THE LAW SAYS: NO!
As a tenant, is your residential landlord allowed to limit your guests, who lives with you, who stays over night? Can your landlord charge a fee or extra rent or raise your rent if you have guests staying with you? What if you specifically sign a lease, agreement, document, that very explicitly says you will be the only person living in the unit? Can your landlord require that your guests, roommate, or visitor never be left alone in your apartment or on the residential complex?
I get these questions all of the time. It seems, from the questions that I get, that landlords have various strategies and tactics for trying to limit guests, occupants, roommates and visitors. Written agreements, lease clauses, rent increase provisions, and even limits as to the number of days that a guest can stay, are often provided in the agreements between tenants and landlords. Are these agreements, limitations, clauses, binding on tenants? If your landlord is quite seriously telling you that the friend you have had staying with you for the last couple of months has to go—otherwise the rent needs to go up—is that something that you need to worry about?
I have written on this a number of times elsewhere in this blog. The answer is always the same. A landlord is not permitted to create these kinds of limitations. When you rent a home, the law presumes that you can do in that home the kinds of things that humans generally do. One of those things is to have relationships, have guests, have visitors, and even to have sleepovers on a regular basis. It is not any of the landlord’s business who visits, who stays over, who arrives and never leaves. This includes boyfriends, girlfriends, children visiting, parents moving in (think aging, or sick parents), friends down on their luck, a roommate to help pay the rent, and whatever other potential class of persons you can think of.
While I have written about this, pointed out some human rights case-law on point, a recurring point that I get is that while the you (the tenant) believe what is being written on this point it is not so easy to convince the landlord that their position is illegal.
What does it matter what the law is if the landlord refuses to educate him or herself? If the landlord thinks the written lease clause or agreement is binding how do you convince him otherwise?
Recently, I have had a bit of luck convincing skeptical landlords of this fact by using the new Ontario Standard Form lease. Specifically, the standard form lease at section 15 highlights the illegality of prohibiting roommates, guests, etc.. While everyone should now be using the Ontario Standard Form lease (because the law requires it), you should know that a failure to use this form does not make a tenancy automatically invalid.
So what does the lease say at section 15? It says as follows:
Some examples of void and unenforceable terms include
those that:
• Do not allow pets (however, the landlord can require
the tenant to comply with condominium rules, which
may prohibit certain pets),
• Do not allow guests, roommates, any additional occupants,
• Require the tenant to pay deposits, fees or penalties
that are not permitted under the Residential Tenancies
Act 2006 (e.g.,damage or pet deposits, interest on rent
arrears),and
• Require the tenant to pay for all or part of the repairs
that are the responsibility of the landlord.
As you can see from the highlighted portion above—there it is. Lease clauses that do not
allow guests, roommates or any additional occupants are void and unenforceable.
I have found that showing the landlord this provision, in the Standard Form Lease, is convincing and solves the issue for many tenants. It’s an odd kind of way to prove the law, but this resource is easily accessible and rather straightforward.
Hopefully you can use this government mandates standard form lease to make clear the law on roommates, guests, visitors, and occupants.
Michael K. E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
Thank you so much for this! It is very timely for a situation I am concerned about regarding an out of town friend staying overnight part of the week for the next few months (we are in a basement unit (separate entrance/unit) and the landlords live above us). In my lease (which is not the new ON standard form) there is a section outlining the maximum occupants by name and that we require the landlord's prior written permission if someone were to live there temporarily. So thank you for this post!
ReplyDeleteMy daughter and I own a home together , with her living there with a boarder. One of the reasons I chose this particular boarder was because she didn't require a parking space. She has been renting vehicles and my daughter has asked her to park the vehicle on the street as my daughter job may require to leave in the middle of the night should there be an emergency. The boarder refuses to park in the street and my daughter has mentioned to her that she may be changing her vehicle to a SUV which may not fit in the garage therefore she would need to park in the driveway. The boarder commented that she isn't allowed to do this as it's not on the lease??? I am considering giving her notice so my question is how much notice must I give her.
ReplyDeleteHi: The first question is to determine whether the Residential Tenancies Act applies to this situation. If the RTA does apply, then the notice periods are determined by the forms and Notice Form that you would use. If the RTA applies you would likely use a Form N5--which gives the tenant 20 days notice but is also voidable if the tenant complies.
DeleteThat being said, I don't think the RTA applies to your situation--if I'm reading what you've written accurately. Section 5(i) of the RTA exempts arrangements where the "tenant" is living with the landlord or a child of the landlord and is sharing a kitchen and/or a bathroom. If the boarder is living with your daughter and sharing these then the RTA does not apply.
When a relationship is not covered by the RTA you would look to your agreement for the required notice period. It is an issue of contract. However, if your contract isn't in writing or doesn't address the question then it is a question of what is reasonable. "Reasonable" is contextual. If the only issue is the parking and the boarder is otherwise decent and well mannered you might consider notice of 30-60 days. If the behaviour gets to be dangerous and threatening then notice of closer to zero can be quite reasonable.
Good luck
Michael K. E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
Hello, how much notice to I need to give to a boarder in my daughter's home (shared kitchen).
ReplyDeleteThe answer to this question is usually: "reasonable notice". What is reasonable can be set out in an written agreement between the owner and boarder. If there is no written agreement on how the relationship ends then you revert to "reasonable" notice. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances. If the Boarder is doing something illegal, endangering safety, committing illegal acts, threatening, harassing, or doing something that it utterly intolerable then "reasonable" is as long as it takes to push them out the door. If your daughter simply doesn't want to have a boarder anymore, or the boarder is just "bugging" her because of whatever reason but nothing really serious (for example: she has a very annoying laugh and I don't want to hear it anymore) then "reasonable" notice is going to be longer. You can use as a guide the notice periods in the Residential Tenancies Act (though you are absolutely not bound to them). Under the RTA a tenant can terminate a lease on 60 days written notice. That would seem to be the absolute longest notice period that would be "reasonable". In a boarding situation, and presuming no nasty behaviours, I think a reasonable notice period would be the term that is being paid for. For example, if rent is paid but he week then a week's notice. If rent is paid by the month then a month's notice. Again, what is reasonable will be contextual to the circumstances.
DeleteGood luck
Michael K. E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
My landlord, a corporate REIT (based in Guelph) does things like this. In one case in my building, there was an elderly couple living in one unit for many years.
