document - British Columbia Law Institute

Transcription

LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
REPORT ON LANDLORD AND TENANT RELATIONSHIPS
(PROJECT NO. 12)
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
LRC 13
1973
-1 -
T he
L aw
R eform
C om m issio n
of
B ritish
Reform Commission Act in 1969 and began functioning in 1970.
C olum bia
w as
established
by
the
L aw
The Commissioners are:
Ronald C. Bray, Chairman
Paul D. K. Fraser
Peter Fraser
Allen A. Zysblat
Mr. Keith B. Farquhar is Director of Research to the Commission.
Mr. Arthur L. Close is Legal Research Officer to the Commission.
Miss Patricia Thorpe is Secretary to the Commission.
The
C o m m is s io n
o f f ic e s
Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.
are
lo c a t e d
on
-2 -
th e
1 0 th
F lo o r ,
1055
W est
H a s tin g s
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
7
I.
THE
A.
B.
C.
9
9
10
11
II.
SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED ACT
A.
Tenants and Licenses
B.
Its Application to the Crown
C.
The Caretaker's Suite
D.
Mobile Homes
E.
Monetary Limitation
III.
RESOLUTION
OF
DISPUTES
THE
COURTS
26
A.
Introduction
1.
Functions of the Manitoba Rentalsman
(a)
General
(b)
Security Deposits
(c)
Abandoned Goods
(d)
Failure to Supply Services
(e)
Repairs
(f)
Mediation and Arbitration
2.
Powers of the Manitoba Rentalsman
B.
The Division of Jurisdiction
1.
Functions of the Rentalsman
(a)
The Disposition of Rent Deposits
(b)
The Disposition of Damage Deposits
(c)
The Landlord's Failure to Provide
Essential Services
(d)
The Landlord's Failure to Effect Repairs
(e)
Discriminatory Rent Increase
(f)
Hidden Rent Increase
(g)
Abandoned Goods
(h)
Possession
(i)
General
2.
The Courts
C.
Powers of the Rentalsman
D.
Administration
Memorandum of Dissent of Mr. Peter Fraser
Memorandum of Dissent of Mr. Paul D.K. Fraser
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT
Introduction
Residential Tenancies
The Form of the Act
17
17
20
23
24
25
-3 -
RENTALSMAN
AND THE
26
30
30
30
31
31
32
33
33
35
36
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
41
42
43
44
47
48
IV
TENANT SECURITY AND RENT CONTROL
PART I: TENANT SECURITY
A.
Introduction
B.
The Present Position
1.
General
2.
Retaliatory Evictions
C.
Comparative Study
1.
Security of Tenure Schemes Dependent on Rent Control53
(a)
The British Scheme
(b)
Victoria and New South Wales
(c)
New York City and Massachusetts
(d)
Newfoundland and Quebec
(i)
Newfoundland
(ii)
Quebec
2.
Security of Tenure Independent of Rent Control
(a)
West Germany
(b)
Switzerland
(c)
United States
(d)
Canada
(i)
Manitoba
(ii)
Surrey, British Columbia
D.
An Evaluation of Tenant Security
E.
Recommendations
50
50
50
50
51
53
53
57
61
61
61
62
63
63
64
64
65
66
69
71
75
PART II - RENT CONTROL
85
V
SECURITY DEPOSITS
A.
Introduction
B.
British Columbia: The Present Position
C.
Shortcomings of the Present Legislative Scheme
D.
Comparative Study
1.
General
2.
Canada
3.
United States
4.
Other Jurisdictions
E.
Policy Considerations
F.
Recommendations
G.
Rentalsman's Handling of Statutory Deposits
H.
Summary of Recommendations
89
89
89
91
92
92
93
94
95
95
97
102
103
VI
CONTRACTUAL NATURE OF THE TENANCY AGREEMENT106
A.
General
B.
The Interdependence of Material Covenants
C.
Freedom of Contract
D.
The Lord's Day Act
E.
Privity and Rights on Assignment
F.
Formalities and Land Registration
G.
Implied Terms
H.
Interesse Termini
I.
Frustration of Contract
106
107
111
115
116
117
120
121
123
-4 -
VII
STATUTORY DUTIES AND PROHIBITIONS
A.
Introduction
B.
Landlord's Responsibility to Repair
C.
Tenant's Responsibility for Cleanliness
D.
The Tenant's Right to Privacy
1.
During the Tenancy Agreement
2.
On Notice of Termination
E.
Locks
F.
Entry by Canvassers
G.
Penalties
H.
Breach of Statutory Duty
VIII
A.
B.
C.
D.
125
125
126
128
128
129
130
131
132
133
135
RENTAL RATES
Frequency of Rental Increases
Definition of Rental Increases
Increased Occupancy
Acceleration of Rent
137
137
140
143
143
IX
ABANDONMENT
A.
Definition
B.
Abandonment of Goods
C.
Landlord's Duty to Re-rent After Abandonment
X
DISCRIMINATION
158
XI
COLLECTIVE ACTION BY TENANTS
164
XII
OTHER PROBLEMS
A.
The Rent-Control Act
B.
Municipal Options
C.
Mobile Homes
D.
The Overholding Tenant
170
170
177
179
181
XIII
A.
B.
IN
LANDLORD
CONCLUSION
Acknowledgments
145
145
149
153
AND
TENANT
RELATION
185
185
197
-5 -
TO THE HONOURABLE ALEX B. MACDONALD, Q.C.,
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
The
Law
the following:
Reform
C om m ission
of
British
Colum bia has the honour to present
REPORT ON LANDLORD AND TENANT RELATIONSHIPS
(Project No. 12)
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
to
T his
R epo rt
has
been
p repared
th e p res en t P ro v in cial legislatio n
follow ing
regarding
yo ur
the
request
subject
for
advice
of landlord
w ith
and
respect
tenan t.
The
post-w ar years
have
seen
a
d ram atic
increase
in
the
percentage
of
British
C o lu m b ia re s id en ts w h o liv e in ren ted acco m m o datio n .
T h is tren d h as m ad e th e
substan tive and procedural law go vern ing lan dlord and tenan t relationsh ips m ore
important than ever before.
The enactment of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act was
a significant respo nse to ch anging co nd ition s.
W e have, ho w ever, con cluded that
fu rth er refo rm is in o rd er, p articu larly w ith re gard to trib u n a ls, p ro ced ures an d
security of tenure.
N um erous recom m endations of a technical nature are also
made.
-6 -
INTRODUCTION
In
a
le tte r
to
the
C o m m is s io n ,
d a te d
July
6,
1973
the
A ttorney-G eneral
in d ic a t e d th a t th e r e w o u ld o c c u r, b e f o r e t h e e n d o f th a t y e a r , a n u r g e n t n e e d f o r
gu id an ce w ith resp ect to th e p resen t P ro v in cial legislatio n regard in g th e su b ject o f
l a n d l o r d a n d te n a n t a n d a s k e d th a t th is b e ta k e n o n a s a n i m m e d i a t e a n d u r g e n t
ta s k an d th a t a re p o rt b e m a d e n o t la te r th a n th e en d o f D e c e m b e r, 1 9 7 3 .
T h is
Report has been prepared in response to that request.1
The
law
of
lan d lo rd
and
ten an t
d id
not
form
part
of
th e
C o m m i s s io n ' s
ex istin g P ro gram m e an d it w as n ecessary to a d d th is s tu d y as a se p arate P ro ject.
It w a s in itia lly d ec id ed to re stric t its s c o p e to r e sid e n tia l te n a n c ie s, le av in g o p en th e
q u e s t io n o f u n d e r t a k i n g a s t u d y o n c o m m e r c i a l t e n a n c i e s a t s o m e l at e r d a t e .
T h is
Report is therefore entitled Report on Landlord and Tenant Relationships: Residential Tenancies.
The
tim e
lim its
within
which
we
were
operating did
not perm it us
to
follow
our usual practice of preparing a w orking paper containing tentative conclusions
an d proposals for refo rm an d circulating it for com m ent.
W e w ere, however,
lo ath to p r o ce ed to o u r f in a l R e p o rt w ith o ut an y fo rm o f co n su ltatio n w ith th e
pu blic and interested parties.
It w as felt that this co nsultation could be best
carried out by soliciting an d considering w ritten subm issio n s an d b y h o ld in g public
hearings.
D u rin g
th e
firs t
w eek
in
A u gust
ad vertisem en ts
w ere
place d
in
all
th e
d aily
n ew sp ap ers in B ritish C olum b ia in vitin g m em b ers of th e pub lic, gro up s an d
organization s to m ake w ritten sub m ission s to th e C o m m ission .2
M un icipal bo dies
w e re s p e c if ic a lly in v ite d to e x p r e ss th e ir o p in io n s .
The advertisem ent also stated:
The Commission is prepared
briefs, to be heard in person at Vancouver . . .
to
consider
requests
by
those
submitting
T h e C o m m ission 's initial research id en tified a n um b er o f asp ects o f the lan d lord
an d ten an t relatio n sh ip w h ich w e re th e su bject o f sp ecial co ntro versy.
W e th o ugh t
i t d e s ir a b l e t o s o l ic it p a r t ic u la r c o m m e n t o n t h e s e a n d s o o u r a d v e r t i s e m e n t i n v i t e d
views on, inter alia,
1.
what
courts
or
b odies
should
have
jurisd ictio n
landlord and tenant, and what their procedures should be.
1.
over
disputes
betw een
The Law R eform C om m ission A ct, S.B.C . 1969, c. 14, s. 3 (c) provides:
It
is
th e
fu n ctio n
of
th e
C o m m issio n
to
take
an d
keep
u nd er
rev iew
a ll
th e
la w
of
th e
P ro vince , inclu din g statu te law , co m m o n law , an d jud icial d ec ision s, w ith a v iew to its system atic
d e v elo p m en t a n d refo rm , in c lu d in g th e c o d ific a tio n , elim in atio n o f an om alies, rep eal o f o bso lete an d
unnecessary
enactm ents,
reduction
in
the
number
of
separate
enactm ents,
and
generally
the
sim plification and m odernization of the law, and for the purpose
©
2.
to
undertake,
at
the
request
of
the
A ttorney-G eneral
or
pursuant to
recom m endation
of
the
com m ission
approved
by
the
A ttorney-G eneral,
the
exam ination of particular branches of the law , and the form ulation , by m eans of
draft bills of otherw ise, of proposals for reform therein;.
C opy of the advertisem ent is included as an A ppendix to this R eport.
-7 -
-8 -
2.
th e
a vailab ility
of
distributing information.
o th er
3.
how
far
a
la n d lo rd
termination of tenancy.
4.
how
far
th e
tenant matters.
5.
security and damage deposits.
co lle c tiv e
facilities
sh o u ld
be
b arg a in in g
to
assist
in
reso lvin g
re q u ire d
to
ju stif y
an
p ro ce s s
is
ap p ro p riate
such
disp utes
e v ic tio n
to
and
or
th e
lan dlo rd
an d
In resp o n se to th at ad v ertisem en t w e receiv ed o v er 20 0 w ritten sub m issio n s.
Of
tho se subm ission s, approxim ately 80 per cent w ere from landlords and landlords'
g r o u p s , te n p e r c e n t f r o m t e n a n t s a n d t e n a n t s ' g r o u p s a n d t e n p e r c e n t f r o m o t h e r
persons and organizations.
O ur
pub lic
hearings
w ere
held
on
O ctober 17, 18
and
19
at the
Vancouver
P u b l ic L ib r a r y .
T i m e w a s a l l o c a t e d t o al l p e rs o n s w h o h a d , w i t h i n t h e t i m e lim it
set o ut in th e ad vertisem en t, a sk ed to p a rtic ip a te in th e h earin gs an d p resen tatio n s
w ere m ade by representatives of eleven different groups and by tw o individuals
o n th e i r o w n b e h a l f . 3
A g a i n , t h e v o ic e s o f th e l a n d lo r d s p r e d o m i n a t e d , w i t h n in e
p re s e n ta tio n s .
O n ly o n e s u b m iss io n w a s m a d e o n b e h a lf o f ten an ts p er se a n d fo u r
w ere m ade by other groups.
M ost of tho se m aking p resentation s at the h earings
were questioned by the mem bers of the Com m ission, other participants and
members of the public in attendance.
F o llo w ing
the
h earin gs,
all
sub m issions
were
considered
further,
th e results of research b y th e Co m m issio n.
These deliberations
conclusions and recommendations which form the basis of this Report.
along
w ith
led to the
One
asp ect
of
the
subm issions
m ad e
to
us
deserves
sp ecial
co m m en t
at
th is
point.
It w as alm ost un an im o usly represented to us, by those speaking on behalf
of landlords, that w hat they conceive to be an unduly restrictive Landlord and Tenant A ct
has con tribu ted to the current sho rtage of rental acco m m o d atio n in th is P rov in ce.
It has been u rged that an y m easu res w h ich w o uld further restrict "landlords'
righ ts" w o uld fu rth er disco urage co n structio n o f, and investm ent in, new rental
accommodation
and
would
hasten
the
conversion
of
existing
rental
acco m m odation to condom inium housing.
C onversely, it w as suggested that a
legal regim e m o re favo urab le to th e lan d lo rd w o u ld stim u late co n stru ctio n an d
w o uld ultim ately ben efit th e ten an t th ro ugh th e op eratio n of co m p etitio n an d th e
free market.
These
s u b m is s io n s
pose
a
d if f ic u lt
p r o b le m
for
us,
p a rtic u la rly
because
th e y
w ere not supported b y an y facts or studies w hich w ould assist us to assess
e co n o m ic c o n se qu en c es in an y re liab le w ay .
Thus, while w e have been m indful
throughout th e study of the fact th at our recom m endations m ay have econom ic
effects, and in som e cases have rejected submissions m ade to us where the
econom ic effects w ere p redictab le an d tho ug h t to b e u n desirable, in the final
an alysis w e concluded that it w ould b e w rong in p rin cip le to allo w eco n o m ic
speculation
to deter us from
recom m endations which w ould bring about an
e q uitab le le g al b alan ce betw e en th e legitim ate righ ts, in terests, an d exp ectatio n s o f
landlords and tenants.
3.
A list of those w ho m ade presentations at the hearings is included as an A ppendix to this R eport.
-9 -
CHAPTER I
A.
THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT
Introduction
That body
of law
w hich
regulates
the
relationship
betw een
a
landlo rd
an d
his
ten an t is firm ly ro o te d in th e co m m o n la w o f E n g la n d w h ic h w e in h e rite d u p o n
th e fo u n d in g o f th e co lo n y o f B ritish C o lum b ia in 18 58 .
A num ber of the
ch aracteristics o f th e co m m o n law relation ship are succinctly set out in W illiam s'
Notes on the Canadian Law of Landlord and Tenant:1
At common law the relation of landlord and tenant is a contractual one,
arising when one party, retaining in himself a reversion, permits another to have
t h e exclu si ve p o ss es s io n , o f a c or p or ea l h er ed it am en t , fo r s o me d ef in it e p er io d
or for a period which can be made definite by either party.
The contract may
be express or it may be implied by law.
It is not a contract and nothing more,
as it vests in the tenant taking possession an estate or interest in the land or
premises demised.
The doctrine of frustration of contract does not apply to a
lease.
Tenancies are sometimes created by statute.
There may also be tenancies
by estoppel.
Rent need not be, but usually is reserved, and payment of rent is
often evidence of the existence of a tenancy.
The
growth
of the law
relating to landlord
and
tenant was not, however, the
exclusive p ro p erty o f th e co urts.
L egislative in tervention w as frequent.
An early
ed itio n o f W o o d fall2 lists n o less th an 8 8 E n g lish statu tes aff ec tin g th e lan d lo rd
an d ten an t relatio n sh ip w h ich w e re ap p aren tly in fo rce in 18 58 .
T he earliest o f
those statutes dates back to 1266.3
In
1897
the
more
relevant
provisions
of
the
E nglish
statutes
were
c o n s o l i d a t e d a n d i n c l u d e d i n t h e R e v is e d S t a t u te s o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a f o r t h a t y e a r
as the Landlord and Tenant A ct.4
Subject to m inor am endm ents which were introduced with
re s p ec t to b a n k r u p tc y, 5 th e A c t o f 1 8 9 7 is s till in f o rc e as P art I o f th e ex is tin g
Landlord and Tenant Act.6
1.
(3 rd ed., 1957). Som e oi the com m on law characteristics set out have been altered by statute.
2.
W oodfall, L aw of L andlord and Tenant (10 th ed., 1871).
3.
51 H enry 3, c. 4 (distress on beasts of the plow and sheep).
4.
R .S.B.C . 1897, c. 110.
5.
See, S.B.C . 1924, c. 27; S.B.C . 1963, C . 21.
6.
R.S.B.C.
referred
1960 c. 207 as am ended. S.B.C . 1970, c.
t o a s t h e A c t ].
A c o n s o l id a t e d c o p y
-1 0 -
18;
of
S.B.C . 1971,
the A ct is
c. 58, 2. 9; S.B.C . 1973
inclu ded as an A ppen dix
c. 47. [H ereafter
to this R ep ort.
-1 1 -
B.
Residential Tenancies
At
co m m o n
la w ,
an d
under
P a rt
I
of
th e
A ct,
no
d is tin c tio n
w as
d ra w n
b e tw e e n th e la w ap p lic a b le to re s id e n tia l te n a n c ie s a n d th a t a p p lic a b le to in d u s tr ia l
a n d c o m m e rc ia l t e n a n c ie s .
I n t h e 1 9 6 0 's it b e c a m e c le a r th a t th e c o m m o n la w w a s
no t fun ction ing efficiently in reso lvin g p rob lem s betw een landlords of residen tial
prem ises and their tenants.
T he fact that the legal relation ship w as very m uch
allied w ith the concept of the leasehold estate, and the fact that freedom of
contract had, in practical term s, com e to operate entirely to the benefit of
lan dlo rd s, m ean t th at th e law w a s p ro d ucin g u n reaso n ab le an d u n fair resu lts.
The
call for reform was virtually unanimous.7
The
first
C an ad ian
jurisd ictio n
to
take
steps
in
the
direction
of
reform
w as
O ntario.
In 1968 the O ntario Law Reform Com m ission produced its Interim
Report on Landlord and Tenant Law Applicable to Residential Tenancies.8
That Report reviewed a number
of
the
anachronistic
consequences
which
the
common
law
produced
and
id en tified a n um b e r o f m atte rs o r w h ic h im m ed iate legislativ e actio n w as th o ugh t
to
be required.
The O ntario
Comm ission
summ arized
the
reasons for the
c o m m o n la w fallin g b e h in d th e n e ed s o f b o th lan d lo rd s an d te n a n t s w ith r e sp e c t
to residential tenancies in the following fashion:9
The common law of landlord and tenant, over the centuries, has not
developed any legal philosophy based on a theory of vital interests.
The single
most important feature of landlord and tenant law is the existence of the
leasehold "estate" of the tenant.
T h e v e s t i n g o f t h e es t a t e i n t h e t e n a n t
underlies the rather fixed nature of the law and has caused courts to determine
the rights of tenants according to rigid land law principles rather than in
accordance with t he mor e real istic devel op ment o f co nt ract an d t or t law which
would likely apply in the absence of the estate theory ... Landlord and tenant law
is not in a consistently lo gical sense concerned with the interests of landlords
and tenants and it has not even attempted to define them.
In a sense the
common law of landlord and tenant is mechanical in that its conclusions as to
the rights of the parties are based on the fact of the "estate", not on any realistic
standard of vital interests which the law will endeavour to protect.
F o llo w in g th e O n t ario I n te rim R e p o rt, th e O n tario L e gislatu re e n ac te d T he L an dlord
and Tenant Amendment Act.10
The O ntario changes had been in effect for just over a year
before our Legislature enacted Part II of the British Colum bia A ct.
This legislation to a
large exten t m irro rs th e O n tario am en d m en ts alth o ugh th ere are a n um b er o f
m i n o r v a r i a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e t w o w h i c h w i l l b e r e f e r r e d to la t e r . 1 1
M o st o f th e
7.
See, M .R. G orsky, The L andlord and Tenant A m endm ent A ct, 1968-69 - Som e Problems of Statutory Interpretation 439, 441 (1970 Law
Society of U pper C anada L ectures).
8.
H ereafter referred to as the O ntario Interim R eport.
9.
O ntario Interim R eport 10.
10.
S.O .
1968-69,
c.
58
w hich
added
to
the
e x is tin g
O n ta rio
le g is la tio n
tenancies and em bodying m ost of the reform s recom m ended by the O ntario C om m ission.
11.
G enerally
the
cases
decided
in
th e
O n tario
C o u rts
can
be
relied
on
fo r
g u id a n ce
in
in terp reta tin g
th e
B r itish C o lu m b ia le g islatio n.
R e feren ce w ill also b e m ad e to recen tly en acted rem ed ia l la n d lo rd a n d
te n an t le g islatio n in o th er p ro v in ces; e.g., M an ito b a:
T he L an dlord a nd Tenant A ct, S .M . 1971, c. 35, am en d in g
C .C.S.M .?
C . L70.
-1 2 -
Part
IV
relating
to
r e s id e n t ia l
substantive p rov isions o f Part II w ill be considered severally, in the prop er
context, elsewhere in this Report.
W hile it m ight b e th ought desirable to elaborate on the anachronistic
c o n s e q u e n c e s w h i c h P a r t I I w a s d e s i g n e d t o r e m e d y , in o u r o p i n i o n t h e r e i s l i t t l e
to b e g a in ed fro m s u ch a n e x e rc is e .
T h e o n ly re s u lt w o u ld b e p o in tle s s re p e titio n
and a rew riting o f po rtion s of the O n tario Interim R epo rt for our purpo ses.
R ath er, w e su ggest th at th e O n tario In terim R ep o rt be read in co n jun ction w ith
this Report.
C.
The Form of the Act
The Landlord and Tenant Act is now divided into two distinct parts.
Part II of the Act
has alm ost com pletely occupied the legislative field w ith respect to residen tial
te n an c ie s.
T h e p r o v i s i o n s o f P a r t I , w h i c h s t i l l g o v e r n c o m m e r c i a l te n a n c i e s , h a v e
a limited effect on residential tenancies.12
A
s ta t u t e
which
c o n t a in s
tw o
d if f e re n t
parts
w h ic h
are
e s s e n tia l l y
unrelated
c r e a t e s a s i t u a t i o n w h i c h is l i k e l y t o c a u s e c o n f u s i o n i n t h e m i n d o f t h e l a y m a n .
P erh ap s n o o th er A c t o f th e L egislature is as w id ely read an d in terp reted b y
n o n -law yers fo r gu id an ce in th eir o w n affairs.
It seem s undesirable that the
laym an wishing to ascertain his rights, and con sulting a copy of the L andlord and Tenant
A ct to th at en d , sh o uld im m ed iately b e co n fro n ted b y th e an ach ro n istic p ro v is io n s
an d arch aic lan gu age o f P art I . W e are o f th e o p in io n th at th e co n ten ts o f th e
L a n d l o r d a n d T e n a n t A c t s h o u l d l o g i c a l l y b e c o n t a i n e d i n t w o s e p a r a t e A c t s a n d , in
particular, that Part II should form the basis of a new Landlord and Tenant Act governing
residential tenancies.
T h is
can n ot,
ho w ev er,
be
ach ieved
by
sim ply
into distinct Acts and retitling Part I. Section 34(3) of the Act provides:
agreements,
II applies.
sep aratin g
P art
Part I of this Act applies to tenancies of residential
except in so far as Part I conflicts with Part II,
II
fro m
P art
I
premises and tenancy
in which case Part
I t is th e re f o re n e c e s s a ry to e x a m in e P a rt I a n d a t t e m p t to id e n tif y t h o s e p r o v is io n s
w h ic h m ig h t b e ap p lic ab le to re sid e n tial p rem ises an d d o n o t co n flict w ith an y
provisions of Part II.
O n ce th o se p ro v isio n s h av e b een id en tified co n sid eratio n
ca n th en b e g ive n to th e d es irab ility o f ca rryin g th em fo rw ard in to a n ew A ct,
either in their existing form or with modifications.
Sections 6, 7 and 18 to 32 of Part I are entirely procedural in content.
At
c o m m o n l a w , if a t e n a n t a l l o w e d a r r e a r s o f r e n t t o a c c u m u l a t e o r w a s i n d e f a u l t
o f so m e o th er c o n d ition of h is ten an cy w hich w o uld en title th e lan dlord to
term in ate it, o r co n tin ue d in occ up atio n after th e ten an cy exp ired, th e lan d lo rd
w a s o b lig ed to b rin g a n ac tio n in th e H ig h C o u rt f o r e je c tm e n t .
S u c h p ro c e e d in g s
w o re o fte n slo w an d ex p e n s iv e .
S e c tio n s 1 8 to 3 2 w e re d e s ig n e d to o v e rc o m e th is
d ifficu lty b y p ro vid in g th a t a su m m ary ap p lic atio n to a C o u n ty C o urt m igh t b e
made.
S ectio ns
6
an d
action in S up rem e
12.
7
are
also
aim ed
at
avo idin g
th e
necessity
C ourt, but are lim ited to situation s w here
A rgum ents
can
be
made
th a t
so m e
p r o v is i o n s
of
Part
a f fi r m a t iv e a n s w e r s in a l l c a s e s .
T h e clear po licy o f th e
I should have little or no application to residential tenancies.
-1 3 -
I
ap p ly
and
the
L egislature, how ever,
of
an
ejectm en t
the tenant has
courts
appears
have
not
given
to be that Part
abandon ed the prem ises.
Section 6, wh ich seem s to b e directed particularly at
a g r i c u lt u r a l t e n a n c i e s , p r o v i d e s f o r a n a p p l i c a t i o n to t w o J u s t i c e s o f t h e P e a c e w h o
m a y , u p o n o b s e r v i n g c e r t a i n p r o c e d u r e s , p u t th e l a n d l o r d i n t o l e g a l p o s s e s s i o n a n d
in effect clear h is title o f th e lease.
In m o st cases w hen th e circu m stan ces o f
aband on m ent contem plated by section 6 arise, the landlord wo uld also h ave a
remedy in a County Court under sections 18 to 32.
Part
II,
however,
contains
its
own
jurisdiction over residential tenancies in the Provincial Court.13
These procedural provisions are to be found
conflict betw een the p rocedu ral provisions of
clearly states:
procedural
provisions
in sections 60 to
Part I and Part
65.
II?
which
place
Is there a
Section 61(1)
Unless a tenant has vacated or abandoned rented premises, the landlord
s h al l n o t r egai n p o ss es s ion o f t h e p re mi se s o n t h e gr o un ds h e is en t it led to
p o s s e s s i o n , e x c ep t u nd er t h e auth o ri t y o f an o rde r o b t ai n e d un de r se c t i on 60.
T he w ording of that section co up led w ith the con tents of section 34(3) quoted
above suggests that the procedures provided by sections 18 to 32 have no
application to residential tenancies.
That was the result arrived at by the
Vancouver County Court in Oxford Industries Ltd. v. L. F. Conn and M. Conn.14
The
e x c e p t io n
to
s ec tio n
6 1 (1 ),
h o w e ve r,
is
w h e re
th e
te n an t
h as
ab a n d o n e d
the prem ises.
T h a t is p re cise ly th e situ atio n c o n te m p late d b y se ctio n s 6 an d 7
w hich m ay, therefore, be app licable to residen tial tena n cies.
