Summary:
1. When is providing landlord's legal name and address not required?
2. How is the landlord's address to be provided?
3. Can an alias be provided as the landlord's legal name?
4. Can it be another person's address?
5. Can it be the address of the rental unit?
6. What are the available remedies for landlord's breach?
7. Other ways of finding out the landlord's address (LRO / Teranet / Georwarehouse and Tax Assessment Rolls).
Introduction
According to RTA section 12:
"If a tenancy agreement entered into on or after June 17, 1998 is in writing, the landlord shall give a copy of the agreement [setting out legal name and address for service of documents], signed by the landlord and the tenant, to the tenant within 21 days after the tenant signs it and gives it to the landlord" (RTA subsection 12(2)).
"If a tenancy agreement entered into on or after June 17, 1998 is not in writing, the landlord shall, within 21 days after the tenancy begins, give to the tenant written notice of the legal name and address of the landlord to be used for giving notices and other documents under this Act" (RTA subsection 12(3)).
"Until a landlord has complied ... (a) the tenant’s obligation to pay rent is suspended; and (b) the landlord shall not require the tenant to pay rent" (RTA subsection 12(4)).
"After the landlord has complied ... the landlord may require the tenant to pay any rent withheld by the tenant" (RTA subsection 12(5)).
1. Not applicable to older tenancies
According to RTA section 12:
"12 (1) Every written tenancy agreement entered into on or after June 17, 1998 shall set out the legal name and address of the landlord to be used for the purpose of giving notices or other documents under this Act. 2006, c. 17, s. 12 (1)."
"11. I find however that section 12 of the Act is inapplicable for another reason: because it only applies to tenancy agreements entered into on or after June 17, 1998 and this tenancy began in 1992. Again, when the Landlords purchased the rental unit they also acquired the existing tenancy. This is because subsection 2(2) of the Act defines a “tenancy agreement” as an “agreement between a tenant and a landlord” where “landlord” includes in its definition a successor in title which is what the Landlords are. Subsection 38(1) of the Act deems a tenancy agreement that has not been renewed or terminated to be renewed on a month-to-month basis. Also as noted above, covenants run with the landlord where the tenancy agreement was a covenant."
"Refusing to Provide Address:
38. It was the evidence of the Tenant that the Landlord would not provide the Landlord’s mailing address.
39. Subsection 12(1) of the Act states: “Every written tenancy agreement entered into on or after June 17, 1998 shall set out the legal name and address of the landlord to be used for the purpose of giving notices or other documents under this Act.”
40. This tenancy began prior to June 17, 1998. What this means is that I do not have jurisdiction to address this issue."
______________________________________
2. The address doesn't have to be specifically in the lease, it just needs to be provided somehow somewhere
"30. Tenant’s counsel submitted that the Tenant was under no obligation to pay rent pursuant to Section 12 of the Act because the Landlord failed to provide the Tenant with a lease outlining the Landlord’s legal name and address for service. This argument must fail for the following reasons.
[...]
32. Here, the evidence shows that the Tenant was well aware of the Landlord’s legal name and address for service during the material time. The offer outlines the Landlord’s address at the top of the page. As well, the two money orders provided by the Tenant to the Landlord state the payee as “10 St. Dennis Drive Ltd.” The Landlord deposited the said money orders and no evidence was provided that the Landlord’s legal name is different from that stated on the money orders."
______________________________________
3. Using an alias as a legal name may be acceptable
"[10] Mr. Houle relies on subsection 12(4), which operates to suspend his rent, but as subsection 12(5) notes, there is no escaping the obligation to pay all the rent he owes once he has a written tenancy agreement setting out the legal name and address of the landlord to the use for purpose of giving notice or other documents under the RTA.
[11] It appears that Mr. Hayes did identify himself to Mr. Houle as David Jons. Mr. Houle alleges that the use of an alias was part of Mr. Hayes’ effort to avoid accounting for assets in the course of a matrimonial dispute, which is the subject of a separate proceeding between Mr. Hayes and his spouse. At no relevant point, however, was Mr. Houle under any misapprehension about Mr. Hayes’ true identity. The affidavit of Mr. Hayes in support of the motion, on which there was no cross-examination, notes: “The appellant, Greg Houle, raised the issue of my identity at the Landlord and Tenant Tribunal hearing and it was deemed irrelevant. I disclosed my real name to Greg Houle. There is no issue with my identity”. There is no contrary evidence about the state of Mr. Houle’s knowledge.
