by evidence
- The sale of the premises did not affect the application of s. 5(i)
- Section 5.1(3) of the RTA does not apply to s. 5(i) exemptions
- The Landlord was not required to bring an application under s. 9 of the RTA
Case Study
The court found that the LTB did not err in its interpretation of s. 5(i) of the RTA or in its application of the exemption to the facts of the case. The court held that the relevant time for determining the application of the exemption is when the tenancy began, and the subsequent sale of the premises had no impact on this determination. The court also rejected the Tenant's arguments regarding the co-ownership of the property and the application of s. 5.1(3) of the RTA.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
The Landlord argued that the s. 5(i) exemption of the RTA applied to the tenancy, as the Landlord's daughter shared the kitchen and bathroom facilities with the tenants.
Actions
The Landlord evicted the Tenant on March 16, 2021 with the assistance of police, without an LTB eviction order, based on the claim that the tenancy was exempt from the RTA.
Tenant
Arguments
The Tenant argued that the LTB erred in interpreting s. 5(i) of the RTA, failed to consider the co-ownership of the property, and should have considered the subsequent sale of the premises.
Actions
The Tenant installed a security camera in the common kitchen on January 14, 2021, which the Landlord asked him to remove.
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court dismissed the Tenant's appeal of the LTB decision. The court found that the LTB did not err in its interpretation of s. 5(i) of the RTA or in its application of the exemption to the facts of the case. The court upheld the LTB's finding that the RTA did not apply to the tenancy due to the s. 5(i) exemption.
Adjudicator Details
Divisional Court
Total Orders
7
Landlord Favorable
85.7%
Tenant Favorable
14.3%
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.