T he app arent po licy
o f s e c tio n 6 1 ( 1 ) is th a t w h e r e a te n a n t ab a n d o n s th e p r e m is e s th e la n d l o r d is f r e e
to r e t a k e p o s s es s io n w ith o u t th e n e c e ss ity o f a c o u r t o r d e r a n d , to t h e e x te n t th a t
s e ctio n 6 a n d 7 re m a in a p p lic a b le , it m ig h t b e a rg u e d th a t th e y im p e d e th i s p o lic y .
M o re o v e r, to th e e x te n t th a t s e c tio n 6 m ig h t as s ist th e lan d lo rd in cle a rin g h is title
o f a r e g is t e r e d le a s e , a b e t t e r r e m e d y e x is t s i n t h e f o r m o f a n a p p lic a tio n to t h e
Registrar under section 185 of the Land Registry Act. 15
W e see little virtue in preserving
section s 6 and 7 o r sectio n s 1 8 to 32 in a new A ct dealing w ith residen tial
tenancies.
Sections 2, 4, 5 and 8 relate to distress.
The latter three sections are designed
to g ive the lan d lo rd a statuto ry right to d istrain w here no such right existed at
c o m m o n la w .
S e c tio n 2 re g u la te s p rio ritie s w it h re s p e c t t o a ri g h t t o th e te n a n t's
g o o d s i n a c a s e o f a c o m p e t i t i o n b e tw e e n a d is t r a i n i n g l a n d lo r d a n d a n e x e c u ti o n
c re d ito r.
It fav o u rs th e lan d lo rd an d p ro v id e s th a t b e fo re th e cre d ito r can le v y
execution against the goods he is obliged to secure the landlord's interest.
Section 39(1) in Part II provides:
13.
See; e.g., definition of judge s. 34 (1)(a).
14.
Per Judge M cL ellan (U nreported - V ancouver C ounty C ourt, no. 912/71).
15.
R .S.B.C . 1960, c. 208.
16.
See, C hapter IX .
-1 4 -
Except where a tenant abandons the premises, no landlord shall distrain for
default in the payment of rent whether a right of distress has heretofore existed
by statute, the common law, or contract.
Thus, the rem edy of distress has b een ab olished w ith respect to residential
prem ises except in the relatively narrow
circum stances where the tenant has
abandoned.
It is reco m m en ded elsew h ere in th is R e p o rt16 th at th e rem ed y o f
d istress b e co m p letely ab o lish ed .
T h erefo re, sectio n s 2 , 4 , 5 a n d w o u ld hav e n o
application to an Act which reflects those recommendations.17
S ectio n s
9,
11 ,
12
an d
15
a re
c o n cern ed
w ith
estab lish in g,
or
p re serv in g,
a
co ntin uity o f relatio n sh ip b etw een lan dlo rd , ten an t and under-tenan t w here there
h a s b e e n a c h a n g e o f p a r t y , th r o u g h d e a t h o r a s s ig n m e n t, o r s o m e s lig h t a lt e r a t i o n
of legal relation ship throu gh the renew al of a head lease.
E ssentially, tho se
p ro v is io n s re g a rd th e te n a n c y as an in te re s t in lan d an d th e ir ap p lica b ility is s h a rp ly
called into question by the wording of section 35 which provides:
For the
o f co n tr ac t o n ly ,
interest in land.
purposes
a nd a
of this Part, the relationship of landlord and tenant is one
t en anc y agr ee men t do es no t c on fe r o n t h e t en a nt an
M oreover, section s 9, 11 and 12 are designed to co rrect certain co m m on law
deficiencies w hich m anifest th em selves o n ly in v ery narrow circum stances w hich
are n o t lik ely to occ ur in th e co n tex t o f m o d ern resid en tial ten an cies in th is
P ro vin ce.
I t s h o u l d a l s o b e n o t e d th a t e ls e w h e r e in t h is R e p o r t 1 8 r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
are m ad e w h ic h clarify th e righ ts an d re m e d ie s w h ic h sh o u ld b e av ailab le in th e
circum stances contem plated by sections 9, 11, 12 and 15.
Those provisions
should not be preserved in any new Act dealing with residential tenancies.
Section 10 of Part I provides:
(1)
I t i s lawful fo r th e lan dlo rd, wh ere th e agreem en t is n o t b y d ee d, to
recover by action in any Court of competent jurisdiction a
reasonable satisfaction for the lands, tenements, or hereditaments
held, used, or occupied by the defendant for the use and occupation
thereof.
(2)
If at the trial of the action it appears that any rent has been reserved
by a parol, demise, or any agreement (not being by deed), such rent
may be the measure of the damages to be recovered by the plaintiff.
T his prov ision also
an in te re st in lan d .
r e f le c t s th e c o m m o n la w p o s itio n th a t a te n a n t 's in t ere s t w a s
A t c o m m o n law th e lan d lo rd c o u ld n o t reco ver ren t un less th e
17.
It
sh o uld
also
be
no ted
th at
th e
po licy
co nten t
of
s.
2
id
q uestio nab le.
In
th e
p a st
cen tu ry
th e
tendency of the law h as been to prom ote equality betw een creditors.
M o reo ver, th e in ap p lica b ility
o f s . 2 w o u l d n o t d e p r iv e t h e r e s i d e n t ia l l a n d l o r d o f a cla im if a n ex e c u tio n c r e d ito r s e iz e d th e g o o d s
first.
T he landlord w ou ld still ho ve a rem ed y u n d er the provision s of the C reditor’s R elief A ct, R .S.B .C . 1 96 0,
C . 85.
18.
See C hapter VI.
19.
See s. 35 and discussion above.
-1 5 -
te n a n t 's in t ere s t
deficiency.
was
granted
by
deed.
Section
10
was
designed
to
remedy
that
For the purposes of recovery of rent, the
residential tenancy is now
a matter
o f co n tra c t, 1 9 a n d s e c t io n 1 0 s e e m s o b s o le te .
M o r e o v e r , m a t t e rs o f f o r m a r e r e g u la te d b y P a rt I I .
S e c tio n 3 4 ( l)(d ) d e f in e s th e t e r m " te n a n c y a g re e m e n t " a s f o l lo w s :
"tenancy agreement" means an agreement between a tenant and a landlord
for possession of residential premises, whether written or oral, express or
implied, where the rent payable under the agreement does not exceed five
hundred dollars per month.
B o th sectio n 10 an d 3 4(l)(d) have th e effect o f o b literatin g th e o ld distin ctio n s
b e tw e e n te n a n c ie s cre a te d b y deed an d th o se created b y less fo rm al m e a n s .
As
s e c tio n 3 4 (l)(d ) is co n tain ed in P art II an d is th e la te r p ro v is io n it se e m s th at, fo r
the purposes o f residen tial tenan cies, section 10 has been com pletely superseded
and need not be preserved.
S e c t io n s
16
an d
17
of
P a rt
I
give
the
l an d l o r d
certain
substantive
righ ts
against the overholding tenant.
They provide that w here the tenant overholds
after th e ex p iratio n o f h is lea se, o r a fter h av in g giv en to th e lan d lo rd n o tice o f h is
in t en t io n to q u it, h e is o b lig e d to p a y to t h e la n d lo r d , o r p e r s o n o th e r w is e e n title d
to p ossession , do ub le rent.
T hese provisio n s d o n o t ap p ear to p rov ide any relief
t o t h e la n d l o r d w h o h a s gi v e n th e t e n an t n o t ic e to qu i t o n a p e r i o d i c t e n a n c y in
cases of overholding.
Section 59(1) of Part II provides:
A landlord is entitled to compensation
premises after the tenancy has been terminated by notice.
for
the
use
and
occupation
of
I s th e r e a n y c o n f lic t b e t w e e n s e c t io n 5 9 (1 ) a n d s e c t i o n 1 6 a n d 1 7 ?
I t m ig h t b e
argu ed th at th o se sectio ns are co m p lem en tary.
Section 59(1) is silent on the
landlord's entitlem ent to com pen sation after a lease has autom atically expired, as
it is restricted to situation s w here the tenancy has been term inated by n otice.
Section 17, on the other hand, gives n o rem ed y w h ere the tenancy has been
term inated
by the landlord.
Sections 17 and 59(1) do overlap
where the
o v e r h o l d in g t e n a n t h a s g i v e n n o t ic e ; b u t i t c an n o t b e sa i d t h at t h e y c o n f l i c t m e re ly
b ecau se o n e p ro visio n pro v id e s fo r d o u b le ren t an d th e o th er is silen t o n th e
am ount of com pensation.
Sections 16 and 17 w ould therefore appear to be
applicable to residential tenancies.
E lsew here
in
this
Report
the
po licy
aspects
of
th e
"do ub le
ren t"
rem ed y
are
c o n s id e re d an d th a t re m e d y is r e je c te d .
I n o u r o p in io n s ec tio n s 1 6 an d 1 7 s h o u ld
n o t b e p r e s e rv e d .
T h e h ia tu s c re a te d b y th e lo s s o f s e c tio n 1 6 s h o u l d b e c lo s e d
b y a sp ec ific am e n d m e n t to s ec tio n 5 9(1 ) exp an d in g co m p en satio n fo r use an d
o c c u p a t i o n t o t h e s i t u a t i o n w h e r e a t e n a n t o v e r h o l d s a f t e r a l e a s e f o r a s p e c if ie d
term has expired.20
be
Sections 13,
apportioned
20.
14 and 12 (in part) concern, inter alia, the situation
am on g a num ber of persons entitled thereto.
See C hapter XII.
-1 6 -
where
When
rent is to
one such
person dies and h is interest is thereby term inated, the rights of his person al
representatives are preserved w ith respect to the proportion w hich m ay have
ac c ru ed to th e d ate o f death , bu t deferred un til th e en tire ren t is d u e.
The
p ro vision w ill o n ly be ap p licab le in very lim ited circum stan ces w h ich are quite
u n likely to arise w h en th e la n d in q u e s tio n is u s e d f o r re s id e n tial p u rp o ses an d fa lls
w ithin P art II.
N o n e th e le s s , it is c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o u l d a r i s e ,
a n d b e c a u s e P a rt I I is s ile n t o n a p p o rtio n m e n t, it m ig h t b e u s e f u l to p re s e rv e . th e
effect of sectio n s 12 , 13 an d 1 4 fo r th is p urp o se.
Th is co uld be don e b y in cluding
them in a new A ct; but because the use of archaic language in such a statute is to
be discouraged, we suggest they be incorporated by reference.
where
Section
33
of Part I sets
out
the tenan t b eco m es b an kru p t.
certain
This
rights of landlord
and
trustee
section con tains the follow ing
in
cases
features:
(a)
upon
an
a s s ig n m e n t ,
the
trustee
is
e n t it l e d
to
retain
the
prem ises for up to three m onths notwithstanding that the
provides for its automatic termination on bankruptcy.
(b)
If
the
lease
does
not
surrender possession of
interest in the lease.
term inate
au to m atically,
the
trustee
may
the premises or assign the bankruptcy
(c)
The
lan d lo rd
is
giv en
a
bankrupt for up to three
a g e n era l cred ito r fo r an y
accelerated rent.
p referred
claim
again st
th e
estate
of
th e
m o n t h s a rre ars o f re n t an d m a y p r o v e a s
ex cess, an d m ay claim up to th re e m o n th s
P a r t I I i s s i l e n t o n t h e e f f e c t o f t h e t e n a n t 's b a n k r u p tc y a n d s e c t i o n
e x t e n t t h a t it d o e s n o t c o n f l i c t w i t h P a r t I I , o u g h t t o b e p r e s e r v e d .
suggest that it be incorporated by reference into a new Act.21
Section
3
is
the
final
provision
of
Part
I
to
be
considered
in
leased
lease
33 , to
A gain ,
this
th e
we
analysis.
It reads:
Any person having rent in arrears or
or lives may recover such arrears of rent by
reserved upon a lease for years.
due upon
action as
any lease or demise for life
if such rent were due and
The preamble to that provision in the original English statute 22 was as follows:
And whereas no action of debt lies against
arrears of rent during the continuance of the estate for life or lives ...
a
tenant
for
life
or
lives
for
any
T h at sum m arizes th e co m m o n law p o sitio n .
W h ere a lease term in ates up o n th e
d e a th o f s o m e p e r so n n o a rre a rs o f re n t c a n b e re c o v ere d .
S ec tio n 3 w as en a c te d
to rem ed y that deficiency.
W hile alm ost all ten ancies in British C o lum b ia are
eith er p erio d ic ten an cies o r fo r a sp ecified term , a lease fo r life m igh t still arise an d
in o ur op inion the effect of section 3 sho uld b e directly preserved in any n ew
21.
We
m ak e
no
co m m en t
on
th e
co n stitu tio n al
im p lic a tio n s
of
s.
33.
The
pow er
of
th e
P ro v in c e to
e n a ct s u c h a p ro v is io n d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e b e e n t e s t e d i n t h e C o u r ts , a l t h o u g h s . 5 0 ( 6 ) o f th e
B a n k ru p tcy A ct, R .S .C . 19 70 , c. B - 3, p ro v id es s o m e b a s is f o r a n a rg u m en t th a t th e p ro v is io n is in f ra v i r e s.
See W illiam s, Law of L andlord and Tenant 659 (3 rd ed.).
22.
A nne, c. 14, s. 4.
-1 7 -
legislation.
In
su m m ary,
m o st
pro visio ns
of
Part
I
h av e,
or
sh o uld
hav e,
no
ap p licatio n
to re s id e n tia l te n a n cies .
In so m e ca se s th e p ro v is io n s o f P a rt I re la te to lea s e h o ld
estate concep ts w h ich are inco m patible w ith the p olicy of Part II that residen tial
tenancy agreem ents be a m atter of contract.
In other cases procedural and
sub stantive prov isio n s are to tally sup erseded by existing provisio n s of Part II.
O ther provisions of Part I are rendered obsolete by recom m endations contained
elsewhere
in
this
Report.
The provisions dealing with
apportionment and
bankruptcy should be preserved, but in som e place other than a new
Act
concerned with residential tenancies.
O nly the effect of section 3 should be
specifically preserved in a new Act of the kind proposed.
The
C o m m i s s io n
has
con clud ed
that
a
statute
governing
r e s id e n t i a l
tenancies
sh o uld be accessib le to , an d e asily u n d ersto o d b y , a k n o w le d ge ab le lay m an .
The
elim in atio n o f P art I an d its arc h aic a n d co n fu sin g lan g u ag e is th e first step to w ard
this goal.
The Commission recommends that:
1.
Part II of the existing Landlord and Tenant Act be repealed and replaced by a new Landlord and
Tenant Act relating only to residential tenancies (hereafter "The proposed Act").
2.
The proposed Act contain the provisions of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act, as modified by the
recommendations made in this Report.
3.
The proposed Act contain a provision comparable to section 3 of Part I.
4.
The proposed Act incorporate by reference sections 12, 13, 14 and 33.
5.
Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act be preserved as a separate Act to be known
as the "Commercial Tenancies Act."
-1 8 -
CHAPTER II
A.
SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED ACT
Tenants and Licences
T he
co m m o n
law
reco gn izes
tw o
distin c t
sp ec ie s
of
re latio n sh ip
by
w h ich
one
person can occupy, or have the use and enjoym ent of, th e prem ises of another.
T h o s e re la tio n s h ip s a re th a t o f la n d lo rd an d t e n a n t , a n d lic e n s o r a n d lic e n s e e .
The
e s s e n tial d iff e re n c e is s a id to b e th a t w h ile a te n a n c y p a s s e s an in te re s t in lan d , a
licence w ill no t.
W hile an o ccupant m ay enjoy m uch the sam e benefits w hether
h e b e a ten an t o r a lic e n s e e , h is righ ts an d o b ligatio n s are so m ew h at d iffere n t.1
O ne aspect of this difference m ay lie in the applicability of Part II of the Landlord and
Tenant Act.
It
seem s
clear
th at
P art
II
ap p lies
o n ly
to
situ atio ns
w here
a
lan d lo rd
an d
tenant relationship exists.
W hile the term
"residential prem ises" is defined
broadly,2 Part II do es no t purport to govern all occupancies o f residential
prem ises, but app lies on ly to "tenancies of residen tial prem ises."3 Licensees such
as boarders and lodgers are, therefore, excluded from the ambit of the Act.
Some controversy has arisen over the scope of Part IV of the Ontario Act.
There,
"tenant" is defined as including an "occupant,"4 w hich m ight conceivably include
a residential licensee. Lam ont argues that, notw ithstanding the definition
of
" t e n a n t " , li c e n c e a r r a n g e m e n t s f a l l o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f P a r t I V , 5 a n d t h a t c o n t e n tion is fortified by the recent decision in R. v. Poulin.6
Is
th e
p re s en t
s co p e
of
P a rt
II
1.
See, W oodfall, L andlord and Tenant 7 et. seq. (27 th ed.).
2.
S. 34(l)(b).
3.
S. 34(2) provides:
s a tis fa c to r y ?
T h is
can
o n ly
be
an s w e re d
T h is
Part
ap p lies
to
tenancies
of
resid en tial
prem ises
and
tenancy
agreem ents,
n o tw ith sta n d in g an y o th er A ct o r P a rt, I o f th is A ct an d n o tw ith sta n d in g an y a greem en t
or w aiver to the contrary, except as specifically provided in this Part.
4.
A sim ilar definition is found in
it does not, therefore, apply to Part II.
s.
18
of
the
British
5.
Lam ont, R esidential Tenancies 5 (2 nd ed. 1973).
6.
[1973] 2 O .R . 875 (O nt. Prov. C t.).
Sw abey Prov. C t.
A ct ad d ed "I w ish to m ak e it p lain th at I am n o t
t h e d e f i n i t i o n [o f o c c u p a n t].
I a m m erely d ecid in g
landlord and tenant ... did not exist."
-1 9 -
C olum bia
A ct
J. in
d ec id in g
o n th e
but
only
for
the
purposes
of
ss.
19
-
32
and
dism issing charges under The L andlord and Tenant
th a t a ll r o o m in g h o u ses d o n o t co m e w ithin
f ac ts o f t h is c as e t h a t t h e r ela tio n sh ip o f
th ro ugh a m o re sp ecific exam in atio n of th e law an d practice surro un din g th e
m anner in w hich tenancies and licenses are distinguished.
The distinction, at
c o m m o n l a w , b e t w e e n t h e i n t e r e s t o f a te n a n t a n d t h a t o f a li c e n s e e s u c h a s a
lo d g er se em s to re st o n th e a n s w e rs to tw o q u estio n s :
does the occupant have
e x c lu s iv e p o s s es s io n , a n d d id t h e p a r tie s i n t e n d to c r ea te a te n a n c y ?
If th e a n s w e r
to both is yes, a tenancy is created.
If the answer to one or both is no, then the
interest of the occupant is that of licensee. As to the first, Woodfall states:7
Rooms may be let in the same manner as lands and tenements, but a mere
l od ge r w ho do es no t h a ve exclusi ve p o ss es s io n of h is ro o m i s gi ve n n o th in g
more than a licence to reside in the house.
The occupier of apartments is not
a tenant unless the premises are exclusively let to him, which distinguishes such
a person from a lodger ... The question whether a man is a lodger merely, or
whether premises have been let to him so that he is a tenant, must depend on
the circumstances of each case.
There is involved in the term "lodger" that the
man must lodge in the house of another man and with him; if a householder
retains to himself the general control of a house, with the right of interference,
a person who occupies part of that house would seem to be a lodger.
If the
l an d lo r d re si de s in t h e ho u s e a l l o w i n g s o m e o n e t o o c c up y a r o o m o r r o o m s
f ur n is h ed it is a qu es t io n of f act wh et h er th e la n dlo rd ha d an in ten t io n to
abandon control of these rooms; prima facie "the inmate" is a lodger unless there is
further evidence of the nature of the relationship ...
As to the second, Williams states:8
The English Courts have, since 1942, held that the test of exclusive
possession is no longer decisive in determining whether a tenancy has been
created or only a licence given.
The question is one of intention of the parties
and the law does not impute the intention to enter into legal relationships where
the circumstances and conduct of the parties negative any such intention.
T he
test
of
exclusive
po ssessio n
has
never
been
so
severe
as
to
require
the
w ould-be lan dlord to divest him self of all rights to the property except a
re v e rs io n a ry in t ere s t.
A n in t ere s t w h ic h w o u ld o th e rw ise b e a le a se is n o t a lic e n c e
m e r e ly b e c a u s e it m a y b e s u b je c t to c e rta in re s erv a tio n s o r re s tric tio n s o n u se . 9
In
th e co n text o f m o d ern residen tial ten an cies, the ten an t m ay bargain fo r a w h o le
b u n d le o f righ ts, so m e o f w h ic h m a y en ta il th e righ t to ex clu siv e p o ssessio n o f
a c m e p o rtio n o f a b u i ld in g a n d o t h e r s t h e r ig h t t o u s e o t h e r p o r tio n s o r f a c ilitie s
in c o m m o n .
I t c o u l d n o t b e a r g u e d t e n a b l y th a t a n a p a r t m e n t d w e lle r is lic e n s e e
sim p ly because he do es not have exc lusive p o ssessio n o f the co rrido r or lau n d ry
ro o m , o r b ecau se th e lan d lo rd reserv es th e righ t to sh o w th e p rem ises to a
prospective tenant or buyer.
It follow s
that there
is
som e
degree
of
elasticity
in
the
notion
of
"exclusive
p o ssessio n " w h ich perm its the co urts to lo o k at all asp ects o f the o ccup an cy to
arrive at a com m on sense decision as to its nature.
That seem s to b e the app roach
tak en b y co urts in B ritish C o lu m b ia an d elsew h ere.
It is w e ll illu strated by th e
English case of Appah v. Parncliffe Investments, Ltd.10
There, the premises in question consisted
o f a furn ish ed ro om in a "resid en tial h o tel." T h e trial ju dge ap p ro ach ed th e
7.
N . 1 supra, 13.
8.
W illiam s, C anadian L aw of L andlord and Tenant 8 (3 rd ed.). See also, W oodfall, n. 1 supra, 10.
9.
See, W illiam s ibid.
10.
[1964] 1 A ll E .R . 838 (C .A .).
-2 0 -
question in the following fashion:11
Now I will try to construct some kind of balance sheet.
In favour of the
view that this was a lodging house the plaintiff was offered a room daily at 15s.
She was allowed to leave with virtually no notice.
Notices were put up "All
visitors to leave by 10:30 p.m." and there was a written instruction by the front
door "Keep the door shut."
Finally the name "Emperor's Gate Hotel" appears
on the outside of the building.
On the other side, the accommodation appeared
to be self-contained.
Keys to both doors were provided together with a
separate cooker and no meals were provided.
Certain facts can safely be
ignored in this kind of arrangement.
One may dismiss the fact of service, hot
water, and cleaning of staircase and common parts.
It is a feature regularly met
with in the letting of many blocks of flats in London.
The occupants would be
very surprised to learn th at because these amenities are provided they rank as
lodgers.
The practice of this court is to treat such people as tenants ... The offer
of weekly or daily payment is also thrown into the scale but it is not to my mind
conclusive.
The sum is no less rent because it is payable de die in diem.
The notices
on the wall in an oral tenancy with no rent book are referrable, in my view, to
these being some of the terms of a tenancy.
T h e t r i a l j u d g e c o n c l u d e d th a t th e o c c u p a n t 's in t e r e s t w a s t h a t o f a t e n a n t .
On
ap p eal, it w a s n o te d th a t th e "c o o k er" w as n o m o re th a n a g as rin g, th e b ath ro o m
a n d w a t e r c lo s e t w e r e s h a r e d i n c o m m o n w i t h o t h e r s , t h e o w n e r ’s s e r v i c e s c o v e r e d
n o t o n ly c le a n in g th e a r e a s in c o m m o n b u t d a ily cle a n in g o f th e r o o m , m a k in g o f
bed s, an d a w eek ly supp ly of fresh linen , and that the o w ner had a right of access
to th e co in b o x o f th e gas m eter lo b ated in th e ro o m .
T h e C o u rt o f A p p eal, in
e ffe ct, d re w its o w n b a lan c e sh e et an d c o n clu d ed th a t th e occu pan t did n o t h av e
exclusive possession and was a licensee.
In
th e
o p in io n
of
the
C o m m issio n ,
such
an
approach
leads
to
desirable
results.
In a study such as this, it is alw ays a tem ptation to attem pt to define, with
som e precision, lim itations on the scope of the legislation.
H aving regard,
how ever, to the m ultiplicity of situations and com binations of circum stances
w h i c h c a n a r i s e , a n y m o v e in t h is d i r e c t i o n is m o r e li k e l y to r e s u l t i n c o n f u s i o n
rather than reform .
In the absence of an y evidence that those w hose interests
ou ght reason ably to b e protected by legislation governing residential accom m od atio n , are n o t b ein g p ro tected , w e are o f th e v iew th at th e sco p e o f th e A c t o ugh t
to remain unchanged.
It
fo llo w s
th at
we
reject
th e
suggestio n
th at
b o ard ers
an d
dealt with in Part II.
In this context one provision of The Landlord
Manitoba calls for special comment. Section 123 provides:
lo d gers
sh o uld
and Tenant Act 12
be
of
Where a person in any residential premises owned or operated by him for
the purpose, provides both room and board in those premises for five or more
tenants, the provisions of Part IV, to the extent that they may be reasonably
applicable, apply to the room accommodation provided by the landlord.
W e s e e th e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a b o a r d e r a n d h i s " h o s t s " a n d o t h e r b o a r d e r s a s
being a p erso n al o n e, an d regu latio n b y legislatio n w hich is essentially aim ed at
apartment
accommodation
is
inappropriate.
It
is
rendered
even
more
11.
Per Judge H ow ard, ibid. at 838, 841.
12.
S.M . 1970, c. 106, s. 123.
13.
A tenancy could exist in such cases, depending on the particular facts, but in m ost situations it
w ould not.
-2 1 -
inappropriate
o f ten ure in
quite another.
b y reco m m endations contained elsew h ere in this
an ap artm en t is o n e th in g b ut security o f ten ure at
Report.
th e din n er
Security
tab le is
E v en
if
su ch
a
p ro v isio n
w ere
in tro d uced ,
m uch
m o re
sp ecific
lim itatio n s
on
its operation w ould be necessary.
Section 123, as it stands, could conceivably
e x te n d to s u c h d iv e r s e s itu a tio n s as n u r sin g h o m e s a n d n u n n e r ie s . 1 3
It is su g g e s te d
that in those situations the parties are best left to their own terms.
The scope of the proposed Act be the same as the scope of Part II and its provisions should not extend to occupancies which, at common
law, are treated as licences.
B.
Its Application to the Crown
T he
C row n, by
its
very
nature, cann ot
be
the
tenant
of
residential prem ises. 14
The C row n, how ever, can be, and frequently is, the landlord of residential
prem ises.
Pub lic ho using seem s to b e increasing in British C olum bia and is a
p h en o m en o n w h ic h m u st b e re ck o n e d w ith .
M o s t o f th is p u b lic h o u s in g f a lls , f o r
ad m in istrative purp oses, un der th e jurisdictio n of th e B ritish C o lu m b ia H o usin g
M anagem ent Comm ission.
There
appear to
be at least 13
public
housing
developm ents
in
the
greater
Vancouver
are
for which
that Commission
is
responsible.