[12] The purpose for section 12 has clearly been met. There is no doubt that Mr. Houle knows that Mr. Hayes owns the property and is the person with whom he has been dealing. The relevance of the identity issue is perhaps a legal issue; it is the sole possible legal issue in this appeal. But its importance dissolves on the facts.
[13] Assuming that the use of an alias means that there was technical noncompliance with section 12, it could easily be remedied by having Mr. Hayes deliver another copy of the residential rental agreement amended by the substitution of the name, “Edward Hayes” for that of “David Jons”. He should deliver such an amended copy forthwith, using the copy that Mr. Houle has signed already. Even without the order of the Landlord and Tenant Board, Mr. Houle would then immediately be liable under section 12(5) of the RTA for all rent owing. The argument advanced by Mr. Houle is therefore a mere technicality and has no effect on his ultimate liability. See Nicholls v. Tepperman, [2008] O.J. No. 4123 (Div. Ct.).
[...]
[17] [...] On the legal issue of identity, I find that the appeal is manifestly devoid of merit. On the evidence before me the appeal is frivolous and vexatious."
______________________________________
4. Agent's or legal representative's address is acceptable
"[30] After hearing the submissions of the parties, the Member issued an order in relation to all of these applications on March 31, 2015. He made the following determinations:
[...]
2. While the lease did not set out the address of the landlord, the landlord subsequently identified the landlord’s counsel as the landlord’s agent, provided the business address of counsel and stated that the landlord’s address is his counsel’s business address. This complies with s. 12, which only requires the provision of an address for notice of documents, and not a personal address.
[...]
Did the Board Err in Concluding that the Landlord had Complied with the Requirements of Section 12 of the Act?
[...]
[74] As I have noted, the Member concluded that while the lease did not set out the address of the landlord, the landlord subsequently identified the landlord’s counsel as the landlord’s agent, provided the business address of counsel, in effect stating that the landlord’s address is his counsel’s business address. This complies with s. 12(1), which only requires the provision of an address for notice of documents, and not a personal address.
[75] The tenant did not pursue the argument that the landlord had not complied with the requirement to set out his legal name. He obviously had. But he argued that the Member erred in law in concluding that the landlord had cured his failure to set out his address for the purpose of giving notices or other documents under the Act.
[76] In my view, the Member’s conclusion on this issue was entirely reasonable, taking into consideration as he did the stated purpose of providing an address: to provide a lawful method for the tenant to give notices or other documents under the Act to the landlord. I see no possible legal error in the Member’s conclusion that giving the address of counsel for the landlord as the address for giving notices or other documents complies with s. 12(1) of the Act."
"10. The Tenant also argues that she should be excused from paying rent in accordance with section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (“Act”) because the Landlords’’ did not provide a residential address. The lease signed by the Tenant indicates the Landlord was using a property agent for the purpose of giving and receiving notices pursuant to the agreement and supplied a telephone number and email address. The Landlord has complied with section 12 of the Act having provided the address and contact information for its agent."
"2. The Landlord’s address was already at issue in a prior proceeding. In TNT-89120-17, the Tenant asked the Board to order the Landlord to provide an address for service as required by subsection 12(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘RTA’). In reply to that request, the Landlord’s representative confirmed that notices under the RTA could be served to the Landlord by mailing them to a particular address care of a real estate brokerage. I therefore held that the Landlord had “provided an address as required by subsection 12(1). It is the Landlord’s responsibility to ensure that she receives any documents served to her at that address.”"
"46. The Landlords assert that their Agent’s name and address was included in the Agreement and the understanding with the Tenants was to direct the rental payments to him.
47. Page 2 of the Confirmation of Co-operation and Representation attached to the Agreement, clearly sets out the Landlords’ Agent’s name and address. There was no dispute that the Tenants dealt directly with the Landlords’ Agent throughout the tenancy. They provided him with post-dated cheques for the initial one year term, and communicated with only him regarding issues in their tenancy. Consequently, I am satisfied that the Tenants had the legal name of the Landlords and an address to be used for the purpose of giving notices or other documents. Therefore, their obligation to pay rent was never suspended."
"6. The Tenant argued that his obligation to pay rent is suspended pursuant to section 12 of the Act because the Landlord has failed to provide him with an address of the Landlord to be used for giving notices or documents under the Act.
