|
RTA - Substantial Interference. Holland v 149732 Ontario Inc.
In Holland v 149732 Ontario Inc. (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered the effect of the death of the 'victim' of a substantial interference termination and eviction - ie. was the LTB order moot?:[13] The death of the complainant tenant affected occurred after the hearings, and after the appeal process had begun. The appeal is not moot because H.D. has died. She was a witness, not a party. Because the tenancy was terminated because of the actions of the Appellant, that fault is not wiped out or cancelled because the victim of the interference has died: Hassan v. Niagara Housing Authority, [2000] O.J. No. 5650, paras. 16 to 18; Morguard Residential v. Peters, 2010 ONSC 2550, at para. 10. Further, the other tenants who have moved into the unit previously occupied by the Appellant are entitled to reasonable efforts by the landlord to see that they are not subjected to substantial interference, just as all residential tenants are: North Avenue Road Corporation v. Travares, 2015 ONSC 6986, at paras. 30 to 37. . Bailey v. Capreit Limited Partnership
In Bailey v. Capreit Limited Partnership (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court noted that the appellant had success before the LTB in arguing that the LL was liable for substantially interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit, in this case by the LL's inaction in responding to the noise of another tenant [RTA s.22]:[21] The Appellant invited the court to review all of the evidence that had been filed before the LTB. But the LTB’s assessment of evidence and findings of fact are not subject to an appeal. In any event, we note that the Appellant was successful in many of his allegations before the LTB, which found that he had established that he was subject to excessive noise in his rental unit from adjacent units on a frequent basis, and that the Landlord had not taken adequate measures to stop the disruptive noise coming from adjacent units.
|