As
far
as
we
a re
Com m ission con form to the
the A ct w ou ld, ho w ever,
requirement.
able
to
prov ision s
seem to
a s c e r t a in ,
the
activities
and
p r a c ti c e s
of
that
of the L andlord and Tenant A ct.
Com pliance w ith
be m ore a m atter of policy than strict legal
O ne of the basic prerogatives of the Crown at common
law
is the rule that
the C row n is not bound by a statute unless nam ed therein or by necessary
implication.
There seems to be little in Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act which would
fo rm the fo undatio n o f such a n ecessary im plication.
In E ngland the Cro w n is
n o t p resu m ed bo u n d b y th ey duty im p osed up on lan d lo rd s in th e E n g lish H ou sing A ct,
1936 to see that premises are reasonably fit for habitation.15
In
statutes
provides:16
B ritish
Colum bia
the
has been
m odified
com m on
law
rule
by section
35
of
14.
Q uaere, the status of the official residence of the Lieutenant-G overnor.
15.
See, G lanville W illiam s, C rown Proceedings A ct, 1947 49 (1948).
16.
R .S.B.C . 1960, 199, s. 35.
-2 2 -
regarding
C row n
liability
the interpretation
Act
under
w hich
No provision or any enactment in any act shall affect in any manner or way
whatsoever the rights of her Majesty, her heirs or successors, unless it is
expressly stated therein that her Majesty shall be bound thereby.
The Crow n,
s ta te m e n t to
prerogative.
therefore, is not bound by
the contrary, a position m uch
a statute unless there is an express
m ore restrictive than the com m on law
This
C o m m is s io n
has
adopted
the
philosophical
position
t h a t,
as
a
general
ru le, th ose law s w hich are ap plicab le to an y relatio n sh ip b etw een su bject an d
sy b ie ct sh o u ld also b e ap p lic ab le to an y re latio n sh ip b etw een th e C ro w n an d a
subject.
This philosophy is reflected in our Reports on the Legal Position of the Crown 17 and Prejudgment
18
Interest. In particular we have recommended that:
The British Columbia Interpretation Act be amended
bound by every statute in the absence of express words to the contrary.
to
provide
that
the
Crown
is
It was our view that the reversal of the p resum ption con tained in the In terpretation A ct
w o u ld re q u ire th o se fro m legislatio n to tu rn their m inds to w ard C ro w n im m un ity
a n d m a k e a delib erate p o licy ch o ic e as to w h e th e r it w o u ld b e p re s e rv ed .
Any
d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e C r o w n w o u l d n o t b e b o u n d b y a n y p a r t ic u la r p ie c e o f l e g i s l a t i o n
would then be obvious on the face of that legislation.
If
th at
reco m m en d atio n
w e re
im p le m e n te d ,
C ro w n.
W h ile th ere m ay b e s o m e facets o f
s h o u ld h a v e a g re a te r fre e d o m o f ac tio n th a n
of these have been b rou ght to o ur attention in
th erefo re, n o b asis fo r an y reco m m en datio n
provision that it is not binding on the Crown.
P a rt
II
w o u ld
be
b in d in g
on
th e
p ub lic h o u sin g in w h ich th e C ro w n
the ordinary landlord, no eviden ce
the cou rse of this study.
W e have,
th at th e pro po sed A ct co n tain a
Assuming the presumption contained in section 35 of the Interpretation Act were reversed in accordance with earlier
recommendations of this Commission, the proposed Act contain no provision that the Act is not binding on the Crown.
At
this
point
it
also
seem s
appropriate
to
com m ent on
tw o
other
exem ptions
from the operation of Part II. Section 44(1) provides that where a tenancy
a g re e m e n t is fo r a term o f six m o n th s o r lo n ge r th e te n a n t, su b je c t to c e rta in
r e s tr ic tio n s , h a s th e r ig h t to a s s ig n o r su b le t th e p r e m is e s .
S e c tio n 4 4 ( 2 ) p r o v i d e s :
Subsection (1) does not apply to a tenant of premises administered by or for
the Government of Canada, or of the Province, or a municipality, or any agency
thereof, developed and financed under the National Housing Act.
T hat exceptio n is aim ed at sub sid ized h o using
prevent
a
tenant,
who
m eets
the
income
su b lettin g th e prem ises to a ten an t w h o d o es
need for that exception is questionable since section 44(6) provides:
A
required
as
17.
Law
R eform
18.
Law R eform
12, 1973).
fo r low -incom e tenants.
It w ould
requirem ents,
from
assigning
or
no t m eet th o se req uirem en ts.
The
tenancy agreement that provides that
authorized by subsection (3) may
C om m ission
C om m ission
of
of
B ritish
B ritish
C olum bia,
C olum bia,
R eport
on
R eport
-2 3 -
Civil
on
Rights,
Part
D ebtor-C reditor
the consent of the landlord is
also provide that instead of
I
-
Legal
R elationships
Position
Part
of
IV ,
the
Crown
(L.R .C .
9,
1972).
Prejudgm ent
Interest
27,(L.R .C .
c on s en tin g to t h e as s ign men t, sub let t in g, or ot h er pa rt in g w it h p o s s es s io n ,
l an d lo r d m ay , a t h is op t i o n , s e r v e o n e m o n t h ' s n o t i c e o f t e r m i n a t i o n o f
tenancy agreement on the tenant in the manner provided in this Part.
the
t he
It is , th e re fo re , o p e n to a h o u s in g au th o rity to re qu ire its c o n s e n t to a n assign m en t
an d p reserv e th e righ t to term in ate if th e n ew ten an t is un accep tab le .
O n the
o th e r h a n d , t h e e x c e p tio n d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e l e a d t o a n y g r e at m is c h ie f a n d
we are not prepared to recommend its repeal.
Section 51(1) places certain restrictions on the frequency of rent increases.
Section 51(6) provides:
This section does not apply to
(a)
a tenancy agreement respecting residential premises administered by or for
the Government of Canada or of the Province or any agency thereof, or
of a municipality, developed and financed under the National Housing Act, 1954
( Ca n ad a ) , a n d w he re t h e t en a n c y a gr ee me nt co nt a in s a pro vis io n fo r t h e
a dj us t me nt of r en t i n a cc o r d a n c e w i t h a f or mu la co n ta in ed in an y jo in t
agreement between the Government of Canada and the Province, or a
municipality, as the casd may be; or
(b)
a tenancy
Act; or
agreement
respecting
residential
(c)
a tenancy agreement
Citizen's Housing Aid Act.
respecting
residential
premises
premises
made
made
under
under
the
the
Housing
Elderly
T h a t e x c e p t i o n a l s o s e e m s a im e d a t s u b s i d iz e d h o u s i n g f o r l o w i n c o m e g r o u p s a n d
is an expressio n of th e po licy th at in so me cases th e ren t payab le m ay vary w ith the
te n an t's in c o m e le ve l.
T h a t p o lic y is o f te n cry stalliz ed in a sp e cific p ro visio n of
tenancy agreem ents w ith respect to subsidized housing: the so-called "incom e
escalator" clause.
If the general provision lim iting the frequency of rent raises
were applicable to subsidized housing, that policy would be defeated.
It has, however,
we received stated:
been
argued
that
the
exception
is
too
wide.
One
brief
which
While we can see the reason for excepting agreements with a rent adjustment
c la use co ntain ed in an agreem en t with th e Go vern men t of Can ada, we see n o
reason for the blanket exception for all housing built under the other two acts.
The exception is understandable if applied to agreements which contain a
built-in income-escalator clause included in pursuance of some valid law or
regulation.
But, if the rental agreements for housing built under the latter two
acts do not contain such clauses, we see no reason for the exception.
Rent in
s ub s id iz ed ho us in g s ho uld no t be allo wed to in crease mo re freque nt ly an d with
less notice than rent in unsubsidized housing.
Such a condition is virtually outrageous since the tenants of housing financed under either the Housing Act or the
Elderly Citizen's Housing Aid Act undoubtedly need more pr6teption than any other class of
tenant because of their age and/or economic status.
Therefore, WE
RECOMMEND that Sections 51(6)(b) an d (c) be repealed and the following
section be substituted for them:
[This section does not apply to]
(b)
a t e n a n cy a g r e e m en t r e s p ec t i n g r e s i d e n ti a l p r e m is e s a d m i n i s t er e d b y
or for the government of the province or any agency thereof, or a
municipality or any agency thereof, or a private party, developed and
financed under the Housing Act or the Elderly Citizen's Housing Aid Act, but only
where such agreement contains a formula for the adjustment of rent
-2 4 -
according to the income of the tenant made
or regulation of the Government of Canada or of the Province.
in
pursuance
of
any
law
T h a t a r g u m e n t h a s c o n s i d e r a b l e a p p e a l , b u t i t s e e m s t o u s t h at i t is d i re c t e d m o re
a t a p o te n t i a l p r o b le m t h a t a n e x i s t in g a b u s e .
A t our p ub lic h earin gs th o se w h o
subm itted the brief w ere asked if they w ere aw are of any cases w here unduly
frequen t ren tal in creases w ere vested up o n ten an ts o f su b sid ized h o u sin g w h ere
a n in c o m e e sc a la to r c la u s e w a s n o t i n f o r ce .
T h e y w e re a w a re o f n o s u c h c a s e s.
W hile, in som e cases, w e are prepared to m ake recom m endations aim ed at
potential rather than actual abuses, in this case we have some reservations.
Both the Housing Act19 and the Elderly Citizen's Housing Aid Act20 contemplate agreements
betw een th e P rov in cial G o vernm en t an d m un icipalities w ith respect to low -rental
housing.
The
latter
Act
also
contemplates
agreements
with
non-profit
corpo ration s and the H ou sing A ct p ro vid es fo r th e b o rro w in g o f m o ney secu red by
debentures.
T h e C o m m issio n has n o k no w led ge co n cern in g th e p ro visio n s o f
existing agreem ents between the Provincial G overnm ent and m unicipalities and
n o n -p ro fit co rp o ratio n s p ursu an t to th o se A c ts.
N o r are w e aw are o f th e exten t
to w hich securities have been issued und er the H ousing A ct or the substantive
p ro v is io n s o f s u c h s ecu rities as m ay h av e b een issu ed .
W e therefore have som e
fear th at an y n arro w in g o f th e ex em p tio n set o ut in sectio n 51 (6 )(b ) an d (c) o f th e
Landlord and Tenant A ct m ight interfere with, or am ount to a violation of, the rights of
m unicipalities, corporations, and bond h olders who have contracted with the
P ro vincial G o v ern m en t w ith re sp ect to lo w -co st h o using.
T h at fear, co up led w ith
the lack of evidence that the exem ptions are being abused, lead us to the
conclusion
that
a
recommendation
to
narrow
the
exemption
would
be
inappropriate at this time.
C.
The Caretaker's Suite
Section
34(l)(b)
excepts
from
the
definition
of
residen tial
prem ises
tho se
"prem ises occupied for business purposes with living accom m odation
attached
u n d e r a b u s in e s s le a s e . "
I n m o s t c a s e s t h e a p p l ic a t io n o f t h a t e x c e p t io n i s q u i te
c le ar.
A re n te d g r o c e ry s to r e o r la u n d ro m at, w ith liv in g ac co m m o d a tio n a ttac h ed ,
w ould q uite clearly b e excep ted .
L ess clear is the ap p licab ility o f P art II to
residen tial p rem ises o ccu p ied b y a caretaker or resident m anager in a larger
apartment building: the so-called "caretaker's guide."
The
sp ecific
arran gem en ts
w ith
resp ect
to
th e
caretak er's
su ite
m ay
v ary
fro m
b uild in g to b uild in g, b ut th e caretaker no rm ally p ays ren t, alth o ugh it m ay b e
som ew hat less than the suite w ould com m and on the open m arket. Th e purpo se
o f t h i s r e d u c e d r e n t m a y b e a " f r i n g e b e n e f it " to m a k e th e p o s i t i o n o f c a r e t a k e r
m o re attractiv e to a p ro sp ectiv e em p lo yee; o r it m ay b e a device to en su re th at th e
caretaker stays on the premises.
In discussing the application of the O ntario A ct to the
caretaker's suite, and after having d raw n a distinction betw een tenancy and licence
19.
R .S.B.C . 1960, C . 183.
20.
R .S.B.C . 1960, C . 125.
21.
N . 5 supra, 7.
-2 5 -
and discussing the role of the intention of the parties, Lamont states:21
The above distinction would indicated that the accommodation provided for
janitors or superintendents of apartment buildings is almost always on the basis
of a licensor and licensee basis, and therefore not under Part IV. [sic]
In Lesperance v. Montague, [1947] O.W.N. 257, [1947] 3 D.L.R. 174 (C..A.),
dealing
with the occupation of a janitor, the judgment stated "when it was necessary, for
the due performance of his duties, that a person should occupy certain .
premises, or he was required to occupy ... for the more satisfactory performance
of his duties, such person occupied in the capacity of a servant rather than a
tenant.
Furthermore, as above stated, the
exempts premises occupied for business
attached under a single lease.
definition of "residential" in Section l(c)
purposes with living accommodation
This exception would therefore exclude the accommodation provided for
a j a n i t o r o r s u p e r i n t e n d en t o f a n a p a r t m en t b u i l d i n g, a s s u c h a c c o m m o d a t i o n
comes within the definition of premises used "for business purposes with living
accommodation attached."
Notwithstanding that interpretation, it would be advisable for the owner of
an apartment, employing a superintendent who lives on the premises, to
e x p r es s l y p r o v i d e i n t h e co n t r a c t o f e m p l o y m e n t t h a t a l a n d l o r d a n d t e n a n t
r el at io n sh ip sh al l n o t b e dee me d t o b e cr eate d.
The agr ee me nt pr o vi di ng for
t h e a c c o m m o d a t i o n s h o u l d st at e t h a t t h e j a n i t o r o r sup e ri n t e n de n t h as only a
license to occupy while so employed, with the right of occupancy to terminate
with the termination of employment.
O n th e o th e r h a n d it c an b e
o ccu p ies the su ite so lely for
arg ue d th at Part I I is
residential reaso n s an d
ap p lic ab le
not for
b e c ause th e c aretaker
"business purposes."
It is desirable that the status of the caretaker's suite be clarified.
W hat should
th a t s ta tu s b e ?
M a n y o f t h e e x is tin g p ro v is io n s o f P a rt I I a re f o r th e p ro te c tio n
o f t e n a n t s a n d t h e r e i s n o a p p a r e n t r e a s o n w h y t h e s e s h o u ld b e n e f it th e c a r e t a k e r
w ith r e sp e c t to th e p re m is e s h e o c c u p ie s .
S h o u ld a la n d lo r d b e f re e to e x e r cis e a
rig h t o f d is tre s s , alte r lo ck s, an d a v o id a re s p o n sib ility to re p air w ith re s p ec t to th e
c a re ta k er's su ite w h e n h e is no t fre e to d o so w ith re s p ec t to an y o th er ap artm e n t
in a b u i ld i n g ?
W e think not.
O n t h e o t h e r h an d , t h e l an d l o rd h as a l e g itim ate
n e e d t o r e q u i r e t h a t a c a r e t a k e r ' s o c c u p a t i o n o f h i s s u i t e b e c o e x t e n s i v e w i th h i s
continued em ploym ent.
A s m atters n o w stan d th e c are tak er q u a em p lo yee m a y b e
en titled to o n ly tw o w eek s' n o tice, w h ereas qua ten an t he m igh t b e e n titled to
co n tin u e o cc u p an cy fo r u p to tw o m o n th s.
If P art II w ere ap p lica b le, th e lan d lo rd
w o uld b e un ab le to c o n tract o u t o f the no tice p ro visio n s an d avo id th is p ro b lem .
We
have
co ncluded
th at
th e
proposed
Act
caretaker's suite and extend to the caretaker the
recognizing the realities of the landlord's situation.
sh ould
be
protection
ap p licab le
to
th e
of the Act while
The proposed Act contain a statutory definition of the term "caretaker's suite" and provide that it is included in the definition of
"residential premises;" but the recommendations relating to tenant security should not apply to the caretaker's suite.
-2 6 -
D.
Mobile Homes
U ntil 1973, Part II was not specifically applicable to m obile homes or to
s o - c a l l e d " p a d s " w h ic h a r e r e n t e d to t h e o w n e r s o f m o b il e h o m e s b y o p e r a t o r s
m obile hom es parks.
The issue had, how ever, been raised in the courts w here
w as held that m obile hom es and pads were included within the definition
" r e s id e n tia l p r e m is e s .22
T h is h as n o w b een co n firm ed b y am en d m en ts to P art
Section 34(l)(b) sets out the following definition:
"mobile home" means a dwelling unit that is designed to be
be used as a permanent or temporary residence and that is being
a residence.
T h e d e f in itio n o f "re s id e n tial p re m ise s" w a s ex te n d ed to
a n d " la n d th a t is re n te d as a s p a c e f o r a n u p o n w h ic h
tenancy agreement, may bring a mobile home."
include "a
th e te n an t,
the
of
it
of
II.
mobile and to
used as such
m ob ile hom e"
p u rs u an t to a
E lsew h ere
in
th is
R ep o rt
we
co n sid er
th e
sp ecific
p ro b lem s
raised
by
m o b ile
h o m e s a n d m o b ile h o m e p a rk s .
O u r c o n c lu s io n is th a t, w h ile m a n y o f th e f e atu r es
of the proposed Landlord and Tenant A ct should be applicable to tenancies involving m obile
hom es a n um b er o f the p ro b lem s raised are su fficien tly d ifferen t th at a sep arate
A c t r e g u l a t i n g m o b i l e h o m e p a r k s is d e s i r a b l e .
The develop m ent of such an A ct
is beyo n d th e sco p e o f th is stud y.
W e th ere fo re fav o u r th e d eletio n o f m o b ile
h o m es an d "p ad s" fro m th e d efin itio n o f re sid en tial p re m ises, b u t n o t u n til m o re
specific legislation dealing with mobile homes is introduced.
The definition of "residential premises" in the proposed Act continue to include mobile homes and "pads" until specific legislation is
enacted with respect to tenancies in mobile home parks.
E.
Monetary Limitation
In
section
3 4(1 )
of
th e
A ct
th e
d efin itio n
of
"resid en tial
prem ises"
specifically
e x c lu d e s p re m ise s w h e re th e re n t p ayab le exceed s $ 5 0 0 p er m o n th .
The reason
fo r that exclusion is not clear.
It m ay have b een based on a desire to co nfo rm to
th e , th e n , m o n e ta ry ju ris d ic tio n o f S m a ll C la im s C o u rt.
O n t h e o th e r h a n d , it m a y
rep resen t a desire to p erm it a g reater freed o m o f co n tract w ith resp ect to m o re
e x p e n s iv e p r e m is e s, o n th e th e o ry th a t th e te n an t w h o c a n a ff o rd r en t o f $ 5 0 0 p e r
month is likely to have little need for the protective provisions of the Act.
W hatever
the
reasoning
m ay
have
been,
the
$500
lim itation
introduces
an
a n o m a ly in t o th e la w o f la n d l o r d a n d t e n a n t a p p l ic a b le t o r e s id e n t ia l te n a n c i e s .
It
places outside th e sco p e o f P art II situatio n s to w h ich it sh o uld p rop erly app ly.
F o r e x a m p l e , i t i s n o t u n u s u a l f o r a g r o u p o f p e r s o n s to c o m b i n e t h e i r r e s o u r c e s
an d ren t a large, o ld ho use fo r resid en tial p urp oses.
In such cases the rent
f re q u e n t ly e x c e e d s $ 5 0 0 .
W h y s h o u l d t h e p r o v is io n s o f P a r t I I n o t e x te n d to s u c h
occupancies?
W e can see n o logical reaso n for th e existen ce o f the m onetary
limitation and to the extent that it is discriminatory we find it undesirable.
22.
See Sm ith Trailer Park L td. v. Phillip M cBride (N o. 730/70) and Sm ith Trailer Park L td. v. E ric E rickson (N o. 839/70). Both
un repo rted cases w ere h eard in the N ew W estm in ster C ou nty C ou rt.
T h e s e d e c is io n s w e re fo llo w e d
on this issue in H rynchuk v. Steel (unreported - Provincial Court, K am loops R egistry N o. 1450/70).
-2 7 -
The definition of "residential premises" in the proposed Act not contain any exemption based on the amount of rent payable.
-2 8 -
CHAPTER III
A.
RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES THE RENTALSMAN AND THE COURTS
Introduction
With the introduction of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act in 1970, when the
relation sh ip b etw een landlord and tenant in respect of residen tial prem ises w as
stated in the legislation to b e on e of con tract on ly,1 jurisdiction over disputes
arising o ut o f P art II w as assigned to Judges of the P rov incial C ou rt of B ritish
Columbia (hereafter referred to as the "Small Claims Division").2
Certain
m atters
w ere
specifically
stated
to
be
the
subjects
of
sum m ary
applications - the disposition
of security deposits;3 the enforcem ent of the
lan d lo rd 's o b lig atio n to m ain tain h ab itab le p re m ise s an d to re p air; th e en fo rc e m e n t
o f th e te n an t's o b lig a tio n t o m a in ta in cle a n lin e s s an d to re p air d am a g e c a u se d b y
h i m a n d h i s g u e s t s ; 4 a l a n d lo r d 's c l a i m f o r a r r e a r s o f r e n t a n d c o m p e n s a t i o n f r o m
a n o v e r h o l d i n g t e n a n t ; 5 a n d a la n d l o r d 's c l a im f o r p o s s e s s io n . 6
In the case o f a
su m m ary ap p lication under section 49 of the A ct a jud ge h ad the p o w er to
te rm in a te a te n a n c y a g re e m e n t o r to a u th o riz e a n y r e p a ir a n d o r d e r th e c o s t to b e
paid by the person responsible.7
1.
L andlord and T enant A m endm ent A ct, S .B .C . 1970, c. 18, s. 2, enacting Part II of the L andlord and T enant A ct, R .S.B.C . 1960
c. 207. See s. 35.
2.
Ibid. s. 34.
3.
Ibid, s. 38.
4.
Ibid., s. 49 (3).
5.
Ibid., s. 59 (4).
6.
Ibid., s. 61.
7.
Ibid., s. 29 (3).
8.
Ibid., s. 65.
-2 9 -
It w as
provided that appeals
would lie to a Judge of the County Court.8
from
the
orders
of
Sm all
Claim s
D ivision
Judges
In
1973
th ere
w e re
so m e
am e n dm en ts
to
th e
ju risd ictio n al
p ro visio n s
of
th e
A c t.9
I n t h e m a t t e r o f t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e l a n d lo r d 's a n d t e n a n t 's o b li g a t i o n s
u nd er sectio n 49 , a ju dge w a s fu rth er em p o w e red to o rder th e lan d lo rd or th e
tenant to remedy any breach. 10
In addition, a new ex parte procedure was added to the
Act.11 This procedure is set out in section 60B, which provides that:
(1)
The
judge
may,
in
respect of any application under sections 60
and 60A , or any p roceeding under this P art, at any tim e,
whether
before
or
during
the
hearing,
upon
ex
parte
application, or upon such notice as he may direct,
(2)
(a)
p ro h ib it
a
provisions
agreement;
lan d lo rd
or
of the Act,
(b)
order a landlord or
provisions
of
the
agreement; and
(c)
order a landlord or a tenant to keep the peace and be of
go o d b eh av io u r resp ectin g h is re la tio n s w ith th e o th er, o r
other
persons
involved, until
the
conclusion
of
the
hearing, or until further order.
F o llo w in g
th e
h earin g,
th e
m ay consider appropriate
further order under subsection (1).
In 19 70 m u nicip alities w e re em p o w e re d12
Tenant Advisory Bureaux with the following functions:
to
a tenant to perform and
Act,
or
the
terms
of
ju dge
m ay
m ak e
su ch
in the circum stances,
establish,
(a)
to advise landlords and tenants in tenancy matters;
(b)
to
receive
com plaints
landlords and tenants;
and
a
tenant
from
co n trav en in g th e
or the term s of the tenancy
seek
to
by
m ediate
9.
L andlord and Tenant A m endm ent A ct, S.B.C . 1973, c. 47.
10.
Ibid., s. 5
11.
Ibid., s. 12. The evidence before the C om m ission show s that this procedure is not being used.
12.
L andlord and Tenant A m endm ent A ct, S.B.C . 1970, c. 18, s. 2.
-3 0 -
by-law ,
carry out the
a
tenancy
order
as
he
including a
L an d lo rd
disputes
and
betw een
-3 1 -
©
to
dissem inate
inform ation
for
the
purpose
of
educating and
advising landlords and tenants con cerning rental practices, rights,
and remedies; and
(d)
to
receiv e
and
in vestigate
of legislation governing tenancies.
co m p lain ts
In
1973
the
establishment
of
Landlord
and
m u n ic ip a litie s w a s
m ad e m an d a to ry .13
It is to
bureaux do not have dispute resolving pow ers
mediation.
of
conduct
in
c o n trav en tio n
Tenant
Advisory
Bureaux
in
be noted, how ever, that these
beyond those of advice and
The
Pro vince
contains
tw o
oth er
b odies
concerned
w ith
so lv in g
d isputes
in
lan d lo rd an d ten an t m atters.
These are the Vancouver Rental Accom m odation
G rievan ce B oard and the Surrey Landlord-T enant G rievance B o ard .
Both were
constituted by by-law under the authority of the R ent C ontrol A ct, 14 and their position at
law is ex p lored m o re th o ro u gh ly elsew h ere in th is R ep o rt.15
To the extent,
how ever, that both have provided w orkin g exam ples o f alternatives to the Sm all
C laim s D iv isio n in assistin g lan d lo rd s a n d te n an ts to re so lv e th eir d iffe re n ce s, w e
have drawn on their experience in formulating our proposals for change.
One
of
th e
is s u es
on
w h ic h
th e
C o m m is s io n
in v ite d
sp e cific
co m m en t
tho se subm itting b riefs w as:
W h a t c o u r t s o r b o d ie s s h o u ld h a v e ju r is d ic tio n
disputes between landlord and tenant, and what their procedures should be.
fro m
over
A
m a jo r ity
of
th o s e
who
addressed
t h e m s e lv e s
to
th is
q u es tio n
f a v o u re d
a
red uctio n in (o r elim in atio n of) th e ro le o f th e S m all C laim s D ivisio n an d th e
con stitution of m un icipal bo ards or special landlord and tenant courts.
T his view
was
supported
both
by
those
representing
landlords'
interests
and
those
representing tenants' interests.
L andlords in particular em phasized their feelings
of frustration over the delay experienced in the Sm all Claim s D ivision; both
landlords and tenants expressed the view that the Sm all Claim s D ivision lacked
expertise in, and understanding of, the practicalities of day-to-day landlord and
te nan t relatio n s; an d a nu m b er of resp o n den ts calle d fo r a d isp u te re so lv in g b o d y
w ith facilities to insp ect residential prem ises for the purpose of assessing dam age.
M any of those w ho favoured the setting up of a special tribunal cited their
satisfaction with the Vancouver Rental Accommodation Grievance Board.
A
com m on
sub m ission
was
that
the
special
tribu nal
sho uld
con sist
of
a
landlords' representative, a tenants' representative and a neutral third party.
Im p licit in thes e su b m issio n s is th e a rg u m en t th at d esira b le e x p ertise in lan d lord
and tenant relations is best obtained in this way.
and
A
ge n era l
im p res sio n
oral presen tations at
g ain ed
by
th e
C o m m issio n
fro m
b o th
th e
w ritten
briefs
th e p ub lic h earings w as that there are certain sp ec ific
13.