7. The tenancy commenced in March 2013. The offer to lease did not provide the address of the Landlord, but provided the contact information of the Landlord’s realtor with respect to the agreement. Within the first few weeks of the tenancy the Landlord’s realtor made it clear to the Tenant, and the Tenant was of like mind, that the Tenant should deal directly with the Landlord concerning maintenance issues. The Tenant was provided with the two e-mail addresses for the Landlord, who was and is out of the country. E-mailing notices is not a permitted method of service under the Act. In any event, the Landlord did not respond to the Tenant’s e-mails requesting the Landlord’s address and repairs. The Tenant proceeded to pay for some repairs on his own.
8. In early 2014, the Landlord gave the Tenant a notice of rent increase without providing an address for service of notices or documents. Thus, the Tenant’s obligation to pay rent was suspended. The question is whether the Landlord subsequently provided an address for service and therefore may require the Tenant to pay rent withheld by the Tenant. The Landlord’s counsel served the Tenant with a notice of termination for non-payment of rent. The notice identifies the Landlord’s counsel as agent for the Landlord and provides the business address of counsel. The application to terminate the tenancy states that the Landlord’s address is his counsel’s business address. The Tenant contended that the address provided by the Landlord does not comply with section 12 of the Act because it is not the Landlord’s address and that the provision does not contemplate that he would submit maintenance requests to the Landlord’s counsel. The Landlord is not required to provide his personal address. He is only required to provide an address for the service of notices or documents under the Act. The Tenant was able to serve two applications against the Landlord by mailing them to the business address of the Landlord. For greater clarity, on January 11, 2015, counsel for the Landlord advised the Tenant that the Landlord’s address for service of notices or other documents is counsel’s business address. Once the Tenant was provided with an address for service of notices or documents under the Act, the obligation to pay rent resumed (see Houle v. Hayes, 2010 ONSC 924 (CanLii); Rpms Property Management Inc. v. Twiddy, 2015 CanLii 881 (ON SCSM))."
"1. Since the commencement of the tenancy, the Landlord has communicated with the Tenants exclusively through her real estate agent, (“Win”). Win also collected rent cheques from the Tenants on behalf of the Landlord at her office located at Residential address. This is the only address provided to the Tenants for the Landlord. Thus, I find that this address constitutes an address of the Landlord for the purpose of serving the application and notice of hearing, in accordance with section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the “Act”)."
Address abroad:
"3. The Tenants first application named both the Landlord and his mother-in-law as Landlords. The Landlord’s mother-in-law attended the initial hearing and requested her name be removed as she was not a Landlord. She stated she sometimes collected rent for the Landlord. She advised the Board the Landlord resided in Florida and worked in Manitoba. At the request of the member she provided the Landlord’s Florida address as required under Section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’)."
______________________________________
5. Can it be the address of the rental unit?
5.1. Same address as the residential complex was not acceptable
"3. The tenancy agreement entered into by the parties does not contain the legal name and address of the Landlord. Section 12 (1) of the RTA states that every written tenancy agreement entered into after June 17, 1998 must contain the legal name and address of the Landlord. The Landlord does not live at the residential complex and the tenancy agreement does not show any other address for the Landlord. The Tenant requested the information from R.W and was denied access to the information. Even the application filed by the Landlord shows the residential complex as his address. Section 12 (4) of the RTA states until the Landlord has provided the required information the Landlord shall not require the Tenant to pay rent. Therefore, until the Landlord complies with the legislation the Tenant cannot be in arrears of rent."
5.2. Same address as the rental unit was not acceptable in some situations
"4. At the hearing of the request for review the Landlord argued that he had provided the Tenant with an address for service in that the lease agreement between them sets out the address of the rental unit and there is a drop box in the residential complex.
5. The difficulty with the Landlord’s argument is that the rental unit is not an address for service for the Landlord under the Act and the drop box here does not have an address.
6. The purpose of section 12 of the Act is to ensure that a tenant can send the landlord the rent and serve documents under the Act.
7. Pursuant to s. 191(1)(f) a tenant is entitled to serve documents on a landlord by sending them “by mail to the last known address where the person resides or carries on business”. Rather obviously, the Landlord does not reside at the rental unit and it is not an address where he carries on business. A drop box does not have an address at all.
