Wong v. Hsiao: Court Upholds RTA Application in Rooming House Dispute
Court upholds RTA application to rooming house, rejecting landlord's claim of living on premises
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed to Tenants
$800
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
May 2022
Order Date
May 30, 2022
Dispute Summary
Landlord appealed LTB decision that found the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) applies to the tenancy. Landlord argued the property was exempt under s.5(i) of the RTA as she lived in the building. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the LTB's decision that the RTA applied.
Determinations
- RTA applies to the tenancy
- Landlord did not 'live in the building' when tenancy started in August 2017
- Occasional stays do not constitute 'living in the building' under s.5(i) of RTA
- Landlord cannot unilaterally change nature of tenancy to exempt it from RTA
Case Study
The court affirmed that the proper characterization of the landlord-tenant relationship is made at the time the relationship commenced. The landlord cannot unilaterally change the nature of the relationship from a protected tenancy to an exempt arrangement. The court also agreed with the LTB's interpretation that 'lives in the building' in s.5(i) of the RTA means using it as one's principal residence, not occasional stays.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord argued that the RTA does not apply due to s.5(i) exemption, claiming she lives in the building.
Actions
Landlord occasionally stayed in unoccupied rooms of the rooming house when working late at her nearby store. She later sold her principal residence and began living in a specific room in the rooming house.
Tenant
Arguments
Tenants argued that the RTA applies to their tenancy and that the landlord's occasional stays do not exempt the property from the RTA.
Actions
Tenants signed a lease for long-term occupancy of a room in the rooming house in August 2017.
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court dismissed the landlord's appeal of the LTB decision. The court upheld that the RTA applies to the tenancy, as the landlord did not 'live in the building' when the tenancy started in August 2017. Occasional stays in unoccupied rooms do not constitute 'living in the building' under s.5(i) of the RTA. The court awarded $800 in costs to the tenants.
Adjudicator Details
Divisional Court
Total Orders
1
Landlord Favorable
0.0%
Tenant Favorable
100.0%
Mutual Agreement
0.0%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Other Owed Amount
$800
Costs awarded to tenants for the appeal
Total Owing
$800 (Owed to Tenants)
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.