14.
R .S.B.C . 1960, C . 338.
15.
C hapter X I.
-3 2 -
asp ects o f lan d lo rd a n d te n an t re latio n s w h ic h
frequent disputes, and that it is a com m only
Division is not the most appropriate forum for their resolution.
are the subject of
held view that the
recurring and
Sm all C laim s
The
o p in io n
th at
th e
areas
of
co m m o n
d isp ute
are
co m p arativ ely
lim ited
an d
w ell-defined is supported by the statistical studies w hich w ere available to us.
T able I in A pp end ix " D " to th is R epo rt sho w s the b reakdo w n b y sub ject-m atter
o f th e lan d lo rd an d ten an t claim s lod ged in th e V an co u v er an d V icto ria S m all
C l a i m s D iv i s i o n s i n 1 9 7 2 , w h i l e T a b l e I I s h o w s th e s a m e b r e a k d o w n f o r t h e s a m e
period for the V ancouver Rental A ccom m odation G rievance Board.
Table III
s h o w s th e v a lu e o f la n d lo r d a n d t e n a n t c la im s m a d e in t h e V a n c o u v e r a n d V ic to ria
small Claims Divisions during 1972.
A number of the recommendations which we make later in this Report are
con dition al on the availability of an institution w hich can act quickly and w hich
h as a th o ro ugh un d erstan d in g o f th e re alitie s o f ev ery d ay lan d lo rd an d ten an t
relation s.
W e can n o t go so far as to say that the Sm all C laim s D ivisio n co uld n o t,
given the tim e, m oney, personnel and evidentiary and procedural dispensations
n e c essary , d e v e lo p th e ab ility to ac t qu ick ly an d w ith th e un d erstan d in g w h ich w e
regard as bein g v ital to th e su ccess o f o ur m ajo r sub stantive recom m endation s.
W e d o , h o w e v e r, b e liev e th a t it w o u ld b e ea sier, an d give rise to les s d isto rtio n , if
a new body, with specific and well-defined functions, w ere set up to take
ju risd ictio n ov er c ertain e stab lish e d asp e cts o f lan d lo rd a n d te n an t relatio n s an d
the new aspects which we propose later in this Report.
In
the
s im p l e s t
te r m s ,
we
are
persuaded
th a t
th e
idea
of
e s ta b l is h i n g
an
altern ativ e to th e S m all C laim s D iv isio n in s o lv in g so m e lan d lo rd an d ten an t
d is p u t e s is n o t in im ic a l to th e w i s h e s o f a m a jo r it y o f l a n d l o r d s a n d t e n a n ts , a n d
th at in settin g up a new bo dy a better gu aran tee o f sp eed an d exp ertise w ill b e
offered.
H aving
co m e
to
th is
co n clu sio n ,
institution which is best suited to the task.
th e
questio n
th en
arises
as
to
th e
kind
of
The
Vancouver
Rental
A ccom m odation
G rievance
Board
and
the
Surrey
L an d lo rd -T e n an t G riev an ce B o ard , as w e hav e said , p ro vid e us w ith exam p les o f
alternatives to the Sm all Claim s D ivision w hich app ear to h ave w orked and given
gen eral satisfactio n.
O n th e oth er h an d , h o w ev er, th ese are m u nicip al b o dies, an d
from a Province-wide perspective the concept of a municipal body has two
d istin ct d isad van tages.
F irst, as w e state els e w h e re , w e believ e th at lan d lo rd an d
t e n a n t l a w s h o u l d b e u n i fo r m a c ro s s t h e P r o v i n c e , an d a c o ro l l ar y o f t h i s v i e w is
that landlord and tenant disputes should be resolved according to consistent
principle.
If w e w ere to reco m m en d the estab lish m en t of m un icip al b o dies to
discharge the functions w hich w e believe should be perform ed o utside the Sm all
Claim s D ivision (or the transferring of these functions to existing m unicipal
b o d i e s s e t u p u n d e r s e c t i o n 6 6 o f th e A c t ) , it is h i g h l y p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e s a m e
d is p u te w o u ld b e so lv ed in as m an y d iffe re n t w a ys as th e re w o u ld b e m u n ic ip a l
b o dies.
S e c o n d ly , th e e x p e n s e a n d r e s o u r c e s in v o lv e d i n s e t t i n g u p a s p e e d y a n d
exp ert b o d y in e ach m un icip ality w o uld b e co n sid erab le, even assum ing that these
resources were uniformly available across the Province.
In
the light of this, and with
the precedent of another Province,
r e in f o r ce o u r th in k in g , w e se ttle d in fa v o u r o f a ce n tra liz e d b o d y w it h
to cope with disputes on a Province-wide basis.
-3 3 -
Manitoba, to
t h e f a c ilit ie s
W e considered the desirability of constituting the new
body in
such
a way as
to encom pass representation of landlords and of tenants.
This did not appeal to
u s.
Its ad van tage is to en su re th at th e d ecisio n - m a k in g b o d y is m ad e aw are o f th e
re a litie s o f la n d lo r d a n d te n a n t
relation s, but representation is no t the o nly w ay
o f ach iev in g th is.
Its disad van tage is th at a lan d lo rd s ' re p re se n ta tiv e m ig h t h a v e
a p r e d is p o s i t i o n t o d e c i d e i n fa v o u r o f a l a n d l o r d , a n d a t e n a n t s ' r e p r e s e n t a t i v e in
f a v o u r o f a te n an t.
L e a v in g as id e th e q u e s tio n w h e th er, g iv e n th e w i d e v a r ie t y o f
interests am o n g land lo rds a n d tenan ts as grou ps, a true representative of either
could be found, w e concluded that th e new body should acquire its expert
knowledge of landlord and tenant relations by experience.
In
th e
co u rse
of
our
re s e a rc h
on
p o s s ib le
a lte rn a tiv e s
to
th e
S m all
C laim s
D iv isio n as a veh icle fo r so lv in g so m e lan d lo rd an d ten an t disp u te s w e h a ve
exam ined a system established in M anitoba in 1970.
Under The Landlord and Tenant Act 16
jurisdiction is, b road ly sp eak in g, ap p o rtio n ed b etw een the C o un ty C ou rt and an
o fficial kn ow n as th e ren talsm an .
The M anitoba Legislature, in dividing the
jurisdictio n , ap p ears to have sep arated from general landlord and ten an t law ,
e n fo rceab le in th e C o un ty C o u rt, are a s o f co m m o n d is p u te b etw e e n la n d lo rd s an d
tenants which are disposed of by the rentalsman in an informal manner.
1.
Functions of the Manitoba Rentalsman
(a)
General
S ectio n
85 (3 )
of
rentalsman, provides that:
th e
M an ito b a
statu te,
d escrib in g
th e
gen eral
fu nctio n s
of
th e
lan dlo rds
and
The functions of the office of rentalsman are
(a)
(b)
to
(c)
to disseminate information
landlords and tenants
remedies; and
(d)
to receive and investigate
legislation governing tenancies.
r ec ei ve
c omp lain t s
and
me di at e
disp ut es
be tw ee n
tenants;
(b)
complaints
of
conduct
in
and advising
rights and
contravention
of
Security Deposits
Section 87 of the Manitoba
case of disputes over security deposits.
87
16.
for the purpose of educating
concerning rental practices,
Act
(1)
Where
return of the
the landlord
describes
the
jurisdiction
of
the
rentalsman
in
the
a dispute arises between a landlord and a tenant as to the
security deposit or any part thereof on the allegation of
(a)
that
the
tenant
premises concerned; or
(b)
that the tenant is in arrears in payment of his rent;
R .S.M . 1970, c. L70.
-3 4 -
has
caused
damage
to
the residential
the landlord shall forthwith
(c)
in writing notify the rentalsman and
reasons for objecting to the return of
or any part thereof to the tenant; and
the
the
tenant of his
security deposit
(d)
at the same time, forward the amount of the security
deposit with interest thereon of at least four per cent per
annum compounded and calculated as required under
section 86, to the rentalsman;
and with respect to the alleged damage, the landlord shall furnish
rentalsman with a detailed description thereof together with
estimate of the cost of repairing the damage.
(c)
87
(2)
Where
under subsection (1) the rentalsman receives a
notification from a landlord, he shall as soon as is reasonably
possible, endeavour to obtain an agreement between the landlord
and tenant as to the manner in which the security deposit should be
dealt with; and if the landlord and tenant fail to reach an agreement,
then the rentalsman shall continue to hold the deposit to be disposed
of in accordance with subsection (3) or (5).
87
(3)
Notwithstanding subsection (2), where there
between a landlord and a tenant as to the manner in
deposit is to be dealt with, the landlord and tenant
agree to have the rentalsman act as an arbitrator; and
the finding of the rentalsman is final and binding on
tenant and is not subject to appeal or review by any court of law.
87
(4)
(3).
87
(5)
Where
under
this
section a rentalsman mediates or arbitrates a
dispute respecting the disposition of a security deposit, and fails
w it h in th ir ty d ay s t o co m p le t e t h e m ed ia ti on o r a rb it ra ti on , a s t h e
case may be, he shall in writing forthwith notify the parties
c on ce rn ed o f h i s in a b i li ty t o c om p le te t h e m ed ia t i o n o r a rb i t r a t i o n
t o ge th er wi th h is re as o ns f o r f a i l i n g t o c o m p l et e t he m ed ia ti on o r
arbitration; and if within ten days from the date of receipt of the
notification the landlord does not commence an action for the
s e c u r it y d e p o s i t an d i n t e r e st h e l d b y t h e re n t al sman , t h e re nt alsm an
shall return the security deposit and interest to the tenant.
The
Arbitration
Act
does
is disagreement
which a security
may in writing
in such a case,
the landlord and
not apply to an arbitration under subsection
Abandoned Goods
Section
94 of the M anitoba Act gives the rentalsman powers
tenant’s
abandoning
goods
onrented
prem ises.
The text
reproduced in Chapter IX of this Report.
(d)
the
an
in
of
the case of
section
94
a
is
Failure to Supply Services
Section
68
of
the
relates
does not supply certain services to a tenant.
98
in
part
to
the
rentalsm an's
pow er
w here
a
landlord
(7)
Where
under
the
terms
of a tenancy agreement, the landlord is
responsible for the provision of heat, water and electric power
s er vi ce s, or an y on e or mo re of th em , an d th e la n dl o r d f a il s o r
neglects to fulfil his obligation to provide these services; or it appears
that a tenant may be deprived of any of those services due to the
-3 5 -
failure of the landlord to meet his obligation to the vendor of
those services, the tenant shall, upon the instruction of the
man, pay the rent as it falls due to the rentalsman;
98
98
(e)
any of
rentals-
(8)
Where the
rent
is
paid to the rentalsman under subsection (7),
the tenant shall not be held to be in arrears of his rent and the
rentalsman may
(a)
hold a nd co nt in ue t o receive rents until the landlord
provides for the use of the tenant heat, water or electric
power services as the case may be; and
(b)
wh ere n ec essary, pay t o t h e ve n do r o f h e at , water or
electric power services from the rent received, an amount
s uf fi ci en t t o e ns ur e t he s up p ly o f t ho s e s er vi ce s t o t he
landlord by the vendors.
(9)
Where
the
rentalsman
has collected rents in excess of any
a m ou nt re qu ir e d t o b e p ai d un der cl ause ( b ) o f sub sec ti on (8), he
shall refund the excess to the landlord.
Repairs
S e ctio n
119
of
th e
M an itob a
landlord's duty to repair premises is in question.
A ct
c o n c ern s
th e
re n ta ls m a n 's
fu n ctio n s
when
a
119
(1)
Wh ere a tena nt requests his landlord or an agent of the landlord
t o c a r r y ou t or make reason abl e re p ai r s t o t h e re si den t i al p rem ises
occupied by the tenant and the landlord refuses or neglects to carry
out or make those repairs, the tenant may notify the rentalsman for
the area of the failure or refusal.
119
(2)
Upon
receipt
of a notification under subsection (1), the
rentalsman shall endeavour to resolve the problem between the
landlord and the tenant and if the rentalsman fails in his attempt to
have the landlord carry out or make the repairs that the rentalsman
considers to be reasonable, the tenant shall pay the rent as it falls due
to the rentalsman to be held in trust by him until the repairs are
carried out or made.
119
( 3)
Pa ym en t
to the landlord
to pay his rent.
119
( 4)
W h er e, un d er
the rentalsman shall
received the rent.
119
(5)
Upon
receiving
rent under subsection (2) the rentalsman shall
estimate the cost of repairs in respect of which the matter arose and
that the rentalsman considers reasonable, and as the rent is paid shall
retain
o f r e n t u n d e r s u b s e c t io n ( 2) t o t h e r en t al sm a n a n d n o t
does not constitute a violation or failure by the tenant
su b s ec ti o n ( 2 ), a t en a n t p a ys r en t t o a ren ta ls m an ,
in writing notify the landlord that he has
(a)
one month's rent; or
(b)
twice the estimated cost of the repairs;
whichever is the greater, un til t he repairs are completed to his
s a t i s f a c t i o n , a n d s h a l l f o r w a r d t h e a m o u n t r e t a i n e d t o t h e la n d l o r d
when the repairs are completed to the satisfaction of the rentalsman,
and shall forward any excess rent received by him to the landlord
-3 6 -
within thirty days of receipt thereof.
119
(f)
Mediation and Arbitration
Section
120
arbitration powers.
120
120
2.
(7)
Where
under
this
section a landlord is requested to make
r ea s on a bl e r ep a i r s t o r e s i d e n t i a l p r e m i s e s o c c u p i ed b y a t e n an t a n d
t h e t i m e fo r ap pe al under subsec ti on (6) h as ex p ired or an appeal
taken by the landlord is unsuccessful and the landlord fails or refuses
or neglects or continues to fail, refuse or neglect to make the repairs,
the rentalsman shall make or cause the repairs to be made and pay
the costs thereof from the moneys retained by him under subsection
(5) and forward any surplus moneys to the landlord.
of
the
M anitoba
A ct
concerns
(1)
I n t h e ev e n t
of
any
either the landlord or the tenant
rentalsman for the area who shall
the
ren talsm an 's
m ed iatio n
and
dispute between a landlord and a tenant,
or both may refer the dispute to the
(a)
endeavour by mediation to settle the dispute; or
(b)
with the written
arbitrate the dispute.
consent
of
the
landlord
and
the tenant
(2)
Where
under
subsection
(1), the rentalsman acts as an arbitrator,
his findings are final and binding on both the landlord and the
tenant; and The Arbitration Act does not apply to the arbitration.
Powers of the Manitoba Rentalsman
The
M a n i to b a
l e g i s l a t io n
enable him to carry out his duties.
assigns
th e
follow ing
p ow ers
to
th e
rentalsm an
to
85
(4)
For
the
purpose
of investigating a specific complaint under this
Act, the rentalsman or any person authorized by him for the
p ur p os e, sh a ll , p ur su an t t o a n order un der sub sectio ns (7) an d ( 8) ,
have access to residential premises to which this Act applies, during
reasonable hours and to specific documents, correspondence and
r ec or ds re le va n t t o t h e c o m p l a i nt an d m a y m ak e co p ie s t he re of o r
take extracts therefrom.
85
(5)
E x c e p t f o r t h e p ur p o s e s o f a p ro se c ut i o n un de r t h i s Ac t, or in
any court proceedings, or for the purpose of the administration and
e n f o r c e me nt o f th is A ct , n ei th er t h e re nt al sm a n n o r a n y a u t h o r i z e d
person shall
85
(a)
k n o w i n g l y c o m m u n i c a t e , o r a l lo w t o b e
to any person an y in fo rm at io n ob ta in ed by
of the rentalsman under this section; or
communicated,
or on behalf
(b)
knowingly allow any person to inspect, or to have access
to, any copy of any book, record, document, file,
correspondence, or other record obtained by, or on
behalf of, the rentalsman under this section.
(6) Subsection (5) does not prohibit
(a)
t h e co m m u n i ca tio n of in fo rm at io n b y t h e r en t al sm a n t o
persons charged with the administration of any statutes of
-3 7 -
Canada or of any
matter of this Act; or
other
province
that
relate
to
the
subject
(b)
the communipation by the rentalsman of any information
with the consent of the person to whom that information
relates; or
©
t h e r el ea s e o r p ub l i ca t i o n b y th e r en t al sm a n, wi th t h e
consent of the owner of any book, record, document, file,
correspondence or other record, or a copy thereof.
85
( 7)
In c ar ry in g o u t th e p o w er s c on f e rr ed a n d t h e d ut ie s i mp o s e d o n
the rentalsman under this Act, the rentalsman or any person
a ut h o r iz ed by h i m fo i t h e p ur p os e m ay a p p l y t o a j ud ge o f t h e
County Court for an order granting him access to residential
promises, documents, files, corpespondence, records and accounts
of a person carrying on business to which this Act relates and
authorizing him to make copies thereof or to take extracts
therefrom.
85
(8)
A judge of the
the order applied for if
reasonable and necessary.
County Court
he is satisfied
may, on an ex parte application, issue
that the authority for access is
The
C o m m is s io n
found
the
concept
of
a s s ig riih g
c e rta in
la n d lo rd
an d
te n a n t
d is p u t e s to a re n ta ls m a n in it ia lly a p p e a lin g , a n d a s k e d o n e o f its c o n s u lt a n ts in th e
P ro je ct, P ro fe sso r b e td r D . L e ask i to g o to M an ito b a to in v estigate th e o p eratio n
of the system there. He provided us with the following report.
Report on the Manitoba Rentalsman
The Office of Rentalsman is to some degree integrated with the Manitoba
Consumers Bureau.
The Rentalsman is also a director of the Consumers Bureau and
A s so ci at e D ep ut y M il li st er in t h e D ep a rt m en t o f C o n s u me r s , Co r po r at e a n d In t er n al
S e r v i ce s .
T h e R e n t a l s m a n h i m s e l f e x e r ci s e s a p o l i c y s u p e rv is io n o ve r th e a ct i v i t i e s
of the staff in the Office of Rentalsman but his primary operating duties are in the
a re a o f Co n su me r A ff airs.
Th e Dep uty Ren talsm an is in day-t o -d ay c ha rg e o f t he
operations of the office of Rentalsman.
Th e Of f i ce o f R en t a l s m a n i s l o c a t e d i n
W in n i p e g a n d a l l R e n t a l s m a n s t a f f a r e l o c a t e d t h e r e . R e n t a l s m an fu n c ti o n s f o r th e
whole of thp.province of Manitoba are carried out by six civil servants.
Three junior
o ff ic er s a re p r im a ri ly r es p on s ib le f or an s w e r i n g t e l ep h o n e i n q ui ri es .
Th ey a ls o d ea l
w it h c er ta in in ve st igat io n s a ri si ng o ut of t el ep h o ne c al ls wh ic h t he y h ave dealt with
and simpler inquiries originating through Correspondence referred to them by the
Deputy Rentalsman.
The senior s taff deal with more complex investigation files,
arbitration, etc.
None of the members of the staff has any legal training.
The junior
of f ic er s i n c l u d e t wo u n i v e rs i t y g ra duat e s an d o n e e x-p o l i c ew o man .
Th e se n i o r staff
i n c l u d e a n e x - p o l i c e d e t e c t i ve , a n e x - s c h o o l t e a c h e r a n d a n e x - s a l e s m a n a g e r o f a
ha rd wa re s t or e.
R ec ru it m en t e mp h asis has b ee n o n sui tab il i t y f o r t h e w o rk in the
view of the senior officials rather than any particular set of formal qualifications.
The most impressive feature of the Manitoba Rentalsman's office is the ability
to deal with such large volume of work with a relatively small number of officers.
The secret of their success is good administration.
Without sacrificing flexibility,
careful effort has been made to develop standardized forms for dealing with
repetitive situations.
In addition, there is a very carefully planned usage of personnel
t o a ch ie ve t h e m a x i m u m e f f e ct i ve ne ss wi th th e m in im um ex p en d it ur e o f ef fo r t.
A
telephone call is always used in preference to a letter; a letter in preference to a
p er so n al i ns p ec ti on ; a n d t he b ur de n o f p ro d uc i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i s p l a c e d s q ua re ly o n
the parties with whom the Rentalsman's staff are dealing.
By focusing sharply on the
i s s u e s i n d is p u t e , t h e R e n t a l s m an 's st af f avo i d t i me c o n sumi n g e xami n at i o n o f m atters
which will not contribute to a resolution of the particular dispute with which they are
-3 8 -
d ea li n g .
T h e p r ob l e m o f p r ov id in g Re nt a l sm a n fa ci li ti es t o a r e as o f t h e p r o v i n c e
outside greater Winnipeg is managed in a number of interesting ways.
First of all,
great stress in public advertising of the Rentalsman's office is placed on a telephone
availability.
Calls from outside the greater Winnipeg area are encouraged by the
Rentalsman's willingness to pay the toll charges.
Furthermore, senior members of the
Rentalsman's staff make periodic tours of the outlying areas of the province.
During
t hes e t ou rs ti me i s d ev ot ed to givin g in fo rmatio n to th e p ub li c abo ut lan dl or d and
tenant matters.
In addition the availability of these touring officers is advertised in
a dvance so th at peo ple with p ro blems requirin g th e Ren talsman 's office can an ticipate
the arrival in their area of a Rentalsman officer.
In addition, where inspections of
rented premises are necessary in areas outside metropolitan Winnipeg the
R e n t a l s m a n ' s o f f i c e c a l l s o n R . C . M . P . o f f i c er s an d p ub li c he al th i ns p ec t o r s s t a t i o n e d
in the area where the inspection has to be carried out.
An additional factor, the
i m po rt a n ce o f wh ic h s h o u l d n o t b e o v e r l o o k e d i s t h a t t h e o u t l y in g a r e a s o f t h e
p r o v i n c e d o n o t p r o d u c e t h e p r o p o r t i o n a te s h ar e o f l an d lo r d/ t e na n t di s p u t e s w h i c h
might be excected on a per capita basis generalizing from the greater Winnipeg
experience.
As an indication of the volume of telephone inquiries that can be dealt with
without opening a co mp lain t file it sh ould b e no ted th at in 1972 when th e office
received just slightly fewer than 50,000 phone calls fewer than 2,000 new complaints
were registered.
It is also interesting to observe that the figures for complaints in
Winnipeg were 1,585 and complaints outside Winnipeg 269 despite the fact that
roughly half the population of Manitoba live within greater Winnipeg and the other
half live outside Winnipeg.
By far the largest category of disputes handled by the
Rentalsman are disputes involving security deposits; the second largest group
involved complaints about landlords' fulfilment of their obligations to repair.
The Manitoba officials interviewed laid great stress on the importance of
achieving a reputation for impartiality.
Th ey a ls o s t r e s s e d p r o m p t a n d i n e x p e n s i v e
handling of citizen's disputes.
Another principle on which great stress was laid was
the principle of uniformity of interpretation.
T h i s w a s i n p a r t a c h i e v ed t h r o u g h
training of the junior officers by the more senior ones.
It was also accomplished by
setting aside a regular part of each week during which all decisionmaking staff of the
R en talsm an 's office wo uld ga th er to ge th er to di sc us s c as el oa d a nd an y in t er es t in g
questions or files.
In clu ded
category of
1971 and 1972.
B.
as
the
T ab le
IV
in
A p p e n d ix
"D "
to
th is
R e p o rt
is
a
co m p lain ts actu ally registered by th e ren talsm an 's
b re ak d ow n
by
office during
The Division of Jurisdiction
The
C o m m is s io n
has
c o n c lu d e d
th a t
the
s e ttin g
up
of
a
re n t a ls m a n
s y s te m
i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , a l o n g t h e l i n e s o f t h e s y s t e m o p e r a t in g ip M a n i to b a , to s h a r e
jurisd ictio n w ith the cou rts in landlord and tenant disputes, w ou ld go som e w ay
towards the goal of achieving speedy and expert settlement of those disputes.
It should
be stated at the outset that the conceptual approach to the division
o f ju risd ictio n w h ich w e fav ou r is th a t a d o p te d in M an ito b a.
G en eral ju risd ictio n
in landlord and tenant m atters should rem ain in the courts, and the rentalim an
s h o u l d u n d e r t a k e o n ly t h o s e f u n c t i o n s w h i c h a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o c a t e d to h im .
For
exam ple, the rentalsm an should have the pow er to d irect repairs to d am aged
prem ises, b ut an y actio n fo r dam ages arisin g o ut of a failure to repair, w hether
framed in contract or in tort, should continue to be pursued in the courts.
We
should
also
state
at
the
outset
our
belief
that
the
rentalsm an,
in
d is c h a r g i n g h is f u n c t io n s , o u g h t to o b s e r v e to t h e b e s t o f h is a b ilit y t h e r u le s o f
n a tu r al ju s tic e , b u t o u g h t n o t to b e h a n d ic a p p e d to a n y s ig n if ic a n t e x te n t b y f o rm a l
-3 9 -
r u le s o f p r o c e d u r e o r e v id e n c e .
T h e e s s e n c e o f h is o p e ra tio n s h o u l d b e a s p e e d y
reso lutio n o f d isp utes, b ased on a know ledge o f w hat is generally accep tab le
practice b etw een lan d lo rds an d tenan ts.
H is ap proach sh ould enco m pass, like that
of the M anitob a rentalsm an, m ediation betw een landlords and tenants, so that
form al confrontation betw een th e tw o can b e avoided as m uch as possible.
He
should, how ever, m ake him self available to parties for the arbitration of their
disputes where both consent and w here the rentalsm an does not otherw ise have
exclusive jurisdiction.
M a ny
of
th e
fu n c tio n s
w h ich
we
re c o m m e n d
fo r
th e
r e n t alsm an
are
o utlined
in d e ta il els e w h ere in th is R e p o rt, b u t fo r th e p u rp o s e o f c larif y in g th e g e n e ra l ro le
which we propose for him, we list them here.
-4 0 -
1.
Functions of the Rentalsman
(a)
The Disposition of Rent Deposits
We
reco m m en d
in
C h ap ter
V
of
th is
R ep o rt
th at
lan d lo rd s
be
p erm itted
to
t a k e r e n t d e p o s it s (n o t g r e a t e r th a n a n a m o u n t e q u a l t o o n e m o n t h 's r e n t ) , t o b e
held b y the rentalsm an.
W e also recom m end that w here there is a dispute over
w h e t h e r t h e l a n d l o r d o r t h e t e n a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e n t d e p o s it , t h e r e n t a l s m a n
s h o u ld m a k e a fin a l d is p o s itio n .
T h is is d is c u s s e d in d e ta il in C h a p te r V , b u t w e
p o in t o u t h e r e t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s s h o u l d a p p ly t o t h e j u r i s d ic t i o n to b e
exercised by the rentalsman and the courts.
(1)
W here the amount of a landlord's clam
for arrears of
exc ee d th e am o u n t o f th e ren t d ep o sit h eld by th e
lan d lo rd sh o uld b e o bliged to p ursue h is claim w ith
rent does not
ren talsm an , th e
t h e r e n ta l s m a n ;
(2)
W h ere
th e
lan d lo rd 's
claim
fo r
arre ars
of
re n t
ex ce ed s
th e
am o u n t
o f the ren t dep o sit an d the lan d lord w ish es to re co ver th e en tire
am o u n t, h e sh o u ld p ro c ee d in th e co urts.