8. Absent an address for service, it is difficult for a tenant to exercise the rights given to tenants under the Act. This is why tenants are given the right to self-help in the form of the right to withhold payment. It is an extraordinary remedy designed to ensure tenants are not deprived of their rights under the Act.
9. Here, the Landlord not only failed to provide an address for service in the lease, but he failed to provide one on the notice of termination or on the application. The evidence before the Member on the motion to void included evidence from the Tenant that her lack of an address for service made it impossible for her to void the order by paying the Landlord as she had no means to prove she had delivered cheques to him.
10. Given all of the above, and pursuant to s. 12(4)(b) of the Act, the Landlord had no right to demand rent from the Tenant. This means he had no right to serve notice to terminate for non-payment of rent and no right to file this application with the Board. It also means that the Board lacked the necessary jurisdiction to issue order TEL-71482-16 dated September 20, 2016.
11. As a result, order TEL-71482-16 shall be cancelled or quashed. It has no valid force or effect.
12. At the review hearing I ensured the Tenant was given an address for service for the Landlord in writing. As a result, if the Tenant is still in arrears of rent, the Landlord is now entitled to serve on her notice of termination for non-payment."
"1. The difficulty that arises with respect to the Landlords’ application for an order requiring the Tenant to pay the rent is that the Board lacks jurisdiction to issue the order requested. This is because the Landlords refused to provide the Tenant with an address for service until the hearing before the Board.
2. Pursuant to section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act') a landlord is required to provide written notice of the legal name and address of the landlord to be used for giving notices and other documents under the Act.
3. This does not mean a landlord must provide a home address but it does require a landlord to provide contact information that the tenant can use for the purpose of serving notices and filing applications under the Act. Because that is the purpose it is not permissible to use the address of the rental unit as the landlord’s address for service.
[...]
5. What this means is that until an address for service is provided a tenant’s obligation to pay rent is suspended and the landlord cannot pursue the tenant for rent or file applications with the Board to collect rent. It is only after the address for service is provided that a landlord has the right to require payment of rent. In other words, the Landlords here were not legally entitled to file the part of this application that demands the Tenant be ordered to pay rent. As a result, this part of the Landlords’ application shall be dismissed.
6. That being said, now that they have provided an address for service, the Tenant is obligated to pay and the Landlords have the right to demand payment and pursue the Tenant for non-payment with the Board by filing an application."
5.3. Same address as the rental unit was acceptable sometimes
Review Order by Karen Wallace:
"4. Two written tenancy agreements were signed. There is an address for the Landlord in the first written tenancy agreement but it is the rental unit. The Landlord confirmed at the original hearing that he does not live in the rental unit.
5. The Member correctly determined that the Landlord could not use the rental unit as his address for service of documents since that is the Tenants’ address and the Landlord does not reside there.
6. Subsection 12(4) states that the Tenants’ obligation to pay rent is suspended and the Landlord shall not require the Tenants to pay rent until the obligation to provide an address has been complied with.
7. By serving the N4 notice of termination, the Landlord was requiring the Tenants to pay rent or their tenancy could terminate. The Landlord could not serve the N4 notice (since he could not require the Tenants to pay rent) until he complied with section 12 of the Act.
8. The Tenants and the Landlord requested that I listen to the recording of the original hearing. The Tenants claimed the Landlord’s wife stated that she lived at the rental unit and that is why the address in the tenancy agreement is the rental unit. The Landlord’s wife said she never said that.
9. The hearing recording reveals that the Landlord’s wife stated that the rental unit was her legal address since she stores many of her belongings in the basement. However, she did not say she actually lived there. She said she lives with her husband’s parents.
10. Two written tenancy agreements were signed on the same day. This is undisputed. The Landlord said this was done to ensure that many standard lease clauses were captured between the two agreements. The second agreement has an address for service Paragraph 4 of that agreement specifically states that the Royal Windsor Drive address provided is to be used for “service of any legal process or notice”.
11. At the review hearing the Tenants stated they did not receive a copy of this second agreement.
12. Yet, the recording of the original hearing reveals that it was the Tenants who gave the Member a copy of the second agreement and they specifically referred to the Royal Windsor Drive address. As a result, I find that the Tenants had a copy of the agreement.
13. From the questions the Member asked the parties at the hearing and comments made, it is evident the Member interpreted section 12 to mean the Landlord has to give the Tenants the address where he is actually physically residing to comply with section 12.