ReplyDeleteWhen the husband died suddenly of a heart attack, the landlord posted a notice to the widowed occupant, his wife, that since she was not named in the lease, she would have to vacate the unit. I know this as their daughter showed me the notice. Already being in poor health, she passed away two weeks later of a stroke.
So, there are no shortage of landlords pulling all sorts of disgusting things as far as who can or can't be in a unit.
HI Kevin:
DeleteThanks for this comment. I want to point out how the example you give of a spouse being evicted on the death of their tenant spouse is illegal.
Take a look at the definition of tenant in the Regulation to the RTA:
Definition of “tenant”
3. (1) If a tenant of a rental unit dies and the rental unit is the principal residence of the spouse of that tenant, the spouse is included in the definition of “tenant” in subsection 2 (1) of the Act unless the spouse vacates the unit within the 30-day period described in subsection 91 (1) of the Act. O. Reg. 516/06, s. 3 (1).
What this means is that a spouse who is not named on a lease is deemed to be a tenant on the death of their spouse (if they want to be the tenant). As a result the spouse has the same rights as the tenant had with the same terms etc..
Michael K. E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
Hi Michael. I'm in rent gear to income I was on priority due to abuse that was happening because my husband was drinking. Anyway since I moved out and am now in RGI housing my husband has since went to rehab stopped drinking and literally done a switch and is doing really well. And I feel safe enough to have him move in with me. So my question is Because I got RGI due to propriety because of abuse. Can He move in/visit without me being evicted?
ReplyDeleteHi: The Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) does not prohibit you from inviting your husband to visit nor does it prevent him from moving in with you. On these points, the RTA is silent. This means that you can not be evicted for having your husband move in and/or visit. However, if your husband causes problems in the residential complex there may indeed be grounds for termination and eviction. Because you are the only tenant, bringing your husband on to the premises (you giving permission for him to be there) makes you responsible for anything that he might do on the premises. The RTA makes you liable for the actions of your guests.
DeleteAside from the RTA there are other considerations. Your current RGI (Rent Geared to Income) will be affected if your husband moves in or visits so much that he appears to be a part of the household. Your RGI is likely affected by his presence in the unit and even if he is not a lawful tenant, the RGI calculations will need to take into account his income. This is the kind of significant change (him visiting a lot, moving in) that you should discuss with your landlord/housing provider. They will have some forms for you to fill out as part of your disclosure and reporting requirements. Don't delay in doing this as it can have an impact on your eligibility. Note that it is possible, depending on your husband's income, to lose the RGI completely and your rent would go to market rent.
Lastly, my comments here are about the law and not about whether it is a good idea to welcome your husband into your home given the abuse you suffered. Please consider speaking with your doctor or a counsellor (your doctor's office should be able to refer you), before deciding to let your husband return. You likely know that letting an abusive husband return because he's "changed" is one of those stories that just makes people shake their heads and think "poor deluded woman". Maybe your situation is different, but perhaps not and your doctor or counsellor can give you insight on why you are even considering this.
Good luck to you.
Michael K.E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.cok
Hi Michael, I have a cotenancy with the 1 year up by the end of August. My cotenant is looking to leave and I have someone who would be able to take up his part of things. However my landlord is trying to get us to sign a brand new 1 year lease which I am not willing to do. Would this count as a refusal allowing us to fill out an N9? Or could we potentially just remove my cotenant from the lease, making me the sole leaseholder allowing me to bring in a roommate without any interference from the landlord. He is making things difficult to move forward. Are we allowed to make any changes to the lease in terms of removing my cotenant without voiding the lease? And would his refusal to assign it allow us both to fill out an N9?
ReplyDeleteHi: What you describe is a tricky situation without any real solution. How to address the issues depends entirely on what you want to end up with. You mention filling out an N9--that suggests a desire to terminate the tenancy. If that is what you want to do then you could serve an N9 for the end of August and then your obligation is at an end. There is still time as we are in June and you need to give 60 days notice to the end of term.
DeleteIf your goal is to have your co-tenant move out, remove that co-tenant's name from the lease, and then move in a new person as a new co-tenant--well then, you are going to have some problems if the landlord does not cooperate.
The processes you are describing are not "clearly" a lease assignment or sublet in the way that this is commonly understood. For your co-tenant to end their liability the lease--for them--needs to be terminated. Partial termination of a lease for one party is not really possible under the RTA. It is not clearly contemplated for co-tenant relationships without domestic violence (it is for domestic violence situations).
A landlord is generally entitled to maintain the security that flows from having particular people as tenants on a lease. Asking a landlord to let some security off of the lease while not getting the rented premises back is perhaps asking a lot. This is especially the case if the remaining tenant does not have a strong credit history. Replacing the tenant who is leaving with a new tenant can be acceptable to a landlord and often enough the swap is permitted---though it can't be forced.
Interestingly, the landlord's consent to your current co-tenant moving out and a new roommate moving in is NOT required. You can just go ahead and do it. If your current co-tenant is trusting enough of you, then moving out without getting officially removed from the lease is a small risk to take. If you did default on rent or cause major damage etc., then the landlord would be limited to pursuing you at the LTB and not your then former co-tenant. The landlord can only apply to the LTB against tenants who are in possession. However, if the claim is big enough and you are not the easiest person to sue and chase, the landlord might decide at some point in the future to sue you and the former co-tenant in Court for things that may happen in the future. At that time, your former co-tenant might find themselves liable for something that happened after they moved out. Consequently, aside from arguing that the lease for them terminated, they would also cross-claim against you for indemnity if they are found liable for the landlord's claim.
There are a few things that your co-tenant can do, though these might not be entirely to your interests. Your co-tenant should serve a Notice of Termination for the end of term. Now, you will not have signed it and you will not vacate at the end of term. Query then the power of the N9? In my view this notice does (and should) lawfully terminate the entire tenancy. The landlord then needs to file an application to evict you as an over-holding tenant. If he does, then you have an interesting fight at the LTB about whether you can continue in the unit. However, if the landlord does nothing and you just continue to pay the rent, then as an unauthorized over-holding former tenant the RTA deems an assignment of the unit to you--meaning the lease goes from you and co-tenant to just you.