In th at situ atio n th e
lan d lo rd sh o uld deliver to th e ren talsm an a co py of th e w rit o r
su m m o n s an d th e re n talsm an sh o u ld h o ld th e dep osit, pen din g th e
determination of the court;
(3)
W h e re
th e
la n d lo rd 's
c la im
f o re a rre a rs
of
re n t
of the rent dep osit the landlord should, of
p ro ceed befo re th e ren talsm an again st th e ren t
done so, he should be preclud ed fro m filing a
for the remainder of the arrears.
exceeds
th e
am ount
co urse, be free to
d ep o sit b ut, h av in g
claim in the courts
While we believe that existing rights of appeal from the courts should not
b e d is t u r b e d , w e a r e o f t h e v i e w t h a t i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f a s p e e d y d is p o s it i o n o f
c l a im s , t h e r e s h o u l d b e n o r ig h t o f a p p e a l f ro m a d e t e rm in a tio n o f t h e re n ta ls m a n
in relation to a rent deposit.
(b)
The Disposition of Damage Deposits
We
also
recom m end
in
C hap ter
V
that
landlords
should
be
perm itted
to
take
dam age deposits (n ot greater th an an am oun t equal to o n e-h alf o f o n e m onth 's
re n t), als o to be h eld by the ren talsm an .
T h ese dam age dep o sits are to be av ailab le
in t o t a l o r p a r t i a l s a t i s f a c ti o n o f a n y l e g it im a t e c la im w h i c h th e la n d l o r d m a y h a v e
again st th e ten an t fo r b re ac h o f th e te n an t's o b lig atio n to re p air d am age to th e
premises caused by him or his visitors.
O nce
a g ain
we
e m p h a s iz e
th a t
th e
a v a ila b ility
of
th is
p ro ce d u re
sh o u ld
not
p re clu d e a lan dlo rd fro m p u rs u in g an o rd in ary c la im in th e c o u rts fo r b re a c h o f
th e s ta tu to r y co v e n a n t to r e p a ir d a m a g e w h e r e th e a m o u n t c la im e d is m o r e th a n
the amount of the damage deposit.
P rin cip le s
sim ila r
to
th o se
we
should apply to the landlord's choice of forum.
(1)
have
o u tlin ed
for
cla im s
fo r
arre a rs
W here
the
am ount
of
a
lan d lo rd 's
claim
for
dam age
exceed the am ount of the dam age deposit held by the
th e lan d lo rd sh ould be ob liged to p ursue his claim
rentalsman;
-4 1 -
of
re n t
does
not
ren talsm an ,
with
the
(2)
W h ere
th e
lan d lo rd 's
claim
fo r
d am age
ex ceed s
th e
am o un t
of
dam age deposit and the landlord wishes to recover to the
exten t, h e sh o uld pro ceed in th e co urts.
In that situation
lan d lo rd sh o uld deliv er to th e re n talsm an a co p y o f th e w rit
su m m o ns an d th e ren talsm an sh o uld h o ld th e d ep o sit, p en d in g
determination of the court;
(3)
W h ere
th e
lan d lo rd 's
claim
fo r
d am age
ex ceed s
th e
am o un t
of
th e
d am age d ep o sit th e lan d lo rd sh o uld b e free to p ro ceed befo re th e
ren talsm an again st th e d ep o sit b ut, h av in g d on e so , sh o uld be
precluded from pursuing the rem ain d er o f th e claim in the cou rts.
As
we
po in t
out
between a landlord and a
resort conduct an inspection.
in
C h ap ter
tenant as to
V,
the
if
the
state of
re n talsm an
cannot
get
agreem ent
the prem ises, he m ight in the last
W here
the
landlord
cho oses
to
sue
in
the
courts, w e
again
do
not
th at existin g ap p eal righ ts sh o uld b e d istu rb e d .
W e do, however, adhere
view that there should be no right of appeal from a rentalsman's determination.
(c)
th e
full
th e
or
the
propose
to th e
The Landlord’s Failure to Provide Essential Services
One of the more common areas of dispute and causes for hostility between
landlords and tenants is the landlord's failure to p rov id e services to the p rem ises.
U nd er the p resen t law the ten an t's m o st ob vious recourse in such circum stances
i s t o t h e S m a l l C l a i m s D i v i s i o n u n d e r e i t h e r s e c t i o n 4 9 (3 ) o r s e c t i o n 6 0 B o f t h e
Landlord and Tenant A ct.
U nder these sections the court m ay either term inate the tenancy
or order the landlord to provide the service.
We
are
of
th e
v ie w ,
h o w e v er,
th at
th e
sc h em e
now
o p eratin g
in
M a n ito b a
w ith respect to th e p ro visio n o f essen tial serv ices is likely to re sult in m ore
im m e d ia t e a n d e f f e c t iv e r e lie f fo r th e te n a n t.
W e h a v e a lr e a d y q u o t e d th e r e le v a n t
sectio n s o f th e M an ito b a le g islatio n .17
In essence the schem e consists of a
statutory rent w ithh olding, through the agency of the rentalsm an, until essential
services of heat, w ater an d electric p o w er are p rovided (if the landlord is ob liged
to provide them ).
W here necessary the rentalsm an is em pow ered to pay the
v e n d o r o f th e s e rv ic e s o u t o f th e ge n t w ith h e ld , in o rd e r to e n s u re th e s u p p ly o f
the services.
We
p ro p o se
th e
sam e
sch em e
fo r
th is
Pro vin ce,
b ut
w o u ld
exten d
its
sco p e
t o e n c o m p a s s t h e l a n d l o r d ' s f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e , w h e r e h e i s u n d e r a n o b l ig a t i o n t o
do so, gas, garbage collection, sewage services and elevator service (if elevator
se rv ice is co n sid ered vital fo r th e ten an t's c o n tin u ed o cc u p atio n o f th e p rem ises ).
W e do not think it appropriate for
rentalsman where he exercises jurisdiction in this area.
there
to
be
a
right
of
appeal
from
the
We
em p h asize,
h o w ev er,
th at
w h e re
th e
ten an t
h as
su ffered
lo ss
th ro ugh
th e
la n d lo r d 's fa ilu r e to p ro v id e se rv ic es (w h e th e r esse n tial o r o th e rw is e ), a n d w is h e s
t o m a k e a c l a i m f o r d a m a g e s ( w h e t h e r i n c o n t r a c t o r t o r t ) h e s h o u l d c o n t in u e t o
pursue th is claim in the courts.
T he rentalsm an's function in this area is p urely
one of ensuring the actual provision of servicest
17.
The L andlord and Tenant A ct, R .S.M . 1970, c. L70, s. 98 supra.
-4 2 -
(d)
The Landlord's Failure to Effect Repairs
The landlord's failure to effect repairs to the prem ises which he is obliged
by
statu te o r b y th e ten an cy agreem en t to d o , is also a co m m o n cau se fo r d isp ute an d
h o s tility b etw een lan d lo rd s an d ten an ts.
H ere again, the tenant's m ost obvious
re c o urs e is to th e S m a ll C la im s D iv is io n u n d er s e c tio n 4 9 (3 ) o r s e c tio n 6 0 B o f th e
Landlord and Tenant A ct, and the rem edies available consist of a term ination of the tenancy
by court order or an order that the landlord perform his obligation.
The
M an ito b a
so lution
has
alread y
b een
o utlined 18 an d
we
are
im p ressed
w ith
its p r a c tic a lit y .
A s i n th e c a s e o f a la n d l o r d 's fa ilu r e to p ro v id e e s se n t ia l s e rv ic e s ,
the rentalsm an, w here the landlord fails to effect repairs and the rentalsm an
determ ines that the repairs are the landlord's responsibility, m ay receive the
tenant's rent.
O n d oing so h e m ay either hold the rent until the repairs have been
carried out, or himself cause the repairs to be made.
We
propose
the
same
schem e
for
this
Prov ince.
Our
proposal
differs,
h o w ev er, fro m th e M an ito b a sch em e in o n e resp ect.
In M anitoba the landlord
m ay ap p eal th e re n talsm an 's d e te rm in a tio n th a t h e is re sp o n sib le fo r rep airs to th e
C o u nty C o urt, an d th e re n talsm an m ay n o t c au se re p airs to b e m ad e u n less th e
tim e for app eal has expired or, w here an appeal has b een lo dged , it has b een
disposed of.
W h i le w e a g r e e t h a t t h e r e n ta ls m a n 's d e t e r m in a tio n is o n e o f l a w t o
the lim ited extent that he m ust decide w heth er o r not the landlord is actually
resp o n sib le fo r rep airs by statute or un der th e ten an cy agreem en t, w e view th e
d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s b e i n g s u b s t a n t ia lly , a n d m o s t c o m m o n ly , o n e o f f a c t .
W e do not,
th e r ef o re , b e lie v e th a t th e d e la y w h ic h m ig h t b e c a u s ed b y th e lo d g in g o f an ap p e a l
is justified by the limitdd purpose which an appeal would serve.
We
point out again
that w hile
the
rentalsm an
o ught
to
assum e
jurisdiction
in
t h e m a t t e r o f t h e l a n d lo r d 's o b li g a t i o n to e f f e c t r e p a i r s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f h a v in g
t h e r e p a ir s m a d e , th e te n a n t w h o h a s a c la im f o r d a m a g e s f o r a n y lo s s o c ca s io n e d
hid by the landlord's failure should continue to pursue that claim in the courts.
(e)
Discriminatory Rent Increases
In Part I of Chapter IV of this Report we recommend that a scheme of tenant
secu rity b e in trod uce d in the P ro vince .
W e are n o t, h o w ev er, in a p o sitio n to
reco m m en d that a sc h em e o f ren t co n trol b e in trod uced to rein fo rce it. T h erefo re
w e h ave m ad e p rovision for the situation where the landlord m ay w ish to
d is p o s s e s s a te n a n t a n d d o e s s o b y in c re a s in g th e r e n t o v e r a n d a b o v e th e am o u n t
w h i c h h e c h a r g e s o t h e r te n a n ts in s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
W e discu ss th is situ atio n
in detail in P art II of Chap ter IV, and it suffices to say here that w e propo se that
th e ren talsm an b e given pow er to m ak e a de term in atio n , o n th e m o tio n o f a
tenant, that a rent increase is discriminatory.
This is not a situation where, in out view, the Small Claims
r o l e t o p la y , a n d n e i t h e r d o w e r e c o m m e n d t h a t t h e r e s h o u l d b e
the rentalsman's determination.
(f)
Division has any
an appeal from
Hidden Rent Increases
In
C h ap ter
su rro u n d ing th e
18.
V III
of
definition
this
R ep o rt
of a rent
we
point
increase.
Ibid. s. 119 supra.
-4 3 -
out
that
there
is
so m e
am b iguity
T his assum es som e im portance in
v i e w o f t h e f a c t t h a t r e n t in c r e a s e s m a y n o t b e i m p o s e d m o r e t h a n o n c e a y e a r .
W e prop ose in C hap ter V III that w here a landlord w ishes to im pose surcharges
o r w ith d raw serv ices (each o f w h ic h m ay in c ertain c irc um stan ces b e a ren t
increase), the consent of the rentalsm an be obtained to adjust the interests
involved in an appropriate manner.
In
th e
sam e
c h a p te r
we
p ro p o se
th at
th e
re n ta ls m a n ,
for
th e
purpose
of
determ ining w hether a landlord is justified in increasing the rent, also b e given
po w er to d ecide in certain circum stances wh ether a person residing in rented
premises is a permanent resident or a transient.
(g)
Abandoned Goods
In
Chapter
IX
we
propose
a
schem e
under
w hich
the
rentalsm an
w ould
supervise the disposition of abando n ed go o ds o n ren ted prem ises.
The schem e
is o u tlin e d in d e ta il in C h a p te r IX , an d w e m e n tio n it h e re o n ly f o r th e s a k e o f
completeness.
(h)
Possession
In Chapter IV of this Report we propose that a concept of tenant security be
in tro d u c e d in th e P ro v in c e .
U n d e r th is sc h e m e , a te n a n t w h o w is h e s to re m a in in
p o s s e s s io n o f p re m is e s a f te r th e e x p iry o f th e te rm o f h is te n an cy sh o u ld h a v e th e
r i g h t t o d o s o u n l e s s c e r t a i n e n u m e r a t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s e x i s t w h i c h m a k e it p r o p e r
fo r th e la n d lo rd to re g a in p o s s e s s io n .
T h e es s e n ce o f th e sc h em e is th at a te n an t
g i ve n n o t ice is e n t it le d t o a s k fo r re a so n s f o r t h e n o t ic e if h e d o e s n o t w i sh to
m o v e , an d is en title d to h av e th e la n d lo rd ju s tify h is ac tio n to th e re n ta ls m a n , w h o
should
then
have
the
power to
determ ine whether one (or more) of
the
enum erated circum stan ces exists.
If no circum stance exists w hich w ould justify
the landlord term inating the tenancy, the rentalsm an should have the power to
hold the termination ineffective. Details of the scheme appear in Chapter IV.
We
co n sid ere d
at
so m e
le n g th
th e
q u e s tio n
w h e th e r
d e te rm in a tio n s
un d er
th is
s c h e m e s h o u ld b e m a d e b y th e c o u rts o r b y th e re n ta ls m a n .
F ro m o n e s ta n d p o in t
th e d e c i s io n t o b e m a d e b y t h e re n ta ls m a n is cle a rly m o r e "ju d ic ia l" th a n th e o th e r
decisions w hich w e propose for him .
To a m uch greater extent the exercise w ill
inv olve the p resentation and rebu ttal of eviden ce, the landlord bringing eviden ce
in su pp o rt o f h is d ecisio n to term in ate th e ten an cy, an d th e ten an t en deavo urin g
to rebut that evidence by evidence of his ow n.
From another standpoint,
h o w e v e r, th e q u alitie s w h ic h w e b e lie v e to b e m o st d e s ira b le in a re n ta ls m a n - th e
ability to
m ake quick decisions, w ithout evidentiary restriction, based
on
a
k no w ld dge o f w h at is gen erally accep tab le b eh av io ur b etw een
landlords and
tenants, and am ong tenants them selves - are of the greatest significance in this
context.
Lan dlords h av e to ld u s, albeit reluctan tly, that they co uld support a
s c h e m e o f te n a n t s e c u r it y o n l y if th e y h a v e a c c e s s to a tr ib u n a l w h i c h w i ll a c c e p t
fo r w h at it is w o rth an y ev id en ce w h ich a lan d lo rd m ay h av e to ju stify th e
term ination of a tenancy.
Sim ilarly w e h av e b een to ld th it in th e in terest o f
s a tis fy in g th e m a jo rity o f te n an ts in an y p articu lar b uild in g , th at trib u n al m u st b e
able to act quickly to dislodge a tenant whose behaviour is unacceptable.
We
w ere
ultim ately
persuaded
that
the
advantage
of
speed
and
in fo rm ality
w h ich th e ren talsm an w o uld have over th e co urts ju stified ou r sacrificin g th e
a d v a n t ag e o f b e in g a b le to a c t m o r e ju d ic ia lly w h ic h th e c o u rts m ig h t h av e o v e r
t h e r e n ta ls m a n .
I n th e f in a l an aly s is th e re n ta ls m a n 's ta s k w ill b e s u b s t a n tia lly o n e
o f fin d in g fac ts, an d w e w o u ld regard h im as w ell-eq uip p e d to p e rfo rm th is task .
-4 4 -
We
th e n
a sk e d
o u rse lv es
th e
v ery
d if fic u lt
q u e s tio n
w h e th e r
in
th is
in s ta n c e
w e s h o u l d d e p a r t f r o m o u r v i e w t h a t in t h e in te r e s t s o f a v o i d i n g d e l a y , d e c i s i o n s
of the r en t als m a n s h o u ld n o t b e sub je ct to ap p e al.
W e w e re ve ry m uc h aw are that
landlords view ed
the
obligation
to
retain
a tenant whom
they regarded as
u nd esirab le a s p o te n tially d isastro u s, a n d w o u ld a lm o s t c ertain ly v ie w th e fact o f
there being no right of appeal from the rentalsman as heightening the danger.
This
notw ithstanding,
we
believe
that
the
dangers
of
the
delay
which
a c c o r d in g a r ig h t a p p e a l m ig h t b rin g in th e c o n te x t o f te n an t se c u rity , o v e r r id e th e
i n t e r e s t o f h a v in g re v ie w o f th e re n ta ls m a n 's d e c is io n .
T h e s a m e la n d l o r d w h o o n
o n e o cc a s io n m ig h t fe e l ag g rie v ed b y a d ec is io n th at h e m u st re ta in a ten an t, m ig h t
feel m ore aggrieved on another occasio n if, having receiv ed the rentalsm an's
b l e s s i n g f o r t h e e v ic tio n o f a te n a n t , h e w e r e t o f in d h im s e lf c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a n
appeal by the tenant.
I n fin a l d e fe nce o f th e p o sitio n w e h av e tak en o n th e
question of app eals fro m th e d ecision of the rentalsm an on possession orders, w e
p o i n t o u t t h a t a l a n d l o r d , h a v i n g b e e n u n s u c c e s s f u l in d i s l o d g i n g a t e n a n t i n o n e
instance, is not prevented from
giving n otice again if the tenant's con duct
deteriorates or if the circum stances otherwise change.
W e would expect the
ren talsm a n to d isco u rage frivo lo us or harrassin g term in atio n s by lan d lo rd s, b u t w e
cannot support any p rinciple w hich w ould estop a landlord from attem pting to
term inate a tenancy again for any set period after the previous term ination
attempt.
On
b alan ce
te n a n t s e c u rity is
for good or ill.
we
hav e
th a t th e
co n clu ded
th at
one
p a rtie s s h o u ld k n o w
of
th e
m o st
im p o rtan t
featu res
w h e r e th e y s ta n d , o n c e an d fo r
of
a ll,
H av in g
de cid ed
th at
th e
ren talsm an
s h o u ld
be
c h a rg e d
w ith
th e
res p o n sib ility
of deciding whether a landlord is justified, w ithin the fram ew ork of tenant
se c u rity , in term in atin g a ten an cy, w e th e n co n sid e re d w h e th e r th e S m all C laim s
D ivision
should
retain
jurisdiction
to
make
possession
orders
where
tenant
security is not an issue.
Such situations ought to be com paratively rare if our
recom m en dations on ten an t secu rity are accep ted , but m igh t n o neth eless arise in
t h e c a s e o f t h e t e n a n t w h o d o e s n o t c o n t e s t th e v al i di t y o f a n o t ic e t o t e rm in ate
b u t sta y s o n th ro u g h in e r tia o r fo r so m e o th e r re a s o n .19
Because the situation
o u gh t to b e rare w h ere p o s s e s s io n is s o ug h t b u t te n an t secu rity is n o t in issu e, w e
th in k th at it w o u ld b e c o n v en ien t fo r th e re n talsm an to b e g ive n ju risd ictio n to
make possession orders in all cases.
In
m aking
this
recom m endation
we
do
not wish
to
ignore
the
fact that the
q u e s tio n o f a te n an t's en title m e n t to p o sse ssio n o f re n te d p re m ise s m ay arise as
part of, an d co llateral to, an action in the S uprem e C ourt or a C ounty C ourt. 20
We
d o n o t th in k th at th e co u rts o u g h t to b e im p ed ed in d is p o s in g o f su ch ac tio n s b y
th e a s sig n in g o f ju risd ic tio n o v er th e m atte r o f p o sse ssio n o f re sid e n tia l te n a n c ie s
t o t h e r e n t a l s m a n , a n d t h e a u t h o r i t y o f th e c o u r t s o u g h t t o b e p r e s e r v e d t o t h a t
extent.
We do not think it
p u r p o s e o f e x e c u t in g th e
necessary for the rentalsman to have his own
o r d e r s f o r p o s s e s s i o n w h ic h h e m a y i s s u e .
19.
See C hapter X II infra where the case of the overholding tenant is discussed.
20.
See Suprem e C ourt R ules 1961, 0.3,
e n title m e n t to p o s sessio n m a y
21.
The
la n d lo rd 's
o b li g a t i o n
to
m a in t a in
h a b it a b le
of cleanliness and to repair dam age caused by him or his visitors.
r. 6(2) and 0.12, rr. 25, 26, 27, 28.
ar is e in t h e c o n te x t o f an a c tio n
-4 5 -
p rem ises
and
to
staff
The
for the
landlord
For exam ple, the questio n of a tenant's
a g a in s t a la n d l o rd b y h is m o r tg a g e e .
effect
r e p a ir s ;
the
t e n a n t's
o b lig atio n
should b e able to register the order in the Sm all Claim s D ivision an d have it
ex ec uted by th e Sh eriff in th e ord in ary w ay.
The landlord should not, how ever,
be in a position to use a possession order in terrorem against a tenant.
To avoid this
s i t u a t i o n t h e l a n d l o r d s h o u l d b e c o m p e ll e d t o a c t o n t h e o r d e r w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s
o f th e d a t e u p o n w h i c h t h e la n d l o r d is f ir s t e n t it le d t o p o s s e s s io n , o r s e v e n d a y s
o f t h e d a t e t h e o r d e r w a s is s u e d (w h i c h e v e r i s th e l a t e r ) , f a il i n g w h i c h t h e o r d e r
should expire.
W e note, however, that in section 60A of the present Landlord and Tenant
A c t t h e S h e r i f f i s r e q u i r e d t o a c t o n a w a r r a n t f o r p o s s e s s io n w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s .
W hile w e b e lie v e th a t th e S h e riff o ug h t to ac t as quic kly as p o ssib le .
W e e n visage
c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h e r e p r a c t i c a l l y h e m a y n o t b e ab l e to ac t w i th i n se v e n d a y s .
We
would therefore recom m end that the Sheriff have fourteen days w ithin which to
execute warrants for possession.
One
f in a l
p o in t
s h o u ld
be
m ade
in
the
context
of
o rd e rs
for
p o ss e s s io n .
Section 49(3)(a) of the presen t L andlord and T enant A ct em pow ers the Sm all C laim s
D iv i s io n to t e r m in a t e a te n a n c y " u p o n s u c h te rm s an d c o n d it io n s a s th e j u d g e s e e s
f it" w h e n th e o b l ig a t io n s c o n t a in e d i n s e c t io n 4 9 ( 1 ) a n d ( 2 ) a r e n o t m e t b y e ith e r
landlords or tenants.21
If
our
reco m m en d atio n s
on
tenant
secu rity
are
accep ted ,
th e
on ly
situ atio n
in w h ich th e p o w er in se ctio n 4 9 (3 )(a) w o u ld b e re le van t w o u ld be w h e re th e
tenant fo r a len gthy term , confronted with the landlord 's failure to m aintain
hab itab le p rem ises o r to repair, w ishes to go out of po ssession w ith judicial
b less in g b efo re th e e x p iry o f th e te rm .
W e d o n o t b e liev e th at it is n ec es sa ry to
preserve this rem edy.
T h e ten an t sh o uld m ak e his ow n determ ination w h eth er a
m a te ria l c o v e n a n t h a s b e e n b re a ch e d 22 a n d s h o u ld p le a d th e b re a ch a s a d e f en c e
if he is later sued for arrears of rent.
(i)
General
One of the most vital functions of the rentalsman ought to be to try ad much
as po ssible to en gend er an am icable atm osp here betw een landlords and tenants.
Although
he
should
have
the
power
in
the
last
resort
to
make
binding
determ inations in areas w here h e h as jurisdiction, the rentalsm an should m ake all
reaso nab le attem pts to refin e th e issues befo re him , an d sh o uld, in ap propriate
circum stances, endeavour to
m ediate betw een
the parties before im posing
a
decision on them.
We
are
encouraged
by
the
Manitoba
experience
to
believe
that
these
e x p re s s io n s g o b e y o n d m e re p io u s h o p e s .
T h e re p o rt m a d e to u s o n th e o p era tio n
of the rentalsm an's office there gives us som e confidence that in the ordinary
c o u rs e o f e v e n ts re la tio n s b e tw e e n l a n d l o rd s a n d te n a n ts a re n o t s o h o s tile th a t th e
rentalsm an canno t in m any instances avoid im po sing a settlem ent on the p arties.
We were told at our public hearings that a number
arise b etw een lan d lo rd s an d ten an ts d o so b ecau se o n e o r
p a r t i e s a r e i n ig n o r a n c e o f t h e l a w o r a r e u n d e r s o m e
law .
In M an ito b a th e ren talsm an is ch arged w ith th e
inform ation "for the p urpose of educating and advising
c o n c e r n i n g re n ta l p r a c tic e s , r ig h ts a n d r e m e d ie s.
S im ila r ly
22.
See Chapter VI infra.
23.
The L andlord and Tenant A ct, R .S.M . 1970, c. L70, i. 85(3).
24.
Ibid.
-4 6 -
of the disputes which now
th e o th er o r b o th o f th e
m isap p reh en sio n as to th e
fu nctio n o f dissem in atin g
la n d lo r d s an d te n a n t s "23
it is h is d u ty " t o a d v i s e
lan d lo rd s an d te n an ts in te n an c y m a tte rs." 24
W e p ro p o s e th e sam e fu nctio n s fo r
th e re n talsm an in th is Pro vin ce, in th e exp ectatio n th at b y im p artin g in fo rm atio n
an d a d v ic e th e re n ta ls m a n m a y as s is t in p r ev e n tin g d is p u te s b e tw e en lan d lo rd s an d
tenants from arising.
The
M a n i to b a
rentalsm an
is
also
bound
“to
receive
com plaints
and
m ediate
disputes
between
landlords
and
tenants"
and
"to
receive
and
investigate
c o m p la in ts o f c o n d u c t in c o n tr a v e n tio n o f le g is la tio n g o v ern in g te n an cie s ." 25
The
ren talsm an in B ritish C olu m b ia sh ou ld also h av e th ese fu n ctio ns.
Indeed, as we
have said
before, the rentalsman
should alw ays attem pt m ediation, if it is
appropriate, before making strict adversaries of the parties.
The
fu nctio ns
of
th e
ren talsm an
and
h is
ro le
in
p ro secu tio n s
under
the
p r o p o s e d A c t d ese rv e fu rth e r co m m e n t.
U n d e r th e p re se n t sy ste m it ap p e ars th a t
prosecutions under the Landlord and Tenant Act may be less than vigourous.
It seems to us
th at th e ex iste n ce o f th e re n talsm an m ay assist in th e co llectio n of in fo rm atio n
w h ich w ill allo w th e p ro secu tio n s to b e b ro ugh t m o re effectiv ely in situatio n s
w h ere th ey w ill h e m o st s alu tary .
I n o th e r w o rd s, w e w o u ld h o p e th at as th e
rentalsm an develops a clearer picture of rental practices acro ss the Pro vince he w ill
be in a position to encourage appropriate prosecutions.
The
rentalsm an
him self, however, should
not prosecute, and
it is vital that any
inform ation w hich is im parted to him by any person in the course of any
m ediation w hich he m ay attem pt should not be later used against that person in
a p r o s e c u t io n .
T h is is n o t th e situat io n in M an ito b a, 26 b u t w e h av e s e r i o u s d o u b ts
th at a ren talsm an can fu nctio n effectively as a m ed iato r w h e n th p parties kn o w
t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h t h e y m a y o t h e r w i s e b e d i s p o s e d to g i v e m a y w o r k t o t h e i r
disadvantage in a criminal context.
Lastly,
we
endorse
the
position
taken
by
the
M anitoba
Legislature
in
sp ecifically em p o w e rin g th e ren talsm a n to a ct a s a n a rb itrato r in an y lan d lo rd an d
t e n a n t d i s p u t e w h e r e t h e la n d l o r d a n d th e t d n a n t b o t h g i v e w r i tt e n c o n s e n t . 2 7
We
also agree that the Arbitration Act28 should not apply to such arbitrations.
2.
The Courts
In
our
attem pt
to
ap p ortio n
ju risd ictio n
betw e en
th e
rentalsm an
and
the
c o u r ts w e h a ve b e en en g ag ed in a ro u g h e xe rc ise o f ch a rac te riz atio n o f fu n c tio n s .
T h o s e f u n c t io n s w h ic h t e n d t o h a v e a n a d m in is t ra t iv e c h a r a c te r29 w e h a v e a s s ig n e d
to th e r en t als m a n , w h ile th o s e w h ic h te n d to b e m o r e ju d ic ia l w e h a v e s u g g es te d
25.
Ibid.
26.
Ibid. s. 85(5).
27.
Ibid. s. 120 (1) .
28.
R .S.B.C . 1960, c. 14.
29.
W ith
the
possible
tenant security.
exceptio n
of
the
ren talsm an ’s
-4 7 -
proposed
jurisdiction
over
the
rules
relating to
should remain in the courts.
We
h ave
earlier
set
out
the
situations
in
w hich
we
p ropose
that
the
courts
sh o u ld n o t h av e ju risd ic tio n , b u t w h e re lan d lo rd s an d te n an ts are fre e to p u rsu e
claim s in the co urts, jurisdiction sho uld go according to the o rdinary m o n etary
lim its.
For exam ple, a landlord should be free to pursue in a County Court a
$ 2 ,0 0 0 c la im a g a i n s t a t e n a n t f o r b r e a c h o f th e s ta tu to r y o b lig a tio n to r e p a ir re n t e d
p rem ises.
Sim ilarly, a ten ant suffering personal injury by reason of the lan dlo rd's
failu re to rep air, an d claim in g ten th o u san d d o llars in d am ag es, sh o u ld co n tin u e
to be free to proceed in the supreme Court.
-4 8 -
C.
Powers of the Rentalsman
We
have
discussed
at
som e
length
the
functions
of
the
rentalsm an,
and
have
m a d e o c c a s i o n a l b r o a d r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e p r o c e d u r e s w h i c h h e o u g h t t o ad o p t .
We
have also set o ut at so m e leng th the p ow ers, such as the p ow er to insp ect prem ises
a n d d o cu m en ts, w h ich th e M a n ito b a ren talsm an h as b een assig n ed .
W e have not
so far, how ever, addressed ourselves to the pow ers w hich the rentalsm an in this
P r o v i n c e , g i v e n th e w i d e r a n g e o f f u n c t i o n s w h i c h w e p r o p o s e f o r h i m , o u g h t t o
have.
We
have
said
th a t
th e
ren talsm an
ought
n o t,
in
disch argin g
h is
fu nctio n s
u n d e r th e p ro p o s e d A c t, b e b o u n d b y th e ru le s o f ev id e n ce .
W e recogn ize that
th is , o n it s f a c e , m a y a p p e a r t o b e d r a s t ic p r o p o s a l, b u t w e are c o n s c io u s o f th e
fact th at to im p o se th e ru les o f ev id e n ce w o u ld d e lay th e ren talsm an in m an y
cases, w hen w e have said that the ab ility to act quickly is on e o f h is m o st desirable
attributes.
T h e c a s e o f a la n d l o r d 's a p p lic a tio n f o r q u ic k p o s se ss io n 30 m a y s e rv e
to illustrate the point.
A tenant m ay be causing extrem e inconvenience to his
neighbours by, say, continuous drunken and insulting behaviour.
The landlord
m ay, in these circum stances, wish to act quickly on the complaints of the
neighbours.
H e should not be prevented from
approaching the rentalsm an
im m ediately w ith a request that the tenancy be term inated as soo n as po ssible,
e v e n th o u g h h e m a y n o t h im se lf h av e b ee n su b je ct to th e b e h a v io u r o v e r an
e x t e n d e d p e r i o d o f ti m e .
H e ough t to b e ab le to tell th e ren talsm an w h at th e
n e ig h b o u rs to ld h im , an d th e re n ta ls m a n o u g h t to b e a b l e t o r e c e iv e th a t s t a te m e n t
f o r w h a t h e b e lie v e s it to b e w o r th .
W e w o u ld , o f co u rs e , ex p e c t th e re n t a ls m a n
to co n du ct so m e fo rm o f in vestigatio n , p erh ap s b y a telep ho ne call to th e
neighbours, and
certainly we
would
expect the rentalsm an to approach
the
offend ing tenant.
B u t w e d o n o t b e lie v e t h a t th e r e n ta ls m a n o u g h t in e v e r y c a s e
to be obliged to hold a h earin g accord ing to the rules of evid ence.
H e should
o b s e r v e t h e r u le s o f n a t u r a l ju s t ic e a s f a r a s p o s s i b le , b u t s h o u l d b e p e r m it t e d t o
re ceiv e all ev id en ce su b m itted to h im an d a c t o n a n y e v id e n ce w h ich h e, in h is
discretion, believes to be convincing.
Because
we
v iew
th e
ren talsm an
as
h av in g
an
in v es tig ato ry
fu n c tio n
as
w e ll
as acting as a referee b etw een a lan dlo rd an d a ten an t, w e w o uld also gran t h im the
p o w e r t o o b t a i n a c c e s s t o r e c o r d s a n d t o p r e m i s e s w h i c h t h e M a n i t o b a r e n t a ls m a n
h a s b e e n g r an t ed .31
A ltho ugh in the o rdinary co urse of events the rentalsm an
o ugh t, in o rd er to o perate efficien tly, p lace th e b urd en o f p ro ducin g ev id en ce o n
t h e p a r t y o r p a r ti e s b e f o r e h i m , h e m a y r e a c h a p o in t w h e r e h e b e l i e v e s h e c a n
c o m e to a fair d ec isio n o n ly w h e re h e h a s h im s e lf s e en r e co r d s (f o r e x am p le ,
w here it is alleged that rent has not been p aid) o r prem ises (w here it is alleged that
d a m a g e h a s b e e n c a u se d ).
A s th e s e a re s w e e p in g p o w e rs w e w o u ld als o a d o p t th e
M an itoba position of having the rentalsm an apply to a Judge of a County Court
before being granted
these
orders
of
access, and
of
im posing a duty of
confidentiality on the rentalsman.
We
have
c o n s id e r ed
w h e th e r
th e
re n ta ls m an
ought
to
be
gra n te d
th e
power
to co m p el th e atten d an ce o f w itb ut h av e c o n clu d ed th at th is is u n n ecessary.
As
th e ren talsm an , acco rd in g to o ur p ro p o sals, w ill n o t b e b o un d b y th e ru les o f
e vid e nce , he w ill b e ab le to ac t, if h e th in k s fit, in th e ab se n c e o f e vide n c e w hich
m ight be required by a court.
Therefore w e w ould stop short of granting him
30.
See C hapter IV infra.
31.
The L andlord and Tenant A ct, R.S.M . 1970, c. L70, s. 85, supra.
-4 9 -
power to issue subpoenas to persons.
Two
of
the
m atters
w hich
we
were
sp ecifically
asked
to
con sider
w ere
w h eth er facilities sh o uld be av ailab le at n igh t fo r th e reso lu tio n of lan d lo rd an d
t e n a n t d is p u t e s , a n d w h a t a t t i t u d e s h o u l d b e a d o p t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n c l u s i o n
o r ex clu sio n o f m em b ers o f th e legal p ro fe ss io n in ro u tin e p ro ce ed in g s h av in g to
do with tenancy matters.
In
re la tio n
to
th e
f ir s t
q u e s tio n
we
see
th e
f le x ib ility
of
th e
re n ta ls m a n 's
op eration perm itting h im to discharge his functions according to the con venience
o f th e p atties in vo lv ed .
If th ere is a d em an d in an y p articu lar case fo r th e
availability o f h is serv ices in the even ings or at w eekends, W e believe that these
demands could and should be reasonably accommodated.
As
to
th e
q u e s tio n
re latin g
to
th e
legal
p ro fess io n
it
ap p ea rs
th a t
th is
is
scarcely an im p o rtan t issu e.
T ab le V in A p p e nd ix "D " sh o w s th at un d er th e
p res en t sys tem o f d isp u te so lvin g, legal rep resen tatio n is no t a sign ifican t fac to r.
W e see no reason why m em bers of the legal profession should not represent
clients before the rentalsman.
O ne final matter ought to
be m entioned.
W e have so
far pointed out that
there should b e n o ap peal fro m d ecisio ns o f the rentalsm an in areas w here w e
have pro posed jurisd ictio n for h im .
W e ar e t h e r e f o r e l e d t o c o n s i d e r. w h e t h e r h is
d e c is io n s s h o u ld b e su b je ct to ju d ic ia l r e v ie w .
O n b a la n c e w e h a v e c o n c l u d e d th a t
they should not be.
O n ce again w e em p hasize th at to b e qu ick , efficien t an d
e ffe ctiv e th e ren talsm an sh o uld h av e freed o m o f ac tio n to p ro c ee d as h e th in k s
fit, and w e are fearful that th e p ro cess o f judicial review w ould circum scribe his
a c tio n s to th e p o in t w h e re h e w o u ld n o t b e ab le to d isp o s e o f a s ta tu to ry d e p o s it
or make a quick order of possession w ithout a cum bersom e hearing procedure
which would destroy his effectiveness.
Lest it be thought that we are totally insensitive to the claims of the rules of
n atu ral ju stice, w e p o in t o u t th a t a lth o ugh w e p ro p o se a v ariety o f fu n ctio n s fo r
th e r en t als m a n th e y te n d , w ith o n e e x c e p tio n ,32 to b e ad m in istrativ e rath e r th a n
ju d ic ia l, a n d w e h a v e s o m e c o n f id e n c e th a t a re n talsm a n u n c h o c k e d b y th e th r e at
of judicial review o f h is actio n s, w ill n o t b e in a p osition to m ake unreasonable
inroads into the rights of the citizens of this Province.
D.
Administration
One
of
our
m ore
im p o rtan t
co n cern s
rentalsm an w ith Province-wide jurisdiction
could be extended to the whole Province.
in
reco m m en d in g
the
settin g
up
of
a
was the w ay in w hich his serviced
Our
research
in to
th e
in cid en ce
of
lan d lo rd
and
ten an t
disp utes
in
th e
P r o v in c e r e v e a l e d th a t o u t s i d e s o m e m aj o r ur b an c e n t re s t h e r e ar e v e ry f e w .
T a b le
V I in A p p e n d i x " D " s h o w s t h a t t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f l a n d l o r d a n d t e n a n t d i s p u te s in
Sm all Claim s D ivisio n is gen erally lo w , an d it is in terestin g to note that only in
N anaim o, N ew W estm inster, Surrey and Vancouver
does the percentage rise
abo v e fo ur p er cen t.
I n V i c t o r i a o n l y o n e an d o n e h a l f p e r c e n t o f t h e S m a ll
C laim s D iv isio n actio n s co n cern ed lan d lo rd an d ten an t d isp u tes.
In th e rem ain in g
centres investigated the percentage was negligible or nil.
32.
The jurisdiction to m ake possession orders.
-5 0 -
We
ca n n o t
b eg in
to
sp ec u la te
as
to
th e
re a s o n
fo r
th e
d is p aritie s
in
th e
in c id e n c e o f d is p u t e s s h o w n b y th e s e f ig u re s b u t f o r u s th e m o s t sig n if ic a n t f a c t o r
w as th at th e sam e d isp arities are ev id en t in M an ito ba.
There, where half the
population lives outside G reater W innipeg, the rentalsm an in 1972 registered 1,585
co m p lain ts arisin g in th e G reater W in nip eg area, an d on ly 269 outsid e.
The
sim ilarities
between
the
population
configurations
of
Manitoba
and
British
C o lu m b ia are o b v io u s, an d w h ile perh ap s th ey are n o t co n clu siv e, w e h av e so m e
con fiden ce that if a centralized rentalsm an system can w ork in M anitob a, it can
also work here.
E a rlier
in
th is
C h a p ter
we
ou tlin ed
a
rep o rt
which
we
receiv ed
on
th e
M a n ito b a e x p e rie n c e , an d it is to b e n o ted th at th e ren talsm an in W in n ip e g is a b le
to discharge his responsibilities outside the m etrop olitan area by m aking toll-free
telephone lines available, by use of correspondence, by occasional tours to
ou tlying areas, and b y asking local officials to m ak e inv estigation s w here necessary.
We
should
point
o u t,
how ever,
that
there
are
tw o
significant
differences
betw een the rentalsm an schem e in o peration in M anitoba and the schem e w hich
w e p r o p o s e h e r e.
F irs t, w e p r o p o s e th a t th e n u m b e r o f f u n c tio n s to b e d is c h a rg e d
b y th e B ritish C o lu m b ia ren talsm an b e greater th an th ose disch arged by th e
M anitoba counterpart.
Secondly, we propose that the rentalsm an here take
ju r is d i c tio n o v e r th e m a k in g o f p o s s es s io n o r d e rs .
It is in th is situ a tio n th a t s p e e d
an d actu al p resen ce m ay b e m o st im p o rtan t.
W e su ggest th at th e sign ifican ce o f
bo th d ifferences betw een the M anitoba schem e and the schem e w hich w e propo se
h e re m a y b e o v e rc o m e b y a la rg e r s ta f f a n d a n e m p h a s is o n m o b ility .
G iv e n th e
fa c t th a t la n d lo rd an d te n an t d is p u te s d o n o t ap p e ar to b e all th a t co m m o n o u ts id e
th e lo w er m ain lan d area, w e w o uld no t exp ect th at th e re n talsm an w o u ld h av e to
g o to o u tly in g a re a s a t s h o r t n o tic e w ith a n y f re q u e n c y , b u t if a d is p u t e re a ch e s a
s ta g e w h e r e th e p re s e n c e o f th e r en t als m a n o r o n e o f h i s sta ff is re q u ire d q u ic k ly ,
w e b elie v e th at th at se rv ic e sh o u ld b e m ad e av ailab le.
It w o u ld , o f co u rs e , b e fo r
the rentalsm an to determ in e w h ether a d isp ute w as of that category, or w hether
it c o u ld p ro p e r ly b e s o lv e d d u rin g o n e o f th e re n ta ls m a n 's re g u la r v is its to o u t ly in g
areas.
T he
ren talsm an
in
M an ito b a
is
at
p ain s
to
advertise
w idely
th e
availab ility
of
h is s erv ices, th e fact th at to ll-free lin es are av ailab le to h is o ffice, an d th e d ates o f
his visits to variou s areas of the P rov ince, and w e go so far as to hope that even
w ith a d en tralized op era tio n th e ren talsm an in B ritish C o lum b ia co u ld o ffe r m o re
assistance to landlords and tenants in outlying areas than is now available.
The Manitoba Act does, however, provide in section 85 that:
(1)
...
the
Lieutenant
Governor
in Council may designate one or more
p e r s o n s a s r e n t a l s m a n w h o s h a l l , i n a d d i t i o n t o c a r r y i n g o u t s uc h
duties as are required by this Act, carry out such other duties and
perform such functions as may be prescribed by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council.
(2)
A
rentalsman
designated under subsection (1) may be designated
f ro m a m o n g p e r s o n s e m p l o y e d i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t s e r v i c e a n d m a y
be required to serve within a specified area of the province.
We
would
recom m end
the
inclusion
of
a
provision
sim ilar to
section
85(2) of
the M anitoba A ct, to m eet the possibility o f a situation in w hich it w ould be desirable
to d ecen tra lize the o p eratio n of th e re n talsm an 's o ff ice.
E vents m ay prove it
co n ven ien t o r n ecessary to ap p o in t a ren talsm an fo r, say, V an co u v er Islan d o r fo r
s e c t i o n s o f t h e i n t e r i o r o f t h e P r o v i n c e , a n d t h e p o w e r t o f o ll o w t h i s c o u r s e o f
-5 1 -
action should be contained in the proposed Act.
O ne
of
the
c r it i c i s m s
w hich
m ay
p o t e n tia lly
be
le v e lle d
at
th e
re n ta ls m a n
system as w e have outlin ed it is th at th e ren talsm an an d his staff m ay beco m e
o v erb u rd en ed w ith w o rk at th e be ginn in g o f each m o n th , bec au se o f th e n u m b ers
of people vacating p rem ises at the en d o f th e p reviou s m o n th .
It m ay be said that
this press of work w ill prevent the rentalsm an from discharging his functions
efficien tly.
I n a n s w e r to t h is w e p o in t to t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s s i t u a t i o n d o e s n o t
ap p ear to hav e cause d difficu lty in M an ito b a, w h ere th e re n talsm an h as b een ab le
to dev ise ad m in istrativ e tech n iq ues fo r a vo id in g u n w o rk ab le situ atio n s.
In the
n o rm a l ca s e o f a m o n t h ly te n an cy , a la n d lo rd w ill h av e an o p p o rtu n ity , ea rly in th e
m o n th o f term in atio n , to in sp ect th e p rem ise s fo r d a m ag e, a n d w ill o rd in arily b e
in a p o s itio n to d e c id e w h e th e r h e h a s a c laim ag a in st th e sta tu to ry d a m a g e d e p o s it
w ell before the end of the month.
The rentalsm an will thus be in a position to put
h is p ro cesses in to o p eratio n w ith o ut w a itin g fo r th e b eg in n in g o f th e n ex t m o n th .
Su c h ins p e c tio n s as h e fe els re qu ire d to c o n d uc t n e e d n o t all take p lac e o n th e day
the tenant is vacating the premises.
We
ackno w ledge
that
if
our
reco m m en d ation s
are
accepted
the
rentalsm an
in
British
Columbia would
be charged
with
the
additional responsibility of
review ing n otices of term ination .
W e draw attention to the fact, ho w ever, that
substan tial num bers of ten an cies are term inated by ten an ts.
W here notices are
g i v e n b y l a n d lo r d s w e e x p e c t t h a t o n l y a s m a ll p e r c e n t a g e w i l l b e t h e s u b j e c t o f
detailed review before the rentalsm an. of that percentage, the vast m ajority w ill
inv olve m on thly tenancy situation s w here the request for review is m ade at least
15 days before the tenancy is due to expire.
O nce again, the rentalsm an's
p r o c e s s e s c a n b e g in in t h e m i d d l e o f t h e m o n t h , a n d h i s i n s p e c t io n s , i f n e c e s s a r y ,
n e e d n o t ta k e p l a c e a l l a t o n c e o n o n e o r t w o d a y s i n a m o n t h .
I t is w o rth
m en tio n in g th at in S u rrey, w h ere a sec u rity o f te n u re sc h em e h as b ee n o p e ra tin g
fo r so m e tim e , th e re d o es n o t ap p ear to b e an y ev id en ce th at th e sch em e is failin g
because of administrative inconvenience.
We
do
not,
th e r e f o r e ,
b e lie v e
th a t
be made of the rentalsman system ought to be persuasive.
th e
c ritic is m
of
im p r a ctic a lity
w h ic h
m ay
Finally,
we
think
it
im po rtant
that
the
rentalsm an
have
legal
q u a l i f ic a ti o n s .
W e hav e alread y said th at th e ren talsm an sh o uld o b serv e as far as po ssib le th e
rules o f natural justice, and w here, in p articular, h e is deciding m atters relating to
p o s s e s s i o n , a k n o w l e d g e o f t h e law an d le g al p r o c e d u r e w i ll , w e b e l i e v e , b e c ru c ia l.
I t d o e s n o t f o l lo w th a t all th e re n ta ls m a n 's s ta ff o u g h t to b e le g a l ly q u a lif ie d .
In
m o s t o f t h e r o u t i n e s i t u a t io n s w h i c h , if th e M a n i to b a e x p e r i e n c e i s a n y g u i d e , w i l l
arise in the rentalsm an's office, legal qualifications w ould be iirdlevant.
We
em p h asize h o w ev er th at th e exe rc ise o f th e m o re im p o rtan t fu nctio n s w ill call fo r
an appreciation of the law which only a lawyer would have.
1.
In the proposed Act an official known as the rentalsman be given exclusive jurisdiction over, and functions related to, the following
matters involving the landlord and tenant relationship:
(a)
the disposition of rent deposits;
(b)
the disposition of damage deposits;
(c)
a landlord's failure to provide essential services;
-5 2 -
(d)
a landlord's failure to effect repairs;
(e)
the imposition of discriminatory rent increases;
(f)
the determination of the nature of "hidden" rent increases;
(g)
the supervision of the disposition of abandoned goods;
(h)
the making of al possession orders;
and
(i)
certain advisory, investigatory, mediatory, arbitrative and educative functions.
2.
There should be no right of appeal from a decision of the rentalsman, and his decisions should not be reviewed in any court.
3.
Matters arising out of:
(a)
the proposed Act; and.
(b)
the general law of landlord and tenant;
over which the rentalsman is not allocated specific jurisdiction, should continue to be decided in the courts.
4.
The courts should continue to have the power to decide on questions of possession of residential remises which may arise collaterally
in any other action.
5.
It should be made clear that the Provincial Court of British Columbia does not have exclusive jurisdiction over those matters
arising out of the landlord and tenant relationship which would be reserved for the courts if our recommendations are accepted.
6.
The rentalsman, in exercising his jurisdiction, shouzd attempt to observe the rules of natural justice as far as possible, but should
not be bound to act in accordance with the rules of evidence.
7.
The rentalsman, acting on the authority of an order of a Judge of a County Court, should have the powers of access to documents
and to premises, subject to the same limitations as to confidentiality; set out in section 85(4) to (8) of The Landlord
and Tenant Act of Manitoba.
8.
The rentalsman should have legal qualifications.
Memorandum of Dissent of Mr. Peter Fraser
Prosecutions
If
th e
re co m m en d atio n s
of
th is
R ep o rt
are
accep te d
an d
b eco m e
law ,
certain
kind s of co n d uc t w ill b eco m e o ffen ces p un ish ab le o n sum m ary conv iction .
Based
u p o n t h e e x p e r ie n c e u n d e r t h e p r e s e n t A c t, I b e lie v e t h a t th e p e n a l p ro v is io n s w ill
be
ineffective
unless
the
rentalsman
is
authorized
to
initiate
and
conduct
p ro s ec utio n s ; th a t it is n o t en o ugh to p erm it him m ere ly to "e n co u rag e" p ro s ec utions.
D espite
app arently
w idespread
d iso b e d ie n ce
of
th e
present
Act,
th e re
does
n o t s e e m to h av e b e e n a s ig n if ic a n t n u m b e r o f p ro s e c u tio n s .
T h e re a s o n s a re n o t
clear.
It m ay b e th at k n o w le d g e o f v io la tio n s is n o t re a c h in g th e a u th o ritie s; o r it
may be that they are given low priority.
-5 3 -
The
ren talsm an ,
w ith
h is
direct
in vo lv em en t
in
lan d lo rd -ten an t
m atters
and
h i s ac c e ss to in f o r m a tio n , s e e m s to m e th e lo g ic a l p e r so n t o b e g iv e n t h e c o n d u c t
of prosecutions, if we wish to avoid having legislation which is not enforced.
The
fear
expressed
is
that
this
w o u ld
detract
from
h is
appearance
of
im p artiality an d th erefo re un d erm in e h is m ed iatio n ro le.
T h e sligh t ev id en ce fro m
M an ito b a (w h ere the ren talsm an has been in vo lved in a few p ro secu tio n s) su ggests
- and I believe - that the fear is unfounded.
Memorandum of Dissent of Mr. Paul D.K. Fraser
Appeals from the Rentalsman
I
am
unable
to
agree
decision s of th e ren talsm an o n
or judicial review.
with
the
possession
C o m m issio n 's
orders should
recom m endation
n ot b e subject
th at
the
to app eal
The
s in g le
re a s o n
fo r
th e
m a jo rity
re c o m m e n d a tio n
is
th e
av o id a n c e
of
th e
delay that would accom pany an appeal.
The m ajority seek to com fort an
u n s u c c es s fu l la n d lo rd b y p o in tin g o u t th a t h e is n o t esto p p e d fro m ta k in g n e w
p o ssessio n p ro ceed in gs if th e situatio n w ith th e ten an t gets discern ab ly w o rse.
No
c o m f o rt is o f fe re d to th e te n an t ag ain s t w h o m th e r en t als m a n h a s m a d e an o rd e r
f o r p o s s e s s io n a n d w h o , if h e liv e s in th e G r e a te r V a n co u v e r are a at th e d a t e o f
the w riting o f this R ep o rt, fin d s h im self lo o king fo r acco m m o d atio n in a m arket
that displays a critical shortage and a vacancy factor of less than one per cent.
There can be no doubt that the rights of either a landlord or a tenant are
a f f e c t e d b y t h e r e n ta l s m a n 's d e c i s i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o p o s s e s s i o n .
In th is area h e
w ill b e exercisin g a "ju dicial" fu nctio n as op po sed to an ad m in istrativ e fu nctio n .
H e w ill b e th e m aste r o f th e p ro c ed u re s b e fo re h im an d in m ak in g h is d ecisio n he
w i ll b e e n t it le d t o r e l y o n a l l o f t h e i n f o r m at i o n h e c a n ac c u m u l at e w i th o u t regard
to an y legal test o f ad m issib ility.
N o o ne d isp u tes th at th e ren talsm an can b e
w r o n g in h i s d e c is io n ju s t a s n o o n e d is p u te s th a t a w r o n g d e c is io n m a y h a v e a
profound effect on the losing p arty.
N ev erth eless, the m ajority R epo rt denies
access to the courts by way of an appeal of the rentalsman's decision.
In
m y respectful opinion, access
to
the
courts
should
only be cut off w here
it is im m e d iate ly ap p are n t th at legal pro ceed in gs are en tirely in ap p ro p riate in th e
circum stances.
I cannot be so convinced in m atters of landlord and tenant.
A ltho ugh the tim e lim ited fo r ou r research h as b een b rief, th e C o m m issio n w as
n b t a w a re o f an y A c t in N o r th A m e ric a r e la tin g t o la n d lo r d a n d t e n a n t t h a t d e n ie d
th e p arties access to th e co u rts.
T h at is, o f co urse, n o reaso n fo r th e C o m m issio n
to b e tim id w h ere it b eliev es its rec o m m en d a tio n s to b e s o u n d ; b u t it is a m ea su re
of the im po rtance that o th er jurisd ictio n s h av e attach ed to acces s to th eir courts.
I
am
convinced
that
appeal
rentalsman's decisions on possession orders.
provisions
will
assist
the
quality
of
the
In my view an appeal from the rentalsman s decision should be by way of trial
de novo be fo r e th e S m a ll C la im s D ivisio n o f th e P r o v in c ial C o ur t o f B r itish C o lum bia.
It s ee m s to m e , w ith resp ect, th at th at co urt is w e ll-eq uip p ed to h an d led th e
a p p e a ls a n d it s p r io r it ie s c a n b e a c c o m m o d a te d t o t h e i r u r g e n c y .