14. This is an unreasonably narrow interpretation. The purpose of section 12 is to ensure that a tenant has a valid address to serve their landlord with notices or other documents under the Act. There is no requirement that it be the place where the Landlord physically resides.
15. In some situations, the actual address a person resides at is not an address where mail is reliably delivered. For example, a rural address may not have mail delivery and a P.O. Box in the closest town will be the mailing address. In that situation, a landlord would never be able to comply with the narrow interpretation of section 12.
16. As long as the Landlord provided an address for service of documents the requirement of section 12 has been met. The address does not have to be the personal address where the Landlord resides.
17. This reasoning was adopted by the Ontario Divisional Court in N v P, 2016 ONSC 4348 (CanLII). The Court determined that providing the address of the landlord’s lawyer for service of documents met the requirements of section 12 of the Act.
18. Since the Landlord provided an address for service of documents in the written tenancy agreement, the Tenants’ obligation to pay rent was not suspended and the finding that the N4 notice was not permitted was a serious error."
"4. There was no dispute that the address that the Landlords gave the Tenants was the address of the rental unit where the Tenants used to reside. The Landlords do not reside there.
5. The Landlords argued that section 12 of the Act does not require the Landlords to give their actual residential address as long as the Tenants have an address for the Landlords to send notices or documents to them.
6. I agree with the Landlords’ position on the type of address to be provided. Section 12 does not require that that actual residential address of the Landlords be provided to the Tenants. An address, such as a P.O. Box, could be provided to meet the requirements of section 12.
7. A purpose of section 12 is to ensure that tenants are able to send written notices or other documents to their landlord.
8. At first glance, it seems to defy logic and common sense that the address for the Landlords could be the same as the address for the Tenants. It is certainly preferable that a different address is used. However, I determined that the Landlords complied with section 12 due to the particular facts of this case.
9. First, the mail box for the rental unit is a locked Canada Post box at the end of the street.
The Landlords and the Tenants each have a key to this locked box. This has been the situation from the commencement of the tenancy in April 2009. The Landlords receive many items of mail that relate to the rental unit at this address, such as tax and new home warranty documents, and pick up that mail regularly.
10. The use of the rental unit as an address for the Landlords would be more problematic if the mail box was attached to the rental unit and the Landlords had to frequently attend the actual rental unit and potentially disrupt the Tenants and their privacy to collect their mail. This is not the case since the mailbox is located away from the unit.
11. The particular fact that led me to conclude that the Landlords complied with section 12 was the following: the Tenants sent the Notice of Hearing for their own application (CET-02500) to the Landlords by registered mail to the address of the rental unit. The Landlords picked up the registered mail notification in the mail box, then went to the post office and signed for the documents that the Tenants mailed to them.
12. If a purpose of section 12 is to ensure that tenants have a way to send documents to their landlord, then it is clear that purpose has been accomplished in this case. The Tenants were able to mail documents to the Landlords. As a result, I determined that the address the Landlords used met the requirements of section 12."
Issues if the landlord only provides the address of the rental unit and no other address
"Landlord’s request to review is granted
1. The Landlord’s request to review is granted because I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Landlord was not reasonably able to participate in the hearing on October 3, 2018.
2. The Landlord testified that she did not receive notice of the October 3rd hearing. In their application, the Tenants provided the address of the rental unit as the Landlord’s address and this is where the Board sent the Landlord’s Notice of Hearing. The Tenants’ agent testified that the Tenants provided the address of the rental unit because the Landlord did not provide them any other address for her. The Landlord disputes this. However, I reviewed the Tenants’ copy of the tenancy agreement and I find that it does not include the Landlord’s address (even though the Landlord’s copy of the tenancy agreement does).
3. Although the Landlord was required to provide the Tenants her address for service pursuant to section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the “Act”), that is not the issue before me today. For the purpose of the request for review, I must only be satisfied that the Landlord did not receive notice of the hearing. Since the Landlord’s Notice of hearing was sent to the rental unit, which is not the Landlord’s address, I am satisfied that the Landlord did not receive notice of the hearing on October 3, 2018 and she did not have the reasonable opportunity to participate in that hearing. After granting the Landlord’s request to review, I heard the Tenants’ application de novo (anew)."
