Tenant refusing to move

Hypothetical scenario related to a query from the OP earlier in the thread.

Say a tenant has received a termination notice but is overholding and rent is not being paid, similar situation to the OP.
If all the utility bills were in the landlord's name but the landlord can't pay the bills because of not getting any rent, and the services are then cut off, could the tenant lodge a dispute with RTB? What grounds would it be for?

If the tenant has already broken the lease agreement for non payment of rent, is the landlord obliged to keep providing the services?

I guess it's a query about the parties to a contract, ie. if one party is in breach of contract, is the other party legally obliged to continue upholding their side of the contract.
 
Last edited:
bipped said:
Hypothetical scenario related to a query from the OP earlier in the thread.

Say a tenant has received a termination notice but is overholding and rent is not being paid, similar situation to the OP.
If all the utility bills were in the landlord's name but the landlord can't pay the bills because of not getting any rent, and the services are then cut off, could the tenant lodge a dispute with RTB? What grounds would it be for?

If the tenant has already broken the lease agreement for non payment of rent, is the landlord obliged to keep providing the services?

I guess it's a query about the parties to a contract, ie. if one party is in breach of contract, is the other party legally obliged to continue upholding their side of the contract.
Click to expand...
2 problems

1. In what world is LL paying utilities?
2. LL has no right to their own property, RTB will come down on said LL and nail to the wall.
 
bipped said:
If the tenant has already broken the lease agreement for non payment of rent, is the landlord obliged to keep providing the services?
Click to expand...
Actions like changing locks or cutting utilities are not allowed and would likely prolong the problem and increase costs.
 
Frank said:
2 problems

1. In what world is LL paying utilities?
2. LL has no right to their own property, RTB will come down on said LL and nail to the wall.
Click to expand...

It was a hypothetical scenario, but having said that, I have heard of rentals where the utilities are in the landlords name so it's not impossible.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Leo for that information. If you could please point me to where I can find that in the RTA I would really appreciate it.
 
bipped said:
It was a hypothetical scenario, but having said that, I have heard of rentals where the utilities are in the landlords name so it's not impossible.
Click to expand...
I get that alright

I know someone ended up in the LRC and LL got screwed. RTB rep came in 100% anti landlord.

This is what you are up against RTB is anti LL just taking more money from pockets.
 
Legalities aside, my limited personal experience is that the RTB's culture is extremely pro-tenant and this kind of action would be adjudicated extremely harshly against the landlord.
 
Frank said:
I get that alright

I know someone ended up in the LRC and LL got screwed. RTB rep came in 100% anti landlord.

This is what you are up against RTB is anti LL just taking more money from pockets.
Click to expand...
The RTB is strongly anti Landlord. They will look for a reason to make any situation their fault. It's a good idea badly executed but that's hardly a new thing in this country or anywhere else when it comes to the State delivering services.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
Legalities aside, my limited personal experience is that the RTB's culture is extremely pro-tenant and this kind of action would be adjudicated extremely harshly against the landlord.
Click to expand...
Purple said:
The RTB is strongly anti Landlord. They will look for a reason to make any situation their fault. It's a good idea badly executed but that's hardly a new thing in this country or anywhere else when it comes to the State delivering services.
Click to expand...
I think the real issue is that the legislation is extremely pro-tenant and anti-landlord. Probably because of cultural shibboleths deeply ingrained in the national psyche. The RTB merely implements the legislation. As far as I can see, it does so fairly.
 
Baby boomer said:
The RTB merely implements the legislation. As far as I can see, it does so fairly.
Click to expand...
My experience was that it implements the legislation with benefit of the doubt always given to the tenant.

To take the RTB to the High Court would cost a landlord multiples of what he/she would ever get out of it, so these practices continue.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
My experience was that it implements the legislation with benefit of the doubt always given to the tenant.

To take the RTB to the High Court would cost a landlord multiples of what he/she would ever get out of it, so these practices continue.
Click to expand...
The Residential Tenancies Act is a piece of civil legislation, and cases arising from it must be proven to the civil standard, ie on the balance of probabilities. As most of the requirements in the Act impose burdens on landlords, it will be for the landlord to prove that the burden has been complied with. A good example of this is the very detailed provisions that MUST be followed when issuing a Notice of Termination or a Notice of Rent Review.

But the basic problem is the Act, rather than its implementation.
 
Baby boomer said:
The Residential Tenancies Act is a piece of civil legislation, and cases arising from it must be proven to the civil standard, ie on the balance of probabilities
Click to expand...
In my personal experience (once as landlord, once as tenant) a thumb was very firmly on the balance

There are also big issues with the RTA as amended multiple times since 2016, but that is a different issue. But culturally the RTB sees itself as the champion of the tenant from what I can see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top