I n m y v ie w , a n
ap p eal sh o uld be filed w ith in 48 h o urs o f th e ren talsm an m akin g a decisio n an d
I h av e n o d o ub t th at ad m in istrativ e arran gem en ts co uld be m ad e to h av e th e
a p p e a l ac tu a lly h e a rd w ith in fiv e d a y s o f th e filin g o f th e n o tic e o f ap p e a l.
Two
or three Provincial Court Judges could be m ade available w here and when
-5 4 -
necessary to hear appeals.
In
m aking
the
recom m end ation
I
do ,
I
am
not
unm ind ful
of
the
fact
that
s o m e o f th e in fo rm a tio n th a t th e r e n ta ls m a n h a d b e f o r e h im w ill n o t b e ad m is s ib le
in c o u r t .
I t o c c u rs to m e th a t th e p re s e n c e o f a p p e a l p ro v is io n s w i ll o b lig e th e
r e n t a ls m a n to b a s e h is d e c is io n a t le a s t i n p a r t o n s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n a s h e k n o w s
w ould be both adm issible and persuasive to a court in the event'an appeal is
launched.
I recommend that:
There should be a right of appeal from a decision of the rentalsman with respect to an order for possession; the appeal should be by way
of trial de novo to the Small Claims Division of the Provincial Court of British Columbia with no right of subsequent appeal.
-5 5 -
CHAPTER IV
A.
TENANT SECURITY AND RENT CONTROL
PART I - TENANT SECURITY
Introduction
It
has
been
urged
on
us
by
tenants'
o rgan izatio ns
an d
oth ers
th at
the
m onth-to-m onth tenan t of residential prem ises should receive a greater m easure
o f secu rity o f ten u re th an th e presen t law p ro vid es.
T en an t security w a s o n e
aspect of landlord and tenant relation ships u p o n w h ich w e sp ecifically inv ited
co m m en t, an d alm o s t e v ery su b m issio n w h ich w e receiv ed dealt w ith th is qu estio n
in one w ay or ano ther.
N ot surp risingly, increased tenant security w as alm ost
u n a n im o u s ly o p p o se d b y lan d lo rd s an d th e ir sp o k e sm e n .
T heir po sition w as that
the existing "on e m on th's notice" position should rem ain un changed and that
"sh o rt n o tice" p ro visio n s sh o uld be added to deal w ith extrem e cases o f ten an t
misbehaviour.
The
b r ie f s
w hich
we
re c e iv e d
f ro m
m u n ic ip a l
b o d ie s ,
lo c a l
g rie v a n c e
b o a rd s ,
an d ad viso ry b u re au x d ealin g w ith lan d lo rd a n d te n an t m atters w e re d iv id ed on
th is iss u e, alth o u gh th e m ajo rity seem ed to fa v o u r in cre ased ten an t secu rity .
A
subm ission w as also m ade to us, at our hearings, by a representative of an
organization of apartm ent resid en t m anagers and caretakers.
They too favoured
t h e p r o p o s i t i o n th a t a n o ti c e g i v e n b y a l a n d l o r d t e r m i n a t i n g a t e n a n c y s h o u l d b e
justified.
This Chapter w ill be devoted to
the description of the existing law
in British
C o l u m b i a w it h r e s p e c t to t e n a n t s e c u r it y , a n e x a m in a t io n o f th e l a w in o t h e r ju r is d ictio n s w h e re fo rm s o f ten an t secu rity exist, an exp lo ratio n of th e arg um en ts fo r
and against a change in the law, and our conclusions and recommendations.
B.
The Present Position
1.
General
The
s u b s t a n t iv e
provisions
r e l a t in g
are set o ut in sectio n s 5 2, 55, 56, an d
c o n t a in e d i n s e c t i o n s 5 3 , 5 4 , a n d 6 3 .
52.
55.
to
the
term ination
of
tenancy
agreem ents
5 7 o f th e A ct.
T h e p ro cedural asp ects are
T h e s u b s t a n t i v e p r o v i s io n s r e a d a s f o l l o w s :
A
weekly,
monthly,
year-to-year,
or
any
other
kind
of tenancy
d et er mi na b le o n no t ic e m ay b e t er mi na ted by eith er th e la n dl or d o r t he
tenant upon notice to the other and, unless otherwise agreed upon at the
time the notice is given, the notice
(a)
shall meet the requirements of section 53;
(b)
shall be given in the manner prescribed by sections 54 and 63; and
©
shall be given in sufficient time
by section 55, 56, or 57, as the case may be.
(1)
A notice to terminate a weekly
last day of one week of the tenancy
following week of the tenancy.
(2)
For the purposes
weekly period on which
of
the
to
give
the
period
of
tenancy shall be given on or before the
to be effective on the last day of the
this section, "week of the tenancy"
tenancy is based and not necessarily
-5 6 -
notice required
means the
a calendar
week and, unless otherwise specifically
deemed to begin on the day upon which rent is payable.
56.
agreed
up o n ,
the
week
shall
be
(1)
A notice to terminate a monthly tenancy shall be given on or before
the last day of one month of the tenancy to be effective on the last day of
the following month of the tenancy.
(2)
For the purposes of this section "month of the tenancy" means the
month ly period on which the tenancy is based and not necessarily a
c al en d ar mo n th an d , un le ss ot h er wi se s p ec i f ic a l l y a g r e e d u p o n , t he m o n th
shall be deemed to begin on the day upon which rent is payable.
57.
(1)
A notice to terminate a year-to-year
before the sixtieth day before the last day of
effective on the la$t day of that year of the tenancy.
tenancy shall be given on or
any year of the tenancy to be
(2)
For the purposes of this section, "year of the tenancy" means the
yearly period on which the tenancy is based and not necessarily a calendar
year, and, unless otherwise agreed upon, the year shall be deemed to begin
on the day, or the anniversary of the day, on which the tenant first became
entitled to possession.
It should b e noted
g iv e n b y a la n d l o r d
b y e it h e r p a r t y a n d
each party.
that
and
the
the A ct do es n o t d raw an y d istin ctio n b etw een a no tice
t h e n o t ic e g iv e n b y th e t e n a n t.
N o r e as o n s are re q u ire d
t i m e w i t h i n w h i c h n o t i c e m u s t b e g iv e n is th e s a m e f o r
It
should
also
be
n o ted
th at
the
A ct
uses
the
w ords
Term inology presents special problem s.
N otice to term inate
has b een referred to as: "ev ictio n ," "ev ictio n n o tice," "no tice
to vacate" in vario us sub m issio ns w h ich w e h av e receiv ed .
Act seems preferable and we propose to use it throughout this Chapter.
"n otice
to
term inate."
given by a lan dlord
to q u i t , " a n d " n o t ic e
T h e lan gu age o f th e
As
most
rental
accom m odation
in
British
C olum b ia
is
occup ied
on
a
m o n th -to -m o n th b asis b y th e ten an t, th e m o st sign ifican t p ro visio n is sectio n 56 ,
which requires that the landlord who wishes to terminate a month-to-month
tenancy give no less than on e m on th's notice.
The landlord is free to give a lon ger
n o tice if h e ch o o ses.
B efo re 19 73 th e p arties w e re free to c o n trac t o u t o f th e
requirem ents of section 56 and it w as not uncom m on for landlords using standard
form tenancy agreem ents to provide that the m onth-to-m onth tenant m ust give
4 5 d a y s ' n o t i c e t o t e r m i n a t e t h e t e n a n c y w h i l e t h e la n d l o r d w a s f r e e t o t e r m i n a t e
t h e t e n a n c y o n 7 2 h o u r s ' n o t ic e .
T h e L e g i sl at ur e , in 1 9 7 3 , am e n d e d se c t i o n 5 2 to
provide
that
the
parties
could
only
contract
out
of
the
statutory
notice
requirem ents "at the tim e notice is given."
This substantially im proved the
tenant's position.
T he
n o t ic e
p ro v is io n s
w ith
to the ones governing monthly tenancies.
2.
re sp e c t
io
w e e kly
an d
y e arly
te n an c ie s
are
sim ilar
Retaliatory Evictions
In 1968 the Ontario Law Reform Commission pointed out that:1
is
1.
that
One serious difficulty with any law to
the tenant who takes advantage of it
-5 7 -
provide for the
may receive a
protection of
one month's
tenants
notice
to quit, if he is a periodic tenant, or may fail to
event that he has a tenancy for a fixed term.
eviction.
Unless some measure of protection
enacted the purpose of remedial legislation may be frustrated.
have his lease renewed in the
This is known as retaliatory
from retaliatory eviction is
T he O ntario Com m ission m ade a recom m endation couched
tho se con tained in section 61(2) of the B ritish C olum bia L andlord
provision reads:
In
any
proceeding
by
a
landlord
for
possession,
if
in
and
it
term s
T enant
appears
to
sim ilar to
A ct.
That
the
judge
that
(a)
the notice to quit was given because of the tenant's bona fide
c o m p l a i n t t o a n y g o v e r n m e n t a l a u t h o r i t y o f t h e l a n d l o r d ' s v i o la t i o n
of any statute or municipal by-law dealing with health or safety
standards, including any housing standard law; or
(b)
the notice to quit
or enforce his legal rights,
was
given
because
of
the
tenant's
attempt
to
secure
the judge may refuse to grant an order.
T h at p ro v isio n sets o u t tw o defen ces w h ich m ay be av ailable to th e ten an t in
p ro ceed in gs b y a lan dlo rd fo r po ssessio n.
R ath er th an p ro vidin g fo r "n o evictio n
w ith o u t ju st ca u se " th e s ec tio n s e e m s to s a y " n o e v ic tio n f o r u n ju s t c a u se " w ith
"unjust cause" being d efined quite narrow ly.
T he expression "secure or enforce
h is le g a l rig h ts" used in th at p ro visio n h as b een in te rp re te d in a n u m b e r o f
decisions 2 and has not caused any serious difficulty.
It
is
c le a r,
h o w e v e r,
th a t
th e
p o w er
of
th e
jud g e
under
s e c tio n
6 1 (2 )
is
d iscretio n ary, an d th at th ere is n o o b ligatio n to refuse to gran t an o rd er fo r
p o s s e s s io n e v e n if t h e t e n a n t is f o u n d to h av e m a d e a c o m p la in t to a g o v e rn m e n t
au th o rity . 3
In th is co n tex t it is in tere stin g to n o te th e re m a rk s o f P ro fe s s o r S in clair
in his Working Report on Landlord and Tenant Law prepared for the Law Reform Division of the
New Brunswick Department of Justice:4
It is tempting to provide in this type of section that there is a time limit
beyond which the landlord may move so that if the tenant has complained to
an authority of actions by the landlord, then the landlord may not make a move
to dispossess the tenant within, say, a period of 60 or 90 days.
It has been made
clear to some legislatures that beyond, say, a 90-day period the landlord should
be free to do as he pleases, and a number of states in the United States have, in
fact, chosen this route.
New Jersey, for example, has a 90-day provision so that
t h e t en a nt o n ly h as a def en ce th at h e is b ei ng disp ossessed because of com plaint, if a complaint was made within the last 90 days.
The situation has so
2.
R osenthal H oldings L td. v. Lewis W illiam s.(N o. 3266/70, V ancouver Provincial C ourt,
v . C hester S teele (N o . 1 4 5 0 / 7 0 , K am lo o p s P ro v in cia l C o u rt, u n rep o rted).
decisions see S. Rush, B.C. L andlord/Tenant R elations 58 (2 nd ed. 1972).
3.
C f.
Icelandic O ld Folks
discretion w as not exercised.
4.
A llan M . Sinclair, Survey of L andlord and Tenant L aw: A W orking R eport 183 (1973).
Society
v.
R obert
Gee
-5 8 -
(N o.
3239/70,
Vancouver
unreported); and W illiam H ynchuk
F o r a d iscu ssio n o f th ese
Provincial
Court,
unreported)
where
the
worked out in New Jersey that a complaint has to be made now every 90 days,
say, to the Department of Health, or some other municipal agency, in order to
keep the tenant's rights alive, and the landlord cannot proceed to remove him.
Increased tenant security, depen ding up on the specific
to render provisions such as section 61(2) obsolete and unnecessary.
C.
chosen
w ould
seem
Comparative Study
In
this
section
a
num ber of
For present purposes they are divided as follows:
1.
schem e
existing
schem es
of
tenant
(a)
Schemes operating in conjunction with a system of rent control:
(b)
Schemes which are independent of rent control.
security
are
exam ined.
Security of Tenure Schemes Dependent on Rent Control
Most
of
the
s e c u rit y
of
te n u re
schem es
in
the
com m on
law
w orld
have
f o rm e d p a r t o f a la rg er sc h em e o f re n t co n tro l. 5
R e n t co n tro l w a s f irs t in t ro d u c e d
in G reat B ritain in 191 5 as a respo nse to the ho using sho rtage of W orld W ar I. It
bo th froze rents and gran ted secu rity fro m ev ictio n .
T his schem e has provided
a m o d e l fo r o th e rs in B ritain an d o th e r co m m o n la w ju r is d ic tio n s .
The B ritish
schem e w ill be briefly exam ined as w ell as a nu m ber of other schem es w hich
followed it.
(a)
The British Scheme
B rita in
has
had
one
form
of
rent
c o n tro l
or
an o th e r
sin c e
1915,
a lth o u g h
v a r io u s a t t e m p t s h a v e b e e n m a d e o v e r th e y ea rs to fre e la rg e n u m b e r s o f d w e llin g s
fro m its ap p licatio n .
I n th e 1 9 5 0 's th ere w as a n o ticeab le tren d to w ard relax in g
con trol, but in th e 1 960 's it again b ecam e m ore stringen t.
Today, m ost rented
p rem ises are su bject to so m e so rt o f go vern m en t regu latio n or co n tro l.6
The
system
is complex, with various kinds of dwellings com ing under different
5.
In
"R ental
C ontrol
in
C an ad a,"
an
article
co ntained
in
th e
f ir s t
vo lu m e
of
th e
R efresher
C ourse
L ectures arranged b y the L aw So ciety of U pp er C anada in 19 45 , W isha rt Sp en ce, n ow M r. Justice
W ish ar t S p en ce o f the S u p re m e C o u rt o f C a n a d a , sa id a t 2 9 5 " ... se c u ri ty o f te n u re is a b so lu tely
necessary for the enforcem en t o f co n trol o f th e p rice; exp erien ce has show n that so soon as secu rity
of tenure is let go; co ntrol of price disappears."
I n 1 9 6 8 t h e O n t a r io L a w R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , i n
it s In teri m R ep or t sa id at 6 4 " P ea ce tim e r en t co n tro l ca n n o t o v e rl o o k t e n u re c o n tr o l.
T h ese tw o co n cep ts
are opposite sides of the sam e coin. A lm ost every rent control system m aintained in
6.
P rem ises
in
the
top
range
of
ra tea b le
va lu e
are
free
fro m
go vern m en t
reg u la tio n
or
co n tro l.
T h e R en t
A ct 1 9 6 5 e x t e n d e d p r o t e c t i o n t o t e n a n c i e s w h e r e t h e r a t e a b l e v a l u e o f p r o p e r t y d i d n o t e x c e e d 4 0 0 i n
G rea ter L o n d o n o r 200 elsew h ere.
T h e sch em e of pro tectio n w as co ntin ued b y th e R en t A c t 1 96 8.
It sh o u ld b e n o te d th a t th e ra te a b le v alu e o f p ro p e rty is d e te rm in e d a cc o rd i n g t o p r in c ip l e s se t o u t
in the R a tin g a nd V aluation A ct 1925, c. 9 0.
T h e n u m b er o f ten a n cies ex clu d ed b y th e h ig h ra tea b le v alu e
p rov isio n is no t g re at; a s o n e w riter pu t it:
“T h e ex cep tio n is no t qu an titatively im p o rtant be cau se
alm ost all such houses are ow ner-occupied.”
See C heshire’s M odern L aw of R eal Property 461 (11 th ed. 1972 E . H .
Burn).
7.
“C ontrolled”
d w e llin g s
are
those
to
w hich
earlier
le g is la tio n ,
established
the
level
of
rent for
different d w ellings, a p p lies.
T h ese are b ein g p h ased o u t in favour o f “regulated” dw ellings, i.e.,
tho se m en tio n ed in n . 6.
T he system provides that, w here th ere is disagreem en t betw een lan d lo rd
a n d t e n a n t a s to th e l e v e l o f r e n t , t h e m a t t e r m a y b e r e f e r r e d t o a R e n t O f f i c e r , w h o , t a k i n g i n t o
a c co u n t all th e c ir cu m s ta n c e s w h ic h w o u ld d e t e r m in e t h e r e n t a l l e v e l o f t h e d w e l lin g , e x c e p t sc a rc ity ,
d e te rm in es a “ fa ir re n t,” w h ic h is b in d in g o n b o th p artie s .
F o r a d is c u s s io n o f th e s c o p e o f th e 1 9 6 8
R ent A ct,
see L ewis and H olland, L andlord and Tenant 239-241 (1968).
The sam e text contains a discussion of the
system of rent control operating under the A ct (at 247-251).
-5 9 -
sc h e m es .7
W h a t is i m p o r t a n t , h o w e v e r , f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s t u d y i s t h a t a l l
regulated o r co n trolled dw ellings are sub ject to a schem e of security of tenure.
The Report of the Committee on the Rent Acts, 1971 stated that the present legislation has a dual
p u rp o s e : p r o te c tio n a g ain s t ex ce ssiv e re n ts an d th e p ro v is io n o f se c u rity o f te n u r e .8
The
l e tt in g
of
a
re g u la te d
or
c o n t r o l le d
d w e l lin g s
in
B r it a in ,
for
w hatever
term , gives tenants righ ts o f o ccup atio n w h ich m ay co n tin ue fo r th e rest of th eir
lives and for tw o further lives w ithin the fam ily.9
The tenancy cannot be
t e r m in a t e d a g a in st th e w is h es o f th e te n an t u n le s s o n e o f th e s p e c if ie d g r o u n d s f o r
p o s s e s s io n is p r o v e d t o t h e s a t i s f a c t io n o f t h e c o u r t .
E v e n t h e n , th e c o u r t n e e d
not make an order unless it regards it is "reasonable" to do so.10
The
system
provides
that
wh ere
landlords
w ish
to
regain
po ssession
of
regu lated or co n tro lle d te n an c ie s, th e y m u st a p p ly to th e co urt fo r a p o ssessio n
order.
T he cou rt m ay grant such an order wh ere it thinks it "reasonable" to do so
and where the court is satisfied
that suitable alternative accommodation is
av ailable fo r th e ten an t or w ill b e w h en the o rder in questio n takes effect, o r w h ere
one of the following grounds is established:11
(a)
there
has
been
nonpayment
breach of an obligation of the tenancy;
(b)
any of the following acts has occurred on
person residing or lodging with the tenant, or a sub-tenant;
(i)
conduct
occupiers,
©
which
of
rent
law fully
is
a
nuisance
(ii)
conviction
for using
immoral or illegal purpose,
or
(iii)
acts
or
w a ste,
n eglect,
or
default,
prem ises to deteriorate (and the
step s to rem o ve th e offen der if
sub-tenant);
allow ing
or
the
or
any
of
the
tenant,
annoyance
to
the
due,
part
premises
to
causin g
th e
tenant has
he or she
be
other
any
adjoining
used
for an
co nditio n s
o f th e
not taken such
is a lodger or
in
consequence
of
th e
ten an t
havin g
given
notice
to
qu it, th e
lan dlo rd has co n tracted to let or sell th e prem ises or taken so m e
other step whereby he or she would be seriously prejudiced if
8.
In the R eport of the C om m ittee on the R ent A cts, 1971 (the repo rt of a co m m ittee appointed in O ctob er
1 96 9 b y th e M in ister o f H o u sin g an d L o c al G o v ern m en t a n d th e S e c reta ries o f S ta te fo r S c o tla n d
and W ales to review
a n d r e p o r t o n th e o p era tio n o f ren t reg u la tio n u n d e r th e R en t A ct 1 96 5
(co n so lid a ted , 1 96 8, c. 2 3).
T h e C o m m ittee in d icated in th e o p e n in g p ara gra p h th a t th e le g isla tio n ,
lik e e a rlie r le g is la tio n d e a lin g w ith c o n t ro l , h a s t w o o b je c tiv es - to g iv e p ro te c tio n a ga in st e x ce ssiv e
rents and to afford security of tenure (at 3).
9.
That is for the lives of the spouse and/or another fam ily m em ber bona fide residing with the
tenant at the tim e of his or her death. See R ent A ct 1968, c. 73, Schedule 1.
10.
R ent A ct 1968, C. 23, s. 11.
11.
These are set out in Schedule 3, Part I of the 1968 A ct; they refer to provisions in section 10.
-6 0 -
possession were not obtained;
(d)
th e
tenant
has
assigned
or
premises without the landlord's consent;
-6 1 -
sublet
the
w h o le ,
or
a
p art,
o f th e
(e)
th e
la n d lo rd
re a s o n a b ly
re q u ire s
th e
p re m is e s
for
th e
r e s id e n c e
of
a w h o l e - t im e e m p l o y e e o f t h e l a n d l o r d , o r a t e n a n t o f h i s o r h e r s
w h ere th e ten an t w a s fo rm erly in h is o r h e r e m p lo y , o r th e d w ellin g
was let in consequence of that employment;
(f)
the
lan d lo rd
reaso n ab ly
requires
the
p rem ises
as
a
resid en ce
for
h im self o r h erself, an y so n or d au gh ter o v e r e ig h te en y ears, h is o r
h e r m o th e r o r fathe r, o r th e m o t h e r o r fath e r o f h is o r h e r spo use.
A q u a lif ic a tio n ex is ts to th is g ro u n d th at an o rd er w ill n o t b e m a d e
w h e r e t h e c o u r t c o n s i d e r s t h a t g r e a t e r h a r d s h i p w o u ld b e c a u s e d b y
making it than by refusing it;
(g)
A
su b-ten an t
has
the sublet premises.12
been
c h arg e d
m o re
th an
th e
re c o v e ra b le
rate fo r
W here an order is granted on the b asis o f o n e o f th ese n on m andatory grou nd s,
s e c tio n 1 1 o f th e 1 9 6 8 A c t g iv e s th e co urt d is c re tio n to s ta y o r s u sp e n d e x e c u tio n
o f th e ord er, o r p o stp o n e th e date o f p o ssessio n fo r su ch p erio d o r p e rio d s a s th e
c o u r t t h in k s fi t .
T h e c o u r t m a y al s o at t a c h t o t h e o r d e r a n y o t h e r c o n d i ti o n s it
thinks fit.13
The court must
of the following grounds:
grant
an
order
for
possession
where
the
landlord
establishes
one
(a)
The
lan d lo rd
fo rm e rly
liv ed
in
th e
p re m ise s
and
re qu ire s
th em
fo r
h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f o r a n y m e m b e r o f t h e f a m i ly r e s i d i n g t h e r e w i th
the landlord w hen he or she w as last living there.
This is subject to
the
qualification
that written
notice that possession
might be
required was given before the start of the tenancy;
(b)
The
prem ises
hav e
been
h eld
fo r
th e
p urp o se
of
b e in g
available for
o cc u p atio n by a m inister o f religion as a resid en ce fro m w h ich to
perform
his
or
her
duties
and
are
now
required
for
such
occupation.
A gain, written notice m ust have been given of this
possibility before the start of the tenancy;
(c)
The
landlord
requires
the
prem ises
w hich
o ccu pied by a p erso n em p lo yed in agricu ltu re
h is o r h e r e m p lo y m en t fo r th e o ccu patio n of
landlord employs or will employ in agriculture.
(d)
The
p rem ises
are
o vercrow ded
the occupier guilty of an offence;
(e)
The premises are unsanitary;
in
12.
The grounds have b een sum m arized in this w ay by
2 9 - 3 2 ( 3 rd e d . 1 9 7 0 ) .
F o r a fu r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f
for possession w ill be given, see Cheshire, op. cit. supra n. 6, at 466-469.
13.
R ent A ct 1968, C. 23, s. 11.
14.
The
grounds
are
enum erated
in
Schedule
sum m arized by A ldridge, op. cit. supra n. 2, at 32-34.
-6 2 -
3,
such
circum stances
T.M . A ldridge,
so m e o f the
Part
II
of
were
at
one
tim e
under the term s of
a person whom the
th e
as
to render
in R ent C ontrol and Leasehold E nfranchisem ent
im p o rtant ground s on w hich an o rder
1968
A ct;
they
are
g iven
here as
W hen one
any kind.15
(f)
The
p re m is e s
are
r e q u i re d
by
highway authority for new town purposes;
(g)
The
prem ises
are
a
part of
a
house
in
w hich
an
undertaking
has
b e en g iv e n th a t it w ill n o t b e u se d fo r h u m a n h a b ita tio n b ecau se o f
inadequate means of escape from fire.14
of
th ese
grounds
has
been
a
established,
d e v e lo p m e n t
the
judge
c o r p o r a tio n
has
no
or
a lo c a l
d iscretio n
of
It should be noted that a possession order can only be obtained by landlords
by c ou rt o r d e r .
S e c tio n 3 0 o f th e R en t A ct, 1 9 6 5 16 m ak es it a crim in al o ffe n ce to
"u n law fu lly dep riv e" a ten an t of occu patio n ; th at is, to tak e po ssessio n w ith o u t
f irs t o b t ain in g a c o u r t o rd e r.
T h e sam e se ctio n a lso m ak es it an o ffe n ce to h a r as s
a ten an t or un reaso nab ly to w ith draw services fo r th e purp ose of causin g th e
tenant to leave the premises.
In
co n clusio n
it
m ust
be
em p h asized
th at
secu rity
of
ten ure
ap p lies
th o se dw ellin gs w h ich are co n tro lled o r reg u lated .
T h u s, it d o es n o t ap p ly
expen sive rented accom m od ation ;17 neither does it apply to furnished
which for a variety of reasons 18 are exempted by the legislation.19
o n ly
to
to m o re
prem ises
15.
R ent A ct 1968, c. 23, s. 11(5).
16.
Section 30 is in Part III of the 1965 A ct, which w as not consolidated by the 1968 A ct.
17.
N . 6 supra.
18.
See C heshire, op. cit. supra n. 6 at 459-460.
19.
R ent A ct 1968, s. 2(l)(b).
"The A ct does not apply to those furnished dw ellings w here the am ount of the
ren t w h ic h is fa irly d u e to a tte n d a n ce o r to th e u se o f th e fu rn itu re (h a vin g re g ard to its v alu e to th e
te n a n t) is n o t a su b stan tial part o f th e w h o le re n t ...
Thus, m ost furnished dw ellings are not
'reg u la ted ' o n es.
H o w e v er, a n ap p lic atio n can b e m ad e to a R e n t T r ib u n a l to fix a re a so n a b le re n t
f o r f u r n i s h e d d w e l lin g s n o t o f fe re d fu ll p r o t ec tio n o f th e A c t, a n d w h e r e s u c h a n a p p l ic a tio n h a s
been m ade after a n otice to q uite h as been serv ed, the T ribunal can grant up to a six m onth
e x te n s io n o f th e n o tic e to q u i t.
T h i s is re v ie w a b le , b u t, a s a m a tte r o f p ra ctic e , w ill n o t b e r e v ie w e d
m ore than o nce." R eport of the R ent C om m ittee, 1971, n. 8 supra, at 121-126. (T hese p ro vision s d o n o t ap p ly in
E n g lan d an d W ale s to ten an c ie s fo r a f ix e d ter m , as n o n o tice to q u it nee d b e g ive n .