"2. The Landlord did not attend the hearing. However, I am satisfied that the Landlord received the Notice of Hearing and was aware of the hearing for the reasons set out below.
3. The Landlord’s copy of the Notice of Hearing was mailed by the Board to the rental unit since that is the only address the Tenant had for the Landlord.
4. The Landlord did not provide the Tenant with an address for service of documents as required by section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, (the ‘Act’). The Landlord uses the rental unit address and picks up mail and the monthly rent payment from the mail box at the condominium building. I note that an application the Landlord filed with the Board (CEL-76969-18) does set out another address but that application was filed after the Tenant had already filed her application.
5. The Tenant emailed the Landlord on two occasions (July 3 and 15, 2018) to let the Landlord know that the application and Notice of Hearing were in the mail box along with the rent payment for July 2018. The Tenant knows the Landlord picked up the documents because they were not there the next time she checked the box and the Landlord cashed the July rent cheque that the Tenant left with the documents. The Tenant provided her bank records to establish that the Landlord cashed the July rent cheque.
6. Furthermore, the Tenant told the Landlord about her applications and the August 8, 2018 hearing date during the hearing held on July 12, 2018 for the Landlord’s application CEL-76969-18.
7. As a result I am satisfied that that the application and notice of hearing came to the Landlord’s attention and they are deemed to have been validly given in accordance with subsection 191(2) of the Act."
Issues if the landlord provides an address he doesn't get to access later (review)
"1. The Landlord claimed they were not reasonably able to participate in the hearing because the Tenants did not serve the Notice of Hearing at the Landlord’s correct address. The Tenants served the Notice of Hearing at the address that the Landlord provided in the tenancy agreement. Section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) requires that every written tenancy agreement set out an address of the landlord for the purpose of serving notices and documents under the Act.
2. After providing the Tenants with an address in the tenancy agreement, as required by section 12 of the Act, the Landlord can not now argue that it is not the address they want the Tenants to use to serve notices and documents. If the Landlord wants another address to be used for service of notices and documents, they should ensure that address is set out in the tenancy agreement. Any error that occurred was the Landlord’s error. They failed to set out their preferred address in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, this is not a serious error in the order or the proceedings."
Is signature required?
"Rent suspended until Tenant provided with the lease
28. The Tenant also testified that he was never provided a signed copy of his lease The Tenant argued that pursuant to section 12 of the Act he should not have to pay rent until he receives a copy of the signed version of the lease
29. BD testified that he did send AC a copy of the signed lease but he was unable to produce the signed version of the lease because it has been misplaced. BD did not submit the cover letter he claimed to have mailed AC with the signed lease because he did not bring it to the hearing since there was no indication it would be an issue.
30. BD testified that the Landlord has an unsigned copy of the lease in its file and this copy was submitted at the hearing. The Tenant did not dispute that the unsigned version reflects the terms that he agreed to in the signed copy of the lease.
31. It would be preferable if the Tenant had a signed copy of the tenancy agreement. However, since the only version the Landlord appears to have in its possession is unsigned, and this version reflects the terms the Tenant agreed to, I find that if the Landlord provides this version to the Tenant it will be sufficient in the circumstances to comply with section 12 of the Act. The order will postpone the Tenant’s requirement to pay the amount he owes until the Landlord delivers the Tenant a copy of the unsigned lease."
______________________________________
6. Remedies for landlord's breach
RTA section 12 states:
"Until a landlord has complied ... (a) the tenant’s obligation to pay rent is suspended; and (b) the landlord shall not require the tenant to pay rent" (RTA subsection 12(4)).
"After the landlord has complied ... the landlord may require the tenant to pay any rent withheld by the tenant" (RTA subsection 12(5)).
However, can other remedies (e.g. rent abatement) be ordered? Let's look at some LTB examples.
6.1. No rent abatement ordered
"[9] The Tenant signed a written tenancy agreement on May 22, 2015, with a term to commence on June 1, 2015. The tenancy agreement did not contain the Landlord’s address for service of documents as required by section 12 of the Act. However, this omission did not mean the Tenant is entitled to an abatement or rebate of the rent that he paid during the tenancy as he claimed in his application. Section 12 does not provide for that relief."
"3. The fact that the Landlord failed to provide an address is governed by section 12 of the RTA. The Tenants had a remedy by being able to withhold the rent until the Landlord supplied the required information. So there will be no award for this concern.
