The property contained no more than three units, a key condition to terminate the tenancy
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has upheld an eviction order against a tenant following the landlords’ decision to sell the property.
Tenant Dana Turner sought to overturn a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) ruling that terminated her tenancy. The case involved an application by landlords Gordon Dong and Kantilal Chunilal Modi, who had sold the property and required the rental unit for the purchaser’s personal residential use.
The LTB initially granted the landlords' application under s. 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, which allows landlords to terminate a tenancy if a purchaser in good faith requires the unit for residential occupation. Turner disputed the LTB’s finding that the residential complex contained no more than three units, a key condition for such an application under the act. She claimed the property, a side-split house, included four self-contained residential units. However, the LTB found otherwise, determining that there was only one rental unit with a single tenant—Turner herself. Despite the presence of other occupants, the board ruled that there were no valid subtenancies, as Turner had not vacated the unit, which is required for a sublet under the act.
The LTB's decision to proceed without granting Turner’s request for an adjournment further became a point of contention. Turner had sought an adjournment to better prepare for the hearing, believing she would win on the preliminary issue regarding the number of units. The LTB denied this request, concluding that Turner had sufficient time to prepare, as she had received the notice of the landlords' application in September 2022.
On appeal, Turner argued that the LTB erred in its ruling and that she was denied procedural fairness, particularly in the board’s refusal to allow a "video walkthrough" of the property to demonstrate the number of units. The Superior Court rejected these claims, noting that the LTB's decision was based on the zoning restrictions, which limited the property to a single dwelling, and the evidence provided by both parties. The court found no legal error in the LTB’s decision and determined that procedural fairness was maintained throughout the proceedings.
The court dismissed Turner’s appeal to introduce new evidence, such as tenancy agreements and photographs. The court ruled that this evidence could have been presented at the LTB hearing and would not have affected the outcome.
As a result, the eviction order remained in place, and the court denied Turner’s request for a stay of the eviction.