As for getting your new roommate signed on as an actual tenant (and not just a roommate), there are very few options for making that happen without the landlord's consent. It used to be easier (in law) to characterize any occupant paying rent as a tenant because the definition of tenant in the RTA is broad. Certainly, if you move in a new roommate (especially during the 60 days following the termination date in your current co-tenant's N9) and you roommate pays rent to the landlord and it is accepted, then quite arguably there is a deemed assignment of the lease from you and current co-tenant to you and new roommate (and soon to be co-tenant).
DeleteYes, this is very convoluted. Much depends on the steps taken by individuals and the reaction to those steps by the others. It is very difficult to map out a course of action because each step needs to accurately reflect what the other person does.
The simplest way to deal with this is to ask what you want. If you want to stay, then simply stay. Move in the roommate and ask, in time, to add the roommate to the lease. If the landlord refuses then perhaps you simply live with it. The roommate still has the right to be present and his liability respecting the property may not be in a direct line to the landlord but there will be liability to you (presuming you document an agreement with him/her about your deal).
Anyway, I'm sure I've just added layers of complexity and confusion to this for you, but I hope it helps. As for making changes to the lease terms everything is possible with consent (subject to restrictions in the RTA). As you don't have the power to remove your co-tenant that would not actually be a lease term change. The assignment you are talking about is not actually an assignment, but if it were and your goal was termination--well you are within striking distance of a lawful termination date anyway. If you want to say that asking to assign from you & co-tenant to you & new person is a refusal if not agreed to and is grounds for termination--well that is an argument I would certainly accept as it is logical and consistent with the RTA. However, it doesn't solve your problem if you don't want to terminate but instead want to force a change in the named tenants in the lease. This is because a landlord has a right to refuse an assignment (outright).
Michael K.E. Thiele
www.otttawalawyers.com
Hi Michael-- follow up question to OP's scenario, with the slight modification that I am writing from the perspective of the co-tenant who is moving away, and I am one of 4 co-tenants in the unit. I have lined up someone to sublet from me so that the remaining tenants can continue paying rent (mutual agreement). The landlord refuses assignment and refuses to sublet (apparently due to fatigue, as there have been 3 assignments in the past year). If I do as described above and simply remain on the lease while allowing the subletter to move in as a "roommate", couldn't the landlord evict both me and the subletter under RTA section 100 (1) because the new "roommate" is in fact an unauthorized occupant to whom the landlord declined to sublet? And in this case, could the landlord evict the whole house because of a single unauthorized occupant? If not, could co-tenants theoretically continue swapping themselves out for "roommates" until only 1 actual tenant remained in the house? In this case, the landlord is left with a unit where he/she doesn't actually know who 75% of the occupants are. But if it's just one co-tenant swapping out, it doesn't seem reasonable for the landlord to be able to break up the whole house.
DeleteHappy to hear your thoughts.
Hi: Thanks for the question and please indulge me for a moment as I set this up so others reading can understand the point you are making. I assume that in your house your 4 co-tenants are all tenants on a single lease. The single lease intends and does reflect the existence of one tenancy agreement. This means all of the tenants in the house are in possession due to a single lease and not four individual leases (a rooming house style). It is important to understand the legal relationship between the tenants under a single lease and the landlord. As is often made clear, the individual persons on the lease are collectively the "tenant" and as such each of the individual persons (in RTA leases) are presumptively jointly and severally liable for all obligations under the lease. For example, if the rent is $2000 and there are 4 individuals on the lease the individual responsibility of each of the 4 is $2000. The fact that the 4 tenants divide the $2000 between themselves in the amount of $500 each isn't a legal concern of the landlord. The landlord is entitled to $2000 per month and the landlord can pursue all or any of the individuals for the entirety of the rent because there is only one tenancy agreement and they are jointly and severally liable.
DeleteSo, that is the nature of the tenancy agreement that you have to understand to interpret your question and the likely outcome.
As you describe, you want to move out and your remaining 3 co-tenants wish to remain in the unit. Because you are moving you would like your name to be off of the lease (so that your liability ends) and you would like to substitute in another person onto the lease to take your place. At one time this was a very reasonable thing to do. The landlord would agree because he had a continuation in the tenancy, he avoids turn-over costs, and loss of rent is minimized.
Your landlord is objecting to doing this--citing "fatigue" given the turn over in the unit. My guess is that it doesn't actually have anything to do with "fatigue" but instead that your rent is too low relative to the market rent that the landlord could now get for the unit. Your landlord is refusing to swap you out because the new person would get too good a deal on the place (relative to the market). Essentially, the landlord wants the tenancy to terminate so that he can re-rent at the current higher rent. (as indicated, I am only guessing that this is the "fatigue").
There is nothing illegal or wrong with a landlord refusing to swap out a tenant on a lease. The landlord doesn't want to extend the tenancy on its existing terms and by not allowing a swap out of a single tenant on the lease the landlord is slowly bringing this current lease to an end---i.e. when the last tenant actually leaves.
DeleteWith the landlord refusing to swap you out, what are your options? The swapping out is not technically an "assignment" nor a "sublet" and those rules don't apply. An assignment is a transfer of the entire tenancy agreement (4 individuals and 1 lease), to another group. It is the transfer of the entire interest in the tenancy and not just a piece of the interest that the individuals have. In asking the landlord to assign your "piece" of the tenancy agreement you are asking the landlord to do something that the RTA doesn't recognize nor regulate. Hence, it isn't an assignment that you are asking for---I just call it a "swap" which explains what you want to do but which in itself isn't a legal RTA concept. It's just an agreement to amend a lease and change some terms which can only happen on an entirely voluntary basis (i.e. you can't force the landlord and he can't force you).
So, with the landlord refusing to "swap" you are in a bit of a pickle. If you trust your former co-tenants and can rely on them to pay the rent and not destroy the place (wilfully or negligently) then that is a comfort. However, if they don't pay the rent, or they do trash the place, or do something negligent that visits liability on the tenants then you could find yourself getting sued even well down the road after you have moved out if your tenancy agreement has not been terminated (i.e. the single tenancy agreement with 4 names on it).
If you do trust the remaining tenants and don't expect any real problems (which is typically the case), then you might be fine just leaving and letting the remaining tenants bring in a roommate. That roommate would not be a "tenant" on the lease (because the landlord refused), but the roommate has a right to be present as a guest of the other tenants. That roommate pays whatever is agreed upon to the actual tenants.
DeleteYes, in theory, up to three of the tenants could disappear and be replaced by roommates of a single remaining tenant. When that remaining tenant moves out and is not replaced by a new tenant (say it becomes 4 people, none of whom are tenants), the landlord is called upon to make a decision. The landlord can negotiate a new lease with the 4 non-tenants and that then becomes the lease and the 4 become tenants. Or, the landlord can bring an application to evict the 4 non-tenants as unauthorized occupants. This is the section 100 application that you mention. The landlord must bring this application within 60 days of learning that there is no longer any "tenant" in possession and that the rental unit has been transferred to the roommates without following the requirements of the RTA (i.e. assignment rules). If the landlord fails to bring the application within 60 days then the tenancy is deemed assigned to the roommates (section 104) on the same terms as the original lease. Hence it is important for the landlord to keep an eye on who is in the unit and who is paying the rent.
You ask "why" the landlord couldn't bring a section 100 application against your swapped "roommate". The reason lies in the fact that so long as a tenant remains in possession the tenancy has not been transferred. There is no transfer of the occupancy of the rental unit. The one, two, or three, tenants still living in the unit (you having left) are still occupying the rental unit so there is no transfer. They are entitled to have roommates.
Another way to explain it is to look at section 2(2) RTA which defines what a sublet is. If you read this you will see that you moving out does not fit the definition of a sub-let. All of the tenants need to move out for this to be a sublet. Just you moving out (leaving co-tenants in occupation) is not a sublet. If it is not a sublet, then it can't be an illegal sublet or unauthorized transfer as contemplated in section 100.
Hope that is helpful. The trick in this becomes what do you do if you don't want to continue being liable for rent, damage, negligence, after you move out. How do you terminate your liability? Unfortunately, there isn't a good answer to that problem and the RTA doesn't speak to it. That, issue though, is for another day.
Good luck
Michael K. E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
Hi Michael
ReplyDeleteI'm currently living with a roommate in an apartment in Toronto. I am the sole leaseholder with my landlord, and I have been living with roommates under this lease since October 2015 (when the lease was signed). The superintendent did not contest me having a roommate when they moved in in January 2016. They even gave my roommate a buzzer code. Since then, the superintendent of my building has changed.
I am currently seeking a new roommate, as my current roommate is moving out. I informed my superintendent of this today, and he told me that I'm not allowed to have occupants who are not on the lease. Searching google has informed me that I am allowed, but I can't find anything in the RTA or caselaw affirming this, other than a term in the new Ontario Standard Lease that says "If a term conflicts with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 or any other terms set out in this form, the term is void (not valid or legally binding) and it cannot be enforced. Some examples of void and unenforceable terms include those that: Do not allow guests, roommates, any additional occupants" (Clause 15 of the standard lease)
My lease does have a clause which states "The Tenant shall not permit the Rented Premises to be occupied by anyone other than the persons listed in clause 1 of this Agreement unless authorized by the Landlord in writing. The Landlord shall be deemed not to have Notice of such occupancy unless the Tenant has complied with this term and the Notice required of this Agreement."
Would this clause of my lease be void? If so, what legislation or decision would void this?
Further more, what obligations does my landlord have when a roommate moves in and out? Namely I need the lock changed, the elevator put on service for when my roommate moves out and my new roommate moves in, and finally my new roommate will need a buzzer code.
Lastly, if I ask my landlord to amend the lease to put my roommate on the lease, can they refuse? Can I ask that the lease be a standard lease? What rent control protections would I have?
Thank you for your help.
Mina
Hi Mina:
DeleteYou will not find a specific section of the RTA that says that a tenant has the right to have guests, roommates, visitors, etc.. The right to have guests, roommates, visitors, etc., is a right that is encapsulated in a tenant's right to quiet enjoyment of their rental unit. The Residential Tenancies Act at section 22 prohibits a landlord from interfering with a tenant's reasonable enjoyment. It states:
"A landlord shall not at any time during a tenant’s occupancy of a rental unit and before the day on which an order evicting the tenant is executed substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or the residential complex in which it is located for all usual purposes by a tenant or members of his or her household"
This provision has been interpreted numerous times. There are many cases where the landlord prohibited guests, occupants, required roommates to apply to be tenants and then refused, etc. etc.. In all of the cases the LTB finds that the restriction is a breach of section 22.
A useful expression of the right to have guests can be taken from the case of Jemiola v. Firchuk 206 O.A.C. 251, which is a Divisional Court case. The judgment contains this line: "The landlord and his agents acknowledged that Mr. Jemiola was living in the unit, but the legislation does not prohibit tenants from having room-mates, family and friends living with them. The Member found, correctly in our view, that this does not necessarily confer on them the status of tenant."
Aside from the right to have roommates, visitors, etc., it follows that a landlord must provide services to you (and to your roommate, visitor, guests), commensurate with your right to have them living with you. You are responsible for their behaviour in the residential complex, there is no question about that. Your landlord can not prevent your from having a roommate by refusing to change a lock, give a key, give a passcode, etc.. IN some circumstances the landlord can charge you (a likely refundable deposit), for the requested service, but ultimately the service must be provided. Anything less and you can file an application against the landlord to the LTB (use a Form T2).
With respect to the lease clause you are referring--yes, in my view it is void (section 4 RTA--makes it void by being inconsistent with the RTA).
Hope that helps
Michael K. E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
Hi Michael
ReplyDeleteI've been given by the mother of the landlord N5. Reason1
Complaints from excessive amount of traffic to the unit and random guests showing up. Which is causing disturbances due to buzzer and stairway which are old and squeaky, talking and supposedly stomping.
Im in 6 unit building has 2 entrance. Bedrooms are at 40 feet from front entrances 60ft hallway in each unit and all the rooms one after the other and in my case all to the left of the building told floor. Never had notices complaits, never had bylaws here ever. Almost 3 years occupancy.
My first question: because all the nice is due to building maintenance and equipment can she evict me?
Cant she control my visitors and guest?
Is the buzzing from buzzer any of my responsibilities?
Can I do anything for all the harassment from her by calling, emails, talking about me to all residents asking if I have people over, guest and my activities? How can I stop all of this?
Hi: There is a fine line and it is a trick to figure out which side the facts actually land on. Very high traffic to and from a unit is usually a sign of drug dealing or other illegal activity. With that high traffic comes the noise of people coming and going and quite arguably the noise from all of these people is a "substantial" interference with "reasonable" enjoyment. It is these two words "substantial" and "reasonable" that inform the test of what constitutes a valid allegation and what does not.
DeleteNote that "interference" with "enjoyment" is not contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act. It is to be expected, if people are coming and going that there will be noise, there will be stomping, buzzer's will ring. The sounds of ordinary living may indeed interfere with some people's enjoyment but that is simply too bad for them as these are the ordinary sounds of living in that particular building. The degree and extent of noise is also different from building to building as the construction methods used in a building determine greatly how much about your neighbours you will know.
Based on the information you provide it is not possible to say whether the N5 is valid or not. I have the impression that it is not, but that is a gut reaction and my impression from what you've written. As to your questions. Building maintenance and equipment if used as intended can not be the basis for eviction. Of course, there are exceptions to everything and everything can be abused. Is your buzzer going continuously for hours on end? If so, that is perhaps not reasonable. The answer, however, might be that the landlord should change the buzzer to a quieter one or perhaps move it so that it can not be heard in other units. With respect to noise from the stairs--one answer of course is to fix the stairs or put a carpet on it or live with the squeaks. Of course, if your guests are ruthlessly loud and foot stomping and behave like a herd of elephants then the landlord has a point. Presuming your guests walk normally and the stairs just squeak and your guests speak in a normal voice to each other (and are respectful to the context of the building) then this is not a proper allegation. You and your guests are not expected to be ultra quiet nor to tiptoe or otherwise unreasonably restrict your "normal" behaviour of coming and going.
You are entitled to visitors and guests. A reasonable number on a regular basis with exceptions from time to time is entirely "normal". This changes if you are running a business, selling drugs (which is a weird thing to say except that it is the most common source of high traffic), or using the property in a manner that is inconsistent with its use as residential premises. If it is all just normal visitors then for your own protection I'd keep a log for a few weeks of the comings and goings of your visitors. Do this to be able to prove the reasonableness of your use of the premises.
Beyond that, harassment, emails, calls, if you have strong evidence of this occurring you can file a T2 application to the Landlord and Tenant Board. Make sure to notify the landlord (presumably son or daughter of the complainer), of your issues with this person and indicate that you are going to file with the LTB if it does not stop.
Good luck
Michael K. E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
Thank you for your prompt response to my questions. Im especially grateful to receive the infomation that will help us to reply to the N5 as well as filling for the other matter.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your advice and honesty. You have no idea on how your blogs are resourceful and so easy to understand.
Merci beaucoup pour vos services!
Fancy792
Hi Michael. Thank you for your highly informative blog. I have a question that sort of falls within this category, and is purely hypothetical. I anticipate this situation might arise within the next few years.
ReplyDeleteI rent an entire house to a lovely elderly couple. I would love to have them stay in the house as long as possible. The basement of the house used to be a separate apartment, but now the house is rented as one whole unit. There is no locked door between the upstairs and the downstairs. There is a bedroom, bathroom and a kitchen area (no stove) in the basement from the prior configuration.
If my tenants wanted to have a live in caregiver, and that person lived in the bedroom in the basement, could that person someday claim that they are a legal tenant covered by the RT Act?
I want to be as supportive as possible, and I am not looking for a way to prevent a caregiver from moving in to help the couple as long as needed, rather, I would like to know what are my responsibilities and rights as a landlord. Thanks!
Hi: A tenant renting space within the rental unit to a person does not confer the status of "tenant" on the new person. There are exceptions if the "new" person is a sub-tenant or if there is an illegal assignment--then the landlord must take action failing which there can be a deemed assignment to the "new" person. Otherwise, the "new" person is a roommate of the tenant and there is no legal relationship between the new person and the landlord.
DeleteOf course the situation you describe is complicated by there being a self-contained unit within the rental unit. Very easily, the set up of the premises gives the appearance of two separate rental units. This screams headache if the "new" person decides to be difficult as the outward appearance of the situation will look like there being two residential tenants in two separate rental units.
When/if the time comes and the actually tenant seeks to move a care giver into the second unit it would be worthwhile to document the nature of the relationship, document the terms of the care giving service, document how that relationship ends, document and confirm that the RTA does not apply, document and confirm that there is no relationship between you the landlord and the care-giver.
If you document this properly and everyone signs an agreement you will still have a potential headache if the relationship breaks down and the actual tenant gets into a dispute with the care-giver. It would not be surprising if the care-giver asserted RTA rights and then you have to attend a hearing to explain why the RTA does not apply. Beyond that, the exclusion of the RTA is a potential problem if the care-giver refuses to move out. How do you evict a non-RTA covered tenant? The short answer(s): 1) police, 2) Court Order. You can't always count on #1 so then you are left with a very expensive application to the Superior Court of Justice (because the Landlord and Tenant Board has no jurisdiction).
Of course, if the care-giver is a lovely person and gets on well with the tenant and the relationship continues until it ends on mutual agreement--then there should be no problem.
Good luck
Michael K .E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
Hi my name is Dana Bowerman. My son rented a room from a lady in Quinte West. He is one of three renters and the lady lives there as well. Recently he was told to leave two days into this month she said she does not have to give his last month's rent. She said she evicted him due to him being a slob. She refuses to give him any receipts stating he is a border and doesn't she does not need to. My question is is he indeed a border or is he a tenant? Is he covered under RTA. He did not get a written agreement but verbal he agreed when to pay his rent and he was on a month- month verbal contract.
ReplyDeleteIs she by law to have her place licence by the city or not? I would love any advice you can give me. Thanks Dana
Hi Dana:
DeleteBased on the information you give here your son is likely not an RTA covered tenant. I assume, when you say "the lady lives there as well" that the lady is the landlord and that your son shares a kitchen and or a bathroom with her. If so, then the RTA does not apply because of section 5(i) RTA which excludes the RTA from applying when the landlord shares a kitchen and bath with tenants. Note, that there are other exemptions as well, but the section 5(i) exemption is the most commonly applied one.
If the RTA applied you son would have a lease whether written, oral, or implied. It doesn't matter that there isn't a written agreement. Verbal leases are enforceable if the RTA does apply.
Your son's relationship with the landlady is likely as a "boarder", though the usefulness of putting a name on the relationship isn't much help if the RTA does not apply.