4. The fact that the Landlord failed to provide an information package as per section 11 of the RTA may be a violation of the RTA but there does not appear to be any remedy if the Landlord fails to comply. Section 233 of the RTA is the section that deals with offences under the RTA. There is nothing in that section that states it is an offence for the Landlord to fail to comply with section 11. In this matter it is clear to me that the Tenants know their rights. They filed an application with the Board and they took actions to remedy their situation in conformity with the RTA. Therefore, there will be no award for this concern."
"4. There was, however, no written tenancy agreement and the Landlords’ failure to provide one was not a breach of the Act, particularly in the absence of any explanation as to what rights such a document would have conferred that are not already provided for in the Act.
5. Subsection 12(2) of the Act also required the Landlords to give to the Tenants the Landlords’ name and address where it says: “if a tenancy agreement…is not in writing, the landlord shall, within 21 days after the tenancy begins, give to the tenant written notice of the legal name and address of the landlord to be used for giving notices and other documents under this Act.”
6. The Landlords’ representative provided his telephone number and email address to the Tenants but provided no other details. He testified this is because he fears tenants will compromise his personal safety, not a legitimate excuse in my view.
7. Although the Tenant correctly indicated the Tenants’ obligation to pay rent was suspended as a result of the missing information, it was not suggested that that remedy should apply in this instance. In addition, the Act provides no other remedy in the event of a breach of this subsection. I therefore, and reluctantly, find there is nothing to be done as a result of this failure by the Landlords."
"Section 82 issues
No written lease
9. At the hearing the Tenant testified that she has not received a written lease from the Landlord.
10. Although s.12 of the Act requires that a landlord provide a written lease if there is one, the remedy for this is the tenant’s obligation to pay rent is suspended. Section 12 also gives a landlord the option to provide an address for service. The Tenant has an address for service for the Landlord; the Landlord provided one in making this application.
11. Because the Tenant has an address for service for the Landlord, I find that the fact the Tenant does not have a written lease has no impact on the Tenant. There will therefore be no remedy ordered for this issue."
6.2. Rent abatement ordered
"52. Pursuant to s. 12 of the Act a landlord is mandatorily required to provide a legal name and address for service to a tenant. […] A landlord in this situation is not entitled to serve notice to terminate on the tenant until the landlord complies with the requirements of s. 12.
[...]
54. Given the Tenant’s efforts to get information and the impact the Landlord’s failure to provide it had on her, I am satisfied that the behaviour of the Landlord and his agent in this regard constitutes a breach of s. 22 of the Act.
55. The only remedy requested in the application that is relevant to this breach by the Landlord is abatement of the rent.
56. Given the nuisance factor and the amount of time the Tenant had to spend as a result of the Landlord’s breach, and given my experience of like similar cases at the Board, it seems to me that a reasonable abatement of the rent would be a lump sum of $250.00. This takes into account the anxiety the issue caused the Tenant, the time involved in trying to find out who the Landlord was, and the time thrown away in dealing with a notice of termination for non-payment of rent that the Landlord had no right to serve given his breach of the Act."
______________________________________
7. What are other ways of finding out the landlord's address (LRO / Teranet / Geowarehouse and Tax Assessment Rolls)
Information on the owners' legal names and other properties that the same landlords may own is public, and it is available to anyone at the Ontario Land Registry Offices (their OnLand online platform or Teranet). This was covered under one of our previous posts where searching for other properties that the landlord may own was relevant (for N12 purposes).
Ontario Land Registry Offices:
Teranet: https://www.teranet.ca/
Sample Parcel Register:
These LRO / Teranet searches are ~$35 per search, but real estate agents can usually access that information more easily using Geowarehouse. Additionally, one would sometimes find that information for free (and open to the public) by using local Tax Assessment Rolls (though this MPAC-based data is not as up-to-date as LRO / Teranet data).
Your legal counsel should be able to run this search for you.
Disclaimer:
You should not act or rely on any information provided in this blog. It is not legal advice, and the content is provided for general discussion and general information purposes only and to help encourage further research. To ensure your interests are protected, retain or formally seek legal advice from a licensed legal professional.
Never disclose details about your specific legal matters outside of situations when you have established solicitor-client relationship with a qualified legal professional. By using this blog, you acknowledge and accept this warning and agree to waive all liability for use of any information contained in this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment