tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6703393754400182307.post8499808806477857329..comments2024-03-23T06:26:04.205-04:00Comments on Ontario Landlord and Tenant Law: Where are the English Majors? Interpreting the Residential Tenancies ActMichael K. E. Thielehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10247495615982921581noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6703393754400182307.post-75228405589106209992014-12-18T21:34:10.376-05:002014-12-18T21:34:10.376-05:00I agree with your assertion that (i) is the entire...I agree with your assertion that (i) is the entire choice for the fix option, but how can you argue that the landlord must give that choice to the tenant? There's no way to insist that the parallel structure can be interpreted differently - <br /><br />I see the two grammatical options you are exploring as follows:<br />Require the tenant to repair or pay landlord to repair. OR<br />Require the tenant to repair or Or require the tenant to pay landlord to repair.<br />But this is just a difference in where the parallel structure begins, not in meaning. Grammatically, these two sentences are equivalent, though a high-school English teacher might be somewhat pedantic and point out that the second option is unnecessarily repetitive. <br />Even if we switch to the correlative, we are no closer:<br />Require the tenant either to repair or pay OR<br />Either require the tenant to fix or require the tenant to pay.<br />I acknowledge that these two sentence feel different, but they are both simply presenting the same choices. Neither brings us any closer to who gets to make the choice. <br /><br />If the sense is to clearly be understood to be the tenant's choice, I think a stronger rewording is required, perhaps stipulating it is one one person's discretion or the other's. It would be much, much better to make the tenant the agent (tenant may choose to fix or pay to fix) or clearly stipulate the landlord is choosing (landlord shall <br /><br />What I don't know is if there has already been a determination of who gets to decide whether it's a repair or a replacement. If it has already been established somewhere that this determination is the landlord's, then that is your grounds for arguing that both choices are the landlord's, which isn't what you are trying to do, I know.<br /><br />Well. Not exactly helpful, I know. But I do feel fairly confident that this battle can't be won through grammar, for what that's worth. Thank you again for your blog. I'm still reading, mostly because it is so interesting. <br /><br />Julie <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6703393754400182307.post-78047254867645374202014-12-18T21:33:52.557-05:002014-12-18T21:33:52.557-05:00Hi Michael:
(I'm not claiming expertise, but I...Hi Michael:<br />(I'm not claiming expertise, but I teach high school English, have taught ESL overseas at the university level, and have a fairly enthusiastic interest in grammar)<br /><br />I'll start by concluding that Heather's approach of looking at the instructions and the general intention of the RTA strikes me as the best way to proceed with this. I've been puzzling over this for a little while now, to no great effect. There's some contradiction between Section 62 and the N5, and I really don't think there's a resolution to be achieved with a grammatical analysis, but I'll give you my best explanation anyway, incase you are still interested in the question.<br /><br />OR is a coordinating conjunction. It joins two similar things (nouns, verb phrases, clauses) and indicates that the relationship is that of alternatives. OR can be exclusive (A or B, but not both) or it can be inclusive (A or B or both A and B). This function is determined by context. EITHER...OR is a correlative conjunction which is a type of coordinating conjunction. EITHER...OR is only exclusive. In this case, OR is exclusive, so there is no real difference between the two. I agree that either/or feels clearer. I think that's because it emphasizes the exclusivity, not because it offers any actual difference in interpretation.<br /><br />A problem that I see is that the RTA appears to be presenting a different situation than the N5 does. In section 62, the landlord is clearly the agent, though the grammatical agent is the Notice of Termination. The landlord, through the NofT, clearly requires the tenant to repair or pay landlord to repair Or to replace or pay landlord to replace. The issue is where the choice lies. I don't see any way to argue your point that the section actually provides the tenant with the choice. The section enumerates choices, clearly, but not who gets to make them. <br /><br />The N5 does support your assertion. Infact, it goes quite beyond the scope of the RTA by implying that the tenant can decide if something is repaired of replaced. I have visions of glued together lamps and couches with mismatched pillows, but that's the landlord in me talking. N5 uses "You can" and then a list, which indicates that the ensuing list contains all the choices available to the tenant. So that's great until you encounter your adjudicator who sends you back to the legislation and I think subverts the process intended by the N5 and the instructions for the N5.<br /><br />I did double-check with the Chicago Manual of Style regarding lists, and it offers only that items in a list should be constructed of parallel elements, which this list is, in that the main options are repair, replace, or make satisfactory arrangements (which interestingly is not an option given in the RTA). So no help style-wise.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6703393754400182307.post-14966567037203604022014-03-15T09:42:08.014-04:002014-03-15T09:42:08.014-04:00Thanks Heather, these are some great points, I esp...Thanks Heather, these are some great points, I especially like the last point on the Board instructions. MikeMichael K. E. Thielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10247495615982921581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6703393754400182307.post-48030287034487498302014-01-31T13:20:11.455-05:002014-01-31T13:20:11.455-05:00Being both a English major (formally) and a landlo...Being both a English major (formally) and a landlord and tenant law clerk, I would have to agree with your interpretation of Section 62 of the RTA. <br /><br />Grammatically, ‘or’ is considered to indicate an alternative unless it is accompanied by ‘either’ or ‘whether’, in which case the ‘or’ would indicate the preference of the second of the two alternatives given. Section 62 does not include ‘either’ or ‘whether’ therefore, I believe it is giving the tenant the option as to how they wish to proceed with the repairs. <br /><br />From a landlord and tenant perspective there are, I believe a few things that would support the position for needing to include the dollar amount for there to be a valid ‘N5’ in relation to damage to property. <br /><br />First, if you refer to section 1 of the RTA, the purpose of the act is to provide protection to residential tenants, to me, that really shows the spirit of the RTA. This would seem to imply that especially in the case of a notice that was intentionally made to be voidable by the tenant that the choice and benefit of a choice should clearly rest with the tenant. <br /><br />Second, Section 16 talks about minimizing the losses of the party in the case of a breach. Both parties have the ability to minimize the costs by placing the choice to repair, hire someone to repair or pay the landlord for the costs of the necessary repair with the tenant. If the tenant is able to affect the repair themselves, this saves the tenant the cost of labour associated with fixing the damage. Or perhaps the tenant knows someone who can do the work at a fraction of the cost, thus allowing the minimizing of costs. However, some tenants do not have such skills or connections and may simply wish to pay the landlord the cost of having one of their chosen contractors complete the work. In my view, the tenant must be presented with a cost estimate from the landlord to so they may evaluate the most cost effective option for the repairs to be completed, thus ensuring compliance with Section 16. <br /><br />Lastly, if you look at the instructions, provided by the landlord and tenant board on completing the N5 notice, it clearly tells landlords to complete the cost section. By failing to do so, you are going against the instructions of the Board for form completion, which one would think, should void a form in the same way that choosing an invalid termination date would. <br /><br />Here is the link to the instructions provided by the Board for N5 form completion: http://www.ltb.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/csc/_ltb/_forms/documents/resourcelist/stel02_111630.pdf<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18198628170075784649noreply@blogger.com