The landlady's statement that she doesn't not have to give his last month's rent back is by no means obviously true. As there is no written agreement the landlady can't point to any terms that allow her to do this. The most likely conclusion as to the nature of the agreement is that the landlady accepted payment for the service of providing shelter for a fixed period of time. When she kicked your son out she breached that agreement. Arguably, and reasonably so, your son could sue her for the return of the money he prepaid and further he could sue her for any damages that he sustained due to the short notice eviction. A question will be whether the landlady was justified or entitled to terminate on short notice. Did you son do something so terrible as to justify the short notice and termination? That will be an objective question for a Judge to answer. Being messy or even a slob, in my view, is unlikely to justify short notice termination. Based only on what you say here--I'd guess that the landlady is in a difficult position if your son escalates this to Court.
As for licensing--I have no idea. That is likely a municipal issue so try contacting the local government, your councillor, etc., to find out what the law/rules in Quinte West are.
Good luck
Michael K. E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
Hi Michael, I have an awkward situation with my landlord. I live in a shared house with other tenants. All of us signed a Lease for 1 year but I want to move out because of personal reasons. I know I have to assign or sublet the room to another person and the landlord and roommates are fine with it.
ReplyDeleteFirst, when I signed the lease he asked for a secured deposit and a last month rent payment, I didn't know it is illegal(isn't it?). Now he says if I move out he is not going to give me the deposit back until the end of the lease.
Second, I have asked him for a copy of the lease agreement and the rent receipts but I have not received any responses about that(he keeps saying I will receive it soon). I think he is not giving me any because maybe there is no lease agreement or he knows it's illegal.
So if there is no lease agreement or I don't receive the copy, Can I just leave the house and try to get my money back? what are the options I have?
Thank you for your time.
PD: Our conversations are through Whatsapp, it qualifies as a written request?.
Hi: If you are at all able, I urge you to go sit with a lawyer at a community legal clinic and set out all of the facts. I say this because it is clear from what you are writing that you are being taken advantage of and that you really have no idea about residential landlord and tenant law in Ontario (that is not a criticism--most people don't and at least you are asking!).
DeleteThe "shared house" says rooming house to me which typically has each person signing their own lease. However, you say all of you signed one lease which then suggests it is NOT a rooming house as there is only one tenancy agreement with a large group of persons as the tenant and one landlord. If this is the case then there is no legal route to "assign" or "sublet" at least not in the legal sense of those words. I presume, if this is one lease, what people are suggesting is that you find a replacement for yourself and that the landlord and your roommates will agree to swapping you out for a new person. That "swapping out" isn't a process that is contemplated under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) and no one has to agree to it.
The absence of a lease agreement is problematic as there is supposed to be one. I find it curious that you think the failure to produce the lease means that there might not be a lease. Surely you remember signing a lease? If you didn't sign one why do you think you are a tenant? Maybe you are just a roommate of the actual tenant. You might not have any rights under the RTA at all and in fact you might be able to simply tell the actual tenant that you're leaving and say "goodbye" without any further obligation.
If there isn't a written lease there will be an opportunity to terminate the tenancy, presuming there is one between you and the landlord. It would be worthwhile to become familiar with section 12.1 RTA and section 47.1. The interplay of these sections is a little to complicated to write about in this answer especially since the applicability turns on other factors--such as whether you are a tenant or not.
Getting you money back will be a challenge. I imagine it will be so much of a challenge that it won't happen. The only way I see that playing out is if you could find a replacement for yourself that your current roommates accept and that person then pays you your deposit etc., and you transfer the deposit that the landlord is holding (from you) to the credit of this new person. If everyone agrees that might work.
Of course, finding a replacement for yourself, having the roommates agree to this person, then having the landlord agree to release you and replace you with this new person is a fair amount of work. You will likely be frustrated by the lack of cooperation from your roommates and inaction on the part of the landlord who isn't actually required to be helpful in this situation.
Ultimately, see if you can get your roommates to assist in finding a replacement. If you are one tenant of a larger group on a single lease they should be aware that once you move out they will become responsible for the entirety of the rent, including your share. It is in everyone's interest that a replacement for you is found--perhaps if they realize the financial implications they will cooperate and look around for someone too.
Lastly, do consider sitting down with a lawyer or paralegal. There are a number of possible scenarios playing out and it would be beneficial for you to have guidance as you go along.
MIchael K. E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
Sadly, it was my first week here when I signed the lease. I do remember signing the lease, having my name in the Standard Form of Lease next to the other tenants. So I assume that we are considered as one tenant but then me as a single person, do I have the same rights under RTA?. As a part of this group can I just leave without having legal implications?. And yes I'm considering taking paralegal services.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your help
Hi: You have the rights of a tenant under the RTA vis a vis the landlord. Within your group of tenants the RTA does not specify your respective rights vis a vis each other (very limited exceptions). A big issue where there is a group of unrelated co-tenants who want different things (i.e. terminate versus not terminate) is whether the group must act together or not. Hence, could you terminate the tenancy because of the failure to provide the standard form lease (example) or would all of the co-tenants have to agree to terminate the lease as well? The RTA is very poor in addressing these issues. Ultimately, the best thing is if you can get together with your co-tenants to work out a way forward.
DeleteMichael K. E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
What is the section of the RTA that specifically says landlords can't limit your guests number of overnight visits etc. I used to know where it was, but cannot find it for the life of me!
ReplyDeleteHi: It's not a section of the RTA per se. If you have the text book Residential Tenancies in Ontario, 3rd Edition, by Jack Fleming you will find the answer you are looking for on page 864. It is under a heading "Interference with Tenant's Guests". The paragraph starts: " A tenant is allowed to have guests or roommates staying in the rental unit. No matter how many or how long, this is not something that requires the landlord's permission or approval." The text goes on and on and there are numerous case law cites including from the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal. I'd post a picture of the page here except that this program won't allow the posting of photos in comments! If you're hunting further, as I recall you will find good caselaw supporting the position in the Ontario Human Rights Code. I don't have those handy but I know the cases are there.
DeleteGood luck
Michael K. E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
Hi I’m a boarder (shared kitchen) and my landlord is saying i am not aloud any guests ever. is that aloud?
