|
RTA - Safety Impairment. Taghva v. MLYM INC.
In Taghva v. MLYM INC. (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an RTA s.210 appeal, this brought against a successful landlord application "to terminate the tenancy on two grounds: because the tenant committed an illegal act by possessing and pointing what turned out to be a fake gun at two people in the residential premises and because the tenant seriously impaired the safety of those people.".
Here the court considers a fact situation that constituted 'serious impairment of the safety of any person':[9] In addition, s. 66(1) permits the termination of a tenancy if there is an act of a tenant at the residential complex that seriously impairs the safety of any person. This second ground for eviction was found established on the evidence, which included photographs of the tenant holding what appeared to be a gun. The Adjudicator found the circumstances placed those persons in fear for their lives. In his testimony, the tenant confirmed that he was holding the gun in a threatening way that could easily cause a negative impact on those people. As cited by the LTB, relying on a decision of this Court, serious impairment of safety includes both actual impairment and the risk of impairment. Again, no legal error has been shown. . Gorscak v. Jarzabek
In Gorscak v. Jarzabek (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a tenant's RTA s.210 appeal, this brought against the termination of tenancy on grounds of RTA s.66 ['Termination for cause, act impairs safety'] in the context of a fire:Issue 1: Did the Board fail to state the correct legal test for eviction under s. 66(1) of the RTA?
[15] The appellant tenant submits that the Hearing Member did not state the proper legal for an eviction under s. 66(1) of the RTA. This provision states:A landlord may give a tenant notice of termination of the tenancy if,
(a) an act or omission of the tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted in the residential complex by the tenant seriously impairs or has seriously impaired the safety of any person; and
(b) the act or omission occurs in the residential complex. [16] In this context, "impairment" includes both actual impairment and a real risk of impairment: Musse v. 6965083 Canada Inc., 2021 ONSC 1085, at para. 42.
....
[22] Negligence need not be established in order to trigger s. 66(1) of the RTA. All that is required to be established is that a tenant’s act or omission seriously impaired the safety of any person. The Hearing Member erred in law in stating that such omission must amount to negligence.
[23] An error of law must be material to the result in order to warrant the court's intervention. Errors that are inconsequential or do not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice are insufficient to justify appellant intervention: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 134(6) (“CJA”): Maple Leaf Acres Members' Association v. Ellig, 2023 ONSC 3940, at para. 23. The Hearing Member went further than needed in finding that not only had the appellant’s omission (namely, her failure to turn off the stove burner) had seriously impaired her safety of other tenants as well as herself but also that such omission was negligent. The error of law was inconsequential and thus does not warrant this Court’s intervention.
|