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "boarder" and "shared kitchen" you are indicating that your relationship with the landlord is exempted under section 5(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act--meaning the RTA does not apply. Because of that and because the RTA does not apply the "landlord" has far more control over the property. In short I think the law is clear that the landlord can control who is in the house--including any guests that you might want.
DeleteDoes landlord can prohibited certain vehicles if they used all weekly allowance visitor parking spots? For example, the weekly allowance visitor parking space is 3 days a week. We parked 3 days in a row for couple weeks and now the building operator prohibited guest parking to my guest. They were saying we have to pay for the parking spot even though we are not using the space for a full month. Would be great to hear your thoughts on this matter.
ReplyDeleteYour "rights" in relation to "parking" on the residential complex are not directly protected or dealt with in the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA)--meaning there is no section in the RTA that specifically addresses tenants' parking rights on the residential complex. The RTA does indirectly provide you with coverage on issues related to parking if the parking that you enjoy is granted in your lease. What you can or can not do, how you use the parking, where you park, access to a spot, is then covered by the terms of the lease clause respecting the parking. You have some protection from arbitrary and unreasonable treatment from the landlord in dealing with the parking (under the RTA) because the landlord is prohibited from harassment, coercion, interference with your reasonable enjoyment. If the "parking" right, or the visitor's parking right forms part of your lease, then how the landlord manages that right is covered by the lease clause (granting that right) subject to the landlord not breaching its general obligations to you under sections 21, 22, 23, RTA (these are the sections that prohibit a landlord messing with services and being harassing toward tenants--worth reading the sections because they contain many restrictions on the landlord's actions).
DeleteWhat does the above mean? Well, if your lease contains a right to visitor parking (note, the written lease may not contain the right in an explicit clause but you could still have the right by oral agreement or implication--because residential leases are not necessarily limited to the scope of the written document), then you have visitor parking for your guests and the landlord prohibiting that use is breaching the RTA. For example, every tenant has the right to have guests in visitor parking (a shared right), but the landlord says--your guests can't parking in visitor parking because he doesn't "like" you, that would be actionable at the Landlord and Tenant Board as a breach of section 22 and may 23 RTA.
That being said, if the landlord acknowledges that every tenant has a right to have visitors and use the shared parking but a single tenant uses all of the visitor parking continuously with very large numbers of guests and the other tenants are unable to have their guests park---well then, taking action against the one tenant makes sense. The landlord will impose rules on the use of the shared but limited number of guest parking spots.
There are similar concerns with respect to parking for the tenant himself. You need to look at the lease to see what the parking clause says. A lot will be determined about the "rights" from the wording there. Very often, the issue that arises isn't that there is a parking spot--but where it is located on the property. That can be a very big deal, especially in winter. So, look first to the specific wording of the clause. Then look at how the landlord is managing the parking and whether there is direct harassment of the tenant for reasons that are not permitted in the clause--for example: you used to park beside your unit (just like everyone else) but now the landlord re-assigns you to a parking spot on the other side of the building for a spurious reason. That would be actionable as harassment. However, if the parking clause simply gives you a right to park--and then the landlord re-assigns parking spots based on vehicle sizes, in and out issues, accessibility etc., then there is much less of a basis to object under the RTA.
So, the above is for parking that forms part of the tenancy agreement. It is entirely possible for tenants to have zero parking rights in their tenancy agreement. If none are provided then nothing will attract RTA protection. This is likely true even if the landlord outside of the scope of the lease enters into a parking spot rental agreement with the tenant (outside of the scope of the lease). That contract is not a part of the tenancy and its terms will be governed by regular contract law.
Michael Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
I’ve been in this house for a year. 2 weeks ago I rent one of the rooms I have 2 rooms and I live with my wife in one of the room and we have that other room always empty so we though why no renting the extra room.
ReplyDeleteI currently live in a house with a basement and a 1 floor and 2 floor, we all have separately entry to our places. The landlord send us a message saying that he will be installing camaras and people that have no permission to be there better leave. Is something that I’m doing that is illegal or this is something that my landlord can not do anything about it. Also is been 1 year since I’m here so my lease ended and I’m in a month by month lease I guess
I'm trying to understand the situation at your place. From what you say, I think you are renting an entire house two story house with a basement. I'm not sure what you mean by separate entrances? Or maybe you mean that you live on one floor and have a separate entrance for your apartment and your apartment has two bedrooms and you rent one out? I will go with that understanding.
DeleteYou are free to bring in a roommate and basically rent out your second bedroom to that person. You will be sharing the unit (kitchen, bath, living room etc.) and you will likely have rules in place between you. This is perfectly fine and there are generally no restrictions on this kind of space sharing that a landlord can impose. There are exceptions if this is a condominium unit.
The part about "people that have no permission" would not apply to your roommate as you have given your roommate permission to be there. You do not have to have permission from the landlord to have roommates or guests staying with you.
Michael Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
Are there any rules with respect to roommates and guests in lodging houses (specifically Class D in Waterloo, Ontario). My son rents a 5-bedroom house which is considered Class D, however the landlord made the 5 friends sign one lease, vs each room separately which i thought odd for a lodging house. My son and friends and working professionals. Three of the original people on the lease have left, and so now only the original two are on the lease and carry the risk. My son has found replacements and have considered them roommates vs sub-letters as the original tenants have no plans of ever returning. The landlord initially promoted this when she was concerned they would not stay. They wondered if they can have additional guests/roommates/what not in the house or would that exceed the number allowed under Class D. Also does the landlord have the right to have information on each individual that lives there considering, 3 are roommates. Class D licence may require it, but she's not treating each person individually with their own lease. I think her original intent was university students but rented to my son's group who are working professionals. I can't find any information on this and would appreciate the assistance. Thanks, Michele
ReplyDeleteThe Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) is largely indifferent to the rules that any municipality will pass via bylaw or zoning. The RTA has a supremacy clause vis a vis all Ontario statutes and only comes second to the Ontario Human Rights Code. All other statutes, bylaws, etc., are void if they are in direct contradiction to the RTA. All that to say, the quirks of Waterloo may or may not stand up against the rights, obligations and mandates of the RTA.
DeleteWhat I see as in your fact scenario is a single lease tenancy for a whole house. The Class D licence, whatever that may be, is the landlord's problem. As a tenant I would look to my rights under the RTA and be rather skeptical of any right under the RTA being curtailed by a local bylaw, zoning or licence. I suppose it "could" happen that the municipality could modify tenant's rights--but that should be hard and infrequent.
On your facts I think your son can move people in, move them out, and basically do as he pleases as one of the named tenants on the lease. That should remain the case so long as he remains in possession. He can have roommates, he may have visitors, guests, etc.. The notion of a lodging house with exclusive use spaces and communal areas subject to "house rules" seems absent here given the nature of the lease. I don't see how this is anything but a full house rental based on what you've written here.
I hope this is working out for him.
Michael Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com
Hi Michael I'm having some trouble understanding my rights as a tenant.
ReplyDeleteI have been co-tenants with 2 others for 2 years in Ottawa. We are approaching the end of our second lease agreement. One of my co-tenants has decided they do not want to stay anymore. Me and the remaining co-tenant wish to stay so would we still be able to stay on as month to month tenants or is that not an option anymore because one of the co-tenants have left?
We also have an occupant that lives with us not on the lease, the occupant also wishes to stay. Are they affected by this lease end at all? Can the landlord tell us we cannot stay?
Thank you for this question. That you are confused is not at all surprising as the issue that your question identifies has yet to be resolved in a satisfactory way at an appellate level in Ontario. We do have decisions from the current version of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the post covid zoom board) and they appear to be following a policy that determines that no individual tenant in a group of tenants is able to terminate the tenancy of the entire group. This typically comes up when a tenant who wishes to leave signs and delivers a Form N9 (Tenant's Notice to Terminate) but only with their own signature on it and not the signatures of the co-tenants. When a landlord receives a Notice like this they may accept it as terminating the tenancy agreement (there is only one tenancy) even though not all the tenants have signed it. After a short while it becomes clear that only one tenant is moving out so the landlord files an application to the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate the tenancy based on the fact that a tenant gave notice in Form N9. Most often the application is rejected without a decision with the application being returned with the instruction that all tenants need to sign the N9 Form. Sometimes, however, a landlord insists on a hearing based on the single signature N9 form.
DeleteThe outcome at these hearings (typically) reflects what I think must be a back room policy at the LTB. I have tried to get adjudicators to consider the issue and have been promised fulsome reasons but ultimately end up with decisions that basically say an N9 needs to be signed by all tenants--case dismissed. What is left unaddressed is the fact that one tenant no longer wants to be liable for future rent arrears, damages, arising from the tenancy agreement that they seek to terminate. The LTB has no good answer for that tenant.
There is caselaw and there are a few decisions around that I think are better law--or would be better law. Of course, there are contrary views and reasoned explanations of why or how the problem should be solved. In my view, a single tenant, as in your circumstances, should be permitted to terminate the tenancy by giving notice after the expiry of the original term or after the expiry of any extension signed on to. Once a tenancy is month to month I think it only fair to any tenant that they be entitled to terminate their obligations under the tenancy agreement. As it stands now, it appears that it is easier to get divorced in Ontario than it is to terminate one's interest in a lease where you have a co-tenant(s).
There is a lot to be written about this issue. Indeed, there are arguments about deemed assignments, refusal of assignment, the unauthorized transfer of occupancy, and frankly the rights of individuals within a group and what those individuals may do with the rights of the group i.e. the group has a basket of rights and obligations--is the group required to unanimously exercise all those rights, or is it a majority, etc..
DeleteIt has been 27 years that I have been practicing landlord and tenant law and this question has persisted through this entire time. My favourite author in residential tenancies, Jack Fleming, writes about the lack of clarity on this issue and in that respect I agree. Mr. Fleming has a different view from mine as to how this problem should be resolved. He has a more tenant focused resolution that I think is unfair and burdensome to some landlords. Ultimately, though, I think the issue remains unresolved because most landlords and tenants make their own deal notwithstanding the lack of legal clarity. Many landlords will allow a swap out of a tenant who wants to leave and will sign on a replacement tenant. Some landlords may not want to swap out but will agree to let a tenant out of lease with the consent of all in writing so long as the remainers are sufficiently credit worthy. And sometimes, every body is shouting and unwilling to cooperate so the tenant who is leaving leaves, the tenants who are staying stay, and the landlord does nothing because the LTB refuses to solve the actual problem that the circumstances reflect. So long as the remaining tenants pay the rent and don't trash the place the tenant who left is never bothered again and disappears into the good night. Of course, if the remaining tenants do not pay rent, or do damage the unit willfully or negligently, and they happen to be less than credit worthy, the landlord can indeed still look at the tenant who left the unit but who never arranged to terminate their interest in the tenancy agreement. Whether that tenant is liable or not (for those arrears or damages caused or incurred long after they've left) is again a legal question that has an uncertain answer. Sometimes yes, sometimes no--but definitely "maybe" for all.
So what does this mean for you? You should ask your landlord to swap out the tenant who wishes to leave for a new co-tenant who will sign on. The landlord would be entitled to vet this person. Often enough, this solves the problem you describe and the leaving tenant gets what they want also. Why would this not work? It doesn't work smoothly when the current rent of the unit is well below market rent and the landlord would love nothing more than for you all to move out and re-rent. In that circumstance facilitating the swap out of a tenant to allow the current tenancy agreement to continue on indefinitely at the present rent is not appealing to the landlord.
Once you hear from your landlord perhaps the issue is solved. If not, there is very little to nothing that your landlord will actually do to force you to vacate. In theory there is something that he "can" do, but that legal process is so expensive that most landlords will not venture down that road unless it is for a very principled reason and money is besides the point (there aren't many landlords like that).
So, you may end up with your co-tenant moving out. You can stay. You will be responsible to pay the entirety of the rent. You might not be able to get official "co-tenants" but there is nothing stopping you from getting roommates. Those roommates would have no contractual relationship with the landlord and their right to be present in the unit would be subject to your consent but maybe that is okay? Even at that, the roommates status in the unit can become a complicated question.
In short, there is very likely nothing at all that is going to happen. You can stay. The landlord may want you to leave, may ask you to leave, and may insist that you do so. However, the landlord can not force you to leave. The landlord will need an Order from the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board terminating your tenancy and evicting you and while there is a theoretical path for the landlord to get such an Order the legal issues are so fraught and unsettled that it is highly unlikely that he will bother to try as the cost is prohibitive and the LTB bias at this point is not in the landlord's favour.
Hope that helps and good luck
Michael Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com