T h ey d o ap p ly
to s u c h t en a n c ie s in S c o tla n d w h e r e a n o t ic e to q u it i s r e q u ir e d .)
T h u s , s e c u r it y fo r su c h t e n a n c ie s
is rather lim ited.
20.
The
tenancy
of
te n a n t s
living
in
c o n t r o l le d
dw elling s
can not
be
term inated
by
a
lan d lo rd,
un less a
decree fo r p ossession is granted .
T h is w ill n o t b e gran ted u n less th e c o u rt th in k s it "re as o n ab le" to
do so, and unless a ground set out in s. 29 of the R ent R estrictions A ct 1960, c. 42, is provided.
For a detailed
discussion of the Irish legislation, see K .E.L. D eale, The L aw of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland (1968).
21.
In
G hana,
only
the
C ourts
can
elect
a
ten a n t,
and
th en
only
where
circu m sta n ces w a rra n tin g
ejectm en t ex ist.
S u c h cir c u m s ta n ces in clu d e ren t in arrears an d co m p lain ts b y a lan d lo rd , te n a n t, o r
o th er p erso n in terested in th e p rem ises; a lso , su ch g ro u n d s a s th e la n d lo rd g en u in ely n eed in g th e
p r e m i s e s f o r h i s o r h e r o w n u s e ( a n d s w e a r i n g t h a t t h e y w i l l n o t b e l e t f o r a t le a st tw o y e a r s ) a r e
included.
S. 17 (1) of the R ent A ct 1963 (A ct 220) g o vern s ejectm en t.
F o r a critical exam ination of these
p ro v isio n s, see O fo r i-B o a te n g , “ E je c tm e n t O r d e rs an d P r o c ed u r e U n d e r th e R en t A ct 1 96 3 (A ct 2 20)”
(1969) 1 Review of G hana Law 87.
-6 3 -
-6 4 -
The
B ritish
sch em e
h as
b een
fo llo w e d
in
a
n u m b er
of
ju risd ictio ns
in clu din g
I r e la n d 20 a n d G h a n a .21
Furtherm ore, in A ustralia, the U nited States and C anada,
attem p ts h av e b een m ad e to im p lem en t secu rity o f ten ure sch em es in co n ju nctio n
w ith a p ro g ra m o f re n t c o n tro l.
I t is a p p ro p ria te a t th is p o in t to e x a m in e b rie fly
th e secu rity o f te n u re sc h em e s in f o rc e in th e A u stralian States o f V icto ria an d
N e w S o u th W ales, in th e State o f M a ssach usetts, in N ew Y o rk C ity , an d in th e
Provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland.
(b)
Victoria and New South Wales
The
A u stralian
States
have
tended
to
carry
on
the
national
rent
control
s c h e m e w h ic h w as in tro d u c ed b y th e fe d era l g o v e r n m e n t in 1 9 3 8 , a n d a b a n d o n e d
by it in 1948.
In 1948, the State of Victoria pegged all rents at their 1940 level and
enacted that possession m ight be recovered only on the lim ited num ber of
g ro u n d s se t o u t in th e A c t, a n d th e n , o n ly b y c o u r t o r d e r .
A t t h e p r e s e n t tim e ,
control applies only to "prescribed premises." This category encompasses
The Act
Governor
V ictorian
postulated
scope for
oppression to
(a)
th o s e
p re m is e s
w h ic h
w e re
le a s e d
at
som e
tim e
b etw een
1940 and
1 9 5 4 , a n d h av e n o t b e co m e v ac an t an d b e en re le t sin c e, o r, h av e
n o t b e e n e x c l u d e d b y O r d e r o f t h e G o v e r n o r i n C o u n c i l ( a li m i t e d
number of tenancies today);
(b)
th o s e
p re m ise s
w h ic h
h ave
come
un der
th e
Order of the Governor in Council (an increasing number). 22
auth o rity
of
th e
A ct by
contains no provision governing the exercise of the pow er of the
in C oun cil to o rder a dw ellin g to b e placed un der co ntro l.
The
s c h e m e is b y n o m e an s o n e in v o lv in g c o m p le te c o n tro l.
It has been
that: "T he p resen t legislatio n p ro vides th e better system .
It allow s
la n d lo rd s to g et a reaso n sab le retu rn w h ilst en ab lin g in div id u al cases o f
be dealt with as they arise." 23
The
Victorian
legislatio n
contains
re n ts . 2 4
F o r p re s e n t p u rp o s e s it is n o t
provisions
which
regu late
the
n e c e s s a r y t o d e s c r ib e t h is s y s te m
22.
T he
relevant
sections
govern ing
“p rescrib ed
p rem ises”
are
ss.
4 3,
44
Tenant A ct, 1958.
For a review of th e legislation, see P . N edovic and
of Leased Prem ises in V ictoria” (1979) 7 M elbourne U niversity Law R eview 258, at 269-70.
23.
See N edovic and Stew art, op. cit. Supra, n. 27, at 268.
24.
Ibid 271-273. See also R obert Brooking and A lex C hernoff, Tenancy L aw and P ractice: V ictoria 323-327 (1972).
25.
See ss. 82, 92, and 93 of the L andlord and Tenant A ct, 1958.
26.
S.
89
p ro v id es
th at
a
lan d lo rd
m u st
take
pro ceedin gs
for
S e s s io n s , w h ic h c o n s is ts o f a S t ip e n d ia ry M a g is tr a t e s it tin g
is allow ed on m atters of law only. (S. 98.)
-6 5 -
(1), an d
45
(1)
R . J. S tew art “T he
level
of
in d e ta il.
of
the
L andlord and
F itness and C ontrol
th is
sp ecial
no tice
before
the
C o u rt
o f P etty
alone.
A n ap p eal to the S u p rem e C o u rt
W h ere p rem ises hav e b eco m e "p rescrib ed prem ises," th ere are restrictio n s o n th e
a b ility o f th e la n d l o r d to r e c o v e r p o s s es s io n . 25 A la n d l o r d m u s t o b ta in a s p e c ia l
n o tic e to q u it fro m a co u rt o f co m p ete n t ju ris d ic tio n .26
The grounds which a
landlord m ust prove before a c o urt ord er w ill b e g ranted m ay b e su m m arized as
follows:
(a)
the rent is in arrears for at least 56 days;
(b)
th e
lesse e
has
faile d
to
p e rfo rm
so m e
o th e r
te rm
th e lease, fo r w h ich failu re h as n o t b e en e x cu se d .
s p e c if y in g th e b r e ac h m u s t b e se r v e d o n t h e l e s s e e
days before the action is heard, and no remedy has been made;
or
co n dition
of
N o tic e in w ritin g
a t le a s t f o u r t e e n
(c)
th e
le s s e e
h as
fa ile d
to
ta k e
goods leased, or has committed waste;
th e
(d)
the lessee or a resident or visitor
is a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours;
(e)
th e
le s se e
or
an y
o th e r
p erso n
h as
b ee n
c o n vic te d
of
an
o ffence
a r i s in g o u t o f th e i l l e g a l u s e o f t h e p r e m i s e s o r t h e p r e m i s e s h a s
been found or declared to have been used for such purpose;
(f)
the lessee has given notice of intention to vacate, or has signified in
w ritin g h is o r h e r w illin g n e s s to v acate, fo llo w in g w h ich th e less o r
h a s ta k e n s te p s as a r e s u lt o f w h ic h h e o r s h e w o u ld b e s e rio u s ly
prejudiced if possession was not obtained;
(g)
the
prem ises,
if
a
dw elling-ho use,
are,
or
w ith in
tw elv e
m onths
w ill
b e, re aso n a b ly re qu ire d b y th e le sso r fo r o c cu p atio n by h im o r
herself, or by a son, daughter, m other, father, brother, sister, or
someone who ordinarily resides with, and is wholly or partly
dependent on, him;
(h)
the
prem ises
are
u sed
as,
presbytery, or other like premises;
or
have
(i)
the
prem ises
are
r e q u ir e d
member of the immediate family;
by
a
(j)
the
the
(k)
the
prem ises
are,
or
have
been,
occupied
by
som e
consequence of em ploym ent w ith the lessor, an d are
required for occupation by some person in a similar capacity;
(1)
the premises have been
sold
is due in tw elve m o nth s
condition of sale;
lessor is
prem ises
carrying on a
for such use
-6 6 -
re a s o n ab le
has
been
b een
-
and
and
of
guilty
acq uired
b e n e f ic i a r y
hospital, school,
(in clud ing th e
-
ca re
under
of
p re m is e s
conduct
asp
a
a
which
parson age,
trust,
or the like, and
acco m m o d ation of
one-quarter of the
vacant possession
or
or
a
requires
staff);
person
in
reasonably
purchase price
has been a
(m)
the
p rem ises
or removal;
are
r e a s o n a b ly
(n)
the
present lessee
becam e
the
lessee
transfer to which the lessor did not consent;
(o)
th e
le s s e e
has
sublet
approval has not been granted;
(p)
the prem ises have been
shared
with
twelve months and the lessor desires possession;
(q)
th e
le ss e e
has
not
b e en
liv in g
in
th e
p rem ises
fo r
th ree
m o n th s
b efo re n o tice to qu it h as b ee n giv en w h e re th e le sso r h as n o t
granted permission for such an arrangement;
(r)
the lessee is receiving
lessor by a sublessee;
(s)
th e
prem ises
are
a
garage, and
fo r h is o r h er o ccupatio n or fo r
whole premises;
(t)
the premises are owned by the lessor, being a man of over 65 or a
w om an of ov er 60, w ho se inco m e, if living alon e, d o es n ot exceed
$910 , or if living w ith h is or her spouse, does not exceed $182 0 per
an n um , w h o o w n s n o o th er d w ellin g in V ictoria (or w ho se spo use
does not), exclusive of their residence, and w ho requires the
premises for sale with vacant possession;
(u)
th e
le s se e
co u ld
w ith o u t
undue
fin a n cial
h ard sh ip
p u r ch a s e
or
le a se
ano ther adequate and suitable dw elling; or the lessee has other
ad eq uate an d su itab le p rem ise s a vailab le fo r h is o r h er o ccu patio n
for residential purposes.27
the
more
req uired
for
by
p r e m is e s ,
than
100
or
the
per
the
th e
reco n stru ctio n ,
virtue
some
lessor
cent
of
of
an
part
for
d em o litio n ,
assignm ent
of
at
the
th e m ,
least
rent
and
the
paid
or
to
last
the
lessor
requires
p ossessio n
of it
p urp o se of leasin g o r sellin g the
O n hearing an action for recovery of possession, the court is directed to take
in to acco u n t th e q u es tio n o f h a rd s h ip to th e le ss e e, th e lesso r, o r an y o th er p erso n ,
i n m a k i n g , o r in r e f u s i n g t o m a k e , a n y o r d e r .
I n c o n s i d e r in g t h e h a r d s h i p o f a
lessor or lessee, special regard is to b e had to tho se suffering from disabilities
resulting from w ar service.
W here an order is based on groun ds (g), (h), (i), (j), (k),
(1), (m ), or (p), the co urt shall con sider w hether reasonably suitable alternative
a c c o m m o d a t io n is , o r h a s b e e n , sin ce th e d a te o n w h i c h n o t ic e to q u it w a s g iv e n ,
a v a il a b le t o t h e p e r s o n i n o c c u p a t i o n o r t o t h e l e s s o r o r o t h e r p e r s o n w h o w o u ld
o c c u p y th e p re m is e s if an o rd e r w e re m a d e .
W h e re th e le s se e is re c e iv in g a to t al
p e rm an e n t in c ap a city p e n sio n o r a b lin d e d p en s io n , an o rd e r sh a ll no t b e m ad e
u nle ss re aso n a b le alte rn a tiv e a cc o m m o d a tio n is a vailab le o n a w ritten lease fo r n o t
less th an fiv e y ears.
W h e re an a p p lic atio n is b a se d o n g ro u n d s (e ), (f), o r (t), th e
court shall not refu se to m ake an order fo r recovery by reason only of h ard ship
w h ic h w o u ld b e ca u s e d b y th e m a k in g o f an o rd e r, o r b e c a u se th e re is a la c k o f
27.
For a sim ilar
328-330.
sum m ary
of
th e
gro unds
set
out
-6 7 -
in
s.
82,
see
Bro oking
and
C hern off,
op.
cit,
supra,
n.
24, at
available alternative accommodation.28
The
schem e
operating
in
New
S ou th
W ales
has
been
describ ed
as
one
prim arily concerned w ith "eviction control," with the con trol of rents being a
su b sid iary m atte r.29
T h e N ew S o uth W ales schem e is n ot dissim ilar to those in
f o r c e i n B r ita in a n d V ic t o r ia , w ith s e c u r ity o f te n u r e b e in g a f f o r d e d o n ly to t e n a n t s
whose
dw ellings
are
controlled.
"Controlled
premises"
include
only
those
p rem ises b uilt b efo re 1 9 54 an d n o t re le t sin ce 1 9 56 .
A n o tab le featu re o f th e
sch em e is th e m o vem en t to w a rd s d eco n tro l.
This m ovem ent was increased by
am e n d m e n ts to th e legislatio n in 19 6 8 , w h ich w e re aim e d at h aste n in g d e c o n tro l.
T h e g ro u n d s f o r p o ss e s s io n are e s s e n tia lly th e s a m e a s th o s e in V ic to ria , 3 0 w i th o n e
im p o rtan t ex ce p tio n b e in g th a t th e re n t n e ed o n ly b e in arre ars fo r 2 8 d ay s a s
o p p o s e d to 5 6 in V ic to r ia .31
I n 1 9 6 8 t h e f a c t o f " w e a l t h " w a s in t r o d u c e d a s a
grou nd for possession.
It w as provided that w here the m eans of the lessee,
to g e th e r w ith th e m ean s o f all o th er p erso n s in th e dw e llin g -h o u s e (n o t in c lu d in g
b o ard ers or ch ild ren u n der 16 ) are su ch th at it is reaso n ab le th at th e lessee, o r th e
l e s s e e a n d a n y s u c h p e rs o n s s h o u l d a c q u i r e o r l e a s e o t h e r p r e m i s e s , t h e c o u r t c a n
grant an order for possession.32
28.
S. 92.
29.
See
P eter
C lyn e,
P ractical
Fide
to
T en an cy
L aw
10
(1 9 7 0 ).
b e u s e l e s s o f c o n t r o l e v i c t i o n s in a n y f a s h i o n i f l a n d l o r d s
figure they please, and then evict the tenant because he fails to pay it.”
30.
T he appropriate provisions are
of Possession of Prescribed Prem ises.
31.
T her e
are
som e
other
m ino r
m u st b e 1 2 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e
significant for present purposes.
32.
It is p ointed out by C lyne, op. cit, supra, n. 34, at 251, that this ground is being w idely used in the state
t o e n d c o n t r o l l e d t e n a n c i e s , a n d is n o t r e s t r i c t e d i n a p p li c a t i o n t o t h e “ w e a l t h y . ”
O n s e c o n d r e a d in g
o f th e B ill w h ic h in t ro d u c e d t h is g ro u n d , th e M in is te r o f Ju s t ic e , J . C . M a d d i so n , s aid :
“T his A ct
sho u ld n o lo n g er c o n tin u e to o ffer p ro tectio n to a ten an t by w ay o f ren tal sub sid y at th e ex p en se
o f th e o w n e r w h e r e th e te n a n t c a n b e s h o w n to h a v e th e m e a n s to f e n d f o r h i m s e lf ... T h e p u r p o s e
o f th e G o v e r n m e n t is to r e ac h a situ a tio n w h e r e o n ly th o se p erso n s w h o c an ju stifia b ly c la im th e y
w ould
suffer genuine
hardship
should
be
entitled
to
en jo y th e
protection
of the
A ct ... The
p h i l o s o p h y t h a t t h e B i l l s e e k s t o e s p o u s e i n a n in i t i a l w a y is th a t e v e r y te n a n t in c o n t r o l l e d p r e m i s e s
ca n n o t fo r e v er ex p ect to live u n d er sub sid ized rent co n d itio n s u n less h e c an sh o w th at h is ca se is
o n e o f g en u in e h a rd sh ip .”
(H a n s ar d , “ P a rlim e n ta ry D e b a te s,” N o v . 2 6 , 2 7 / 6 8 , V o ls . 4 5 a n d 4 6 , p p .
2833, 2843, 2952, 2958, 2991.)
33.
A cco rd in g
34.
See Is T here a C ase for R ent C ontrol? Background Papers and Proceedings of a C anadian C ouncil on Social D evelopm ent Sem inar on R ent Policy (1973), at 19
et seq.
It s h o u ld be n oted that M assach u setts in tro d u ced an o p tio n al sc h em e in 1 9 7 0 , see infra, n . 3 6; a lso ,
under
Phases
I and
II of
Presiden t N ixo n’s
Economic
Stab ilization
Program , 1971, the
w hole
co u n try w as p laced u n d er a lim ited fo rm o f re n t re g u latio n .
(Phase II exem pted industrial, farm
n o n resid en t co m m ercial pro perty; new
co nstru ctio n offered fo r ren t fo r th e first tim e a fter A u g .
1 5 / 7 1 ; re h a b ilita te d d w e llin g s ... re n te d fo r th e first tim e a fte r A u g . 1 5 / 7 1 ; sin g le -fa m ily d w e llin g s
r en t ed o n a g r e a te r t h a n m o n th - to - m o n th le a se w h e r e t h e o w n e r o w n s n o m o r e th a n fo u r su c h
d w ellin g s; o w n er-o ccu p ied ren ted d w ellin g s o f fo u r un its or less ren ted o n lo nger th a n m o n th -to m o n th lea se ; an d u n its ren tin g fo r $ 5 0 0 a m o n th o r m o re .)
F o r p re se n t p u rp o se s, ho w ev er , it is
im portant to note that the national schem e was not accom panied by security of tenure.
to
C lyn e,
the
contained
in
Part
III
d ifferen ces,
s u ch
la n d l o rd ’s re tu r n ,
d iscretio n
of
th e
-6 8 -
of
as
as
C o u rts
the
The
w rite r
co u ld sim p ly
L andlord
and
Tenant
ad d ed
that:
put up the
(A m endm ent)
“N atu rally
it w o uld
rent to w hatever
A ct
th e
fa ct
th a t
th e
p ro f it
b ein g
m ade
o p p o s ed to 1 0 0 p e r c e n t in V ic to r ia .
has
been
g r e a tly
i n c r e a se d
by
the
1948
- R ecovery
by
a sub -le ssee
T h e se a re n o t
1 9 6 8 l e g is l a ti o n .
The
co u rt
is
directed
to
tak e
in to
c o n sid e ra tio n
when
h ea rin g
an
a p p licatio n
f o r p o s s es sio n an y h a rd s h ip w h ic h m ig h t re su lt to th e le ss o r o r le ss e e o r an y o th e r
person by the granting o r refus al to gran t an o rder; an d is directed also to co nsider
"all other relevan t m atters."
T h e c o urt is desc rib ed as h av in g virtually co m p lete
d iscretio n w h eth er to gran t o r n o t gran t an o rd er, an d w h eth e r to p ostp o n e o r
suspend the operation of one granted, whatever the circumstances.33
(c)
New York City and Massachusetts
N ew
Y o rk
C ity
h as
th e
o n ly
c o m p r e h e n s iv e
s y s te m
of
re n t
co n tro l
in
th e
U nited States tod ay.34 T here is no need to exam ine the som ewh at com plica ted
fo rm u las w h ich are used to determ in e w h ic h p re m ise s a re in clu ded in th e ren t
contro l schem e an d w hich are exem p ted .
T h is h a s b e e n d o n e e ls e w h e re .35
It is
su fficien t for th e p u rp o ses o f this stud y to p o int out th at a se cu rity o f ten ure
system
co -exists w ith ren t control in relation to those dw ellings w hich are
controlled.
A s o n e c o m m e n ta to r h a s p u t it:36
"T h e n ew la w p ro h ib its lan d lo rd s
fro m re fu sin g to ren ew leases o f ten an ts in o ccu pan cy, w ith a lim ited nu m b er o f
excep tio n s."
T h ese ex ce p tio n s a re co n ta in e d in N ew Y o rk C ity L o cal L aw , N o .
16-1969.37
In
1970,
the
M assachusetts
State
Legislature
passed
legislatio n
enabling
m un icipalities to establish rent con trol.
T h e law also state s th a t a lan d lo r d m a y
evict a tenant from controlled accom m odation for "just cause, provided that his
p u r p o s e is n o t in c o n f lic t w it h t h e p r o v i s i o n s a n d p u r p o s e s o f t h i s a c t . " E v i c t i o n ,
how ever, m ust be approved by the m unicipal rent control com m issioner.
The
M assachusetts law exem pts from the system tho se prem ises used by transients,
those ow ned by a public institutio n , th o se used fo r ed ucatio n al o r n o n pro fit
p u r p o s e s , th o s e th a t are p a rt o f a tw o o r th r e e u n it b u ild in g in w h ic h th e o w n e r
also resides, and cooperatives.38
(d)
Newfoundland and Quebec
(i)
From
Newfoundland
1943
u n til
1972
th e r e
was
le g is la tio n
in
N e w f o u n d la n d
w h ic h
35.
See M . A udain, "Rent R egulation:
Sketches of V arious Schem es," in Is There a C ase for Rent C ontrol? op.
34, at 1 9-2 2; an d th e co m m en t 6 n re cen t statu tes: "T h e N ew Y o rk R en t S tab iliz atio n L aw
(1970) 70 C olum bia Law R eview 156.
36.
W hen com m enting on recent N ew Y ork C ity Law s, op. cit. supra, n. 35, at 169.
37.
N Y 51 - 5.9(c)(9). This section w as not available at the tim e of writing.
38.
See A udain, op. cit. supra, n. 34, at 22-24.
B y m id1972
schem e had been adopted in B oston, Brookline, C am bridge, and Som erville.
39.
The R ent R estrictions A ct, S.N . 1943, 6. 45.
40.
Ibid. s. 12 and Schedule. These provisions are contained in an A ppendix to this R eport.
-6 9 -
the
M assachusetts
rent
control
and
p ro v id e d
cit.
of
secu rity
supra, n.
1 969,"
of tenu re
f o r s e c u r it y o f t e n u r e t o g e t h e r w it h a s y s te m o f re n t c o n tro l . 3 9
T h e A c t p r o v id e d
th at th e co urt w o uld n o t p rov id e an o rder fo r po ssession o r fo r ejectm en t o f a
ten an t in a d w elling to w h ich th e Act applied un less o n e o f th e gro un ds set o ut in
th e A c t h ad b e en e stab lis h e d ,40 a n d u n le ss alte rn a tiv e ac co m m o d a tio n e xiste d .41
Recently a new Act, The Landlord and Tenant (Residential Tenancies) Act,42 was enacted to regulate
residen tial prem ises in the P rov ince.
U nd er the legislation possession orders m ust
be o btained from a M agistrate, an d w h ere it appears that a no tice to qu it w as given
because of an application to the Bo ard to review rent, or because of a tenant
a t t e m p t i n g to e n f o rc e o r s e c u r e a n y r i g h t s , t h e M a g i s t r a t e m a y r e f u s e t o g r a n t t h e
o r d er. 43
N o tic e to te rm in a te a w e e kly te n an c y m u st b e giv en b y a lan d lo rd at le a st
fo ur w eek s in ad v an ce (a ten an t need on ly give o n e w eek's n o tice); no tice to
term inate a m on th-to-m on th tenancy m ust be given b y the landlord at least three
m o n ths in ad vance (the ten ant m ust give on e m onth's n o tice ); an d n o tice to
t e rm in a t e a y e a r - t o - y e a r te n a n c y m u s t b e g iv e n b y b o th la n d lo r d an d te n a n t at le a s t
th re e m o n th s in ad v a n c e . 4 4
H o w e v e r, a m o s t s ig n ific a n t fe a tu r e o f th e n e w A c t is
that no com prehensive system
of security of tenure is incorporated in the
legislation. The scheme set up by the 1943 Act has been abandoned.
(ii)
Quebec
In
Q uebec
a
se c u rity
and provides
that eviction can only occur:
of
te n ure
sc h e m e
ac c o m p an ie s
(a)
when a tenant does not pay the rent when ordered to do so;
(b)
when
th e
lan dlo rd
leg itim ately
herself, or a close relative,
dependent upon the landlord;
(c)
when
the
tenant
activities on the premises;
(d)
when the dwelling has become overcrowded to a serious extent;
(e)
when
the
tenant
has
without the owner's permission;
has
co n ve rted
in
or
the
41.
See s. 12(2).
42.
S.N . 1973, c. 54. The legislation w as proclaim ed and becam e effective on M ay 31/73.
43.
See
s.
15
(7).
U nder
s.
19
refused or failed to go out of possession.
44.
S. 51 (1).
45.
An
A ct
d isc u ss io n
to
of
is
made
fo r
allow ed
prem ises
p ro ceed in g s
Promote
C on ciliation
B etw een
Lessees
and
th e le g isl a tio n , see A u d a in , op . c it . su p ra n . 3 5 ,
-7 0 -
re n t
u n d er
Property
a t 3 1 -3 3 ;
sch em e, 45
c o n tro l
requ ires
the
p rem ises
or for a party that
engaged
p ro visio n
a
for
h im
or
is financially
im m oral
to
a
th e
A ct
of
illegal
roo m ing ho use
wh ere
th e
te n an t h as
O wners,
1951.
For
a detailed
a n d O n ta rio I n t e r i m R e p o r t 6 6 -6 8 .
(f)
when the house is acquired for public purposes.46
The
Q uebec
schem e
does
not,
s u b je c t
to
certain
lo ca l
o p tio n s
w hich
are
perm itted, apply to d w ellin gs fo r w h ich the rent on D ecem ber 1, 1962 exceeded
$125 per m onth in M ontreal and $100 per m onth elsewh ere and appears to be
aim ed principally at protecting low -incom e tenants.
It should also be noted that
th e sec urity of ten ure sch em e, b ein g tied to the ren t co n tro l p ro v ision s, ap p ears
to avail only a limited number of tenants in the Province.
-7 1 -
2.
Security of Tenure Independent of Rent Control
There
appears
to
be
a tendency
today
for
E uropean
countries
to
separate
rent
con trol and security of ten ure sch em es.
It h as been stated that:
"C on tinen tal
experien ce suggests that rents can be freed w hilst preserv ing reaso nab le secu rity
o f ten ure, an d eq ually, th at ren ts c an b e c o n tro lled w ith o ut in terferen ce w ith th e
c o n tra c tu a l t e rm in a tio n o f te n a n c ie s .” 47
U n f o r tu n a te ly th e r e is v e ry little E n g lis h
literature on the n ature of the system s existing in the variou s E uropean co un tries.
Inform ation is, how ever, available concerning W est G erm an and Swiss legislation
which provides some measure of security of tenure for tenants.
(a)
West Germany
In
W est
G erm any,
rents
are
o f t e n u r e e x i s ts f o r a ll t e n a n t s b y
in 1968.49 The clause provides that:
ge n erally
v ir tu e o f
u n co n tro lled .48
N evertheless,
sec u rity
t h e s o - c a lle d " s o c i a l c la u s e " in t ro d u c e d
(1)
If
the
con tractual
term ination
of
the
lease
for
roo m s, due
to special
circumstances
of
the
individual
case,
would
result
in
an
e n c r o a c h m e n t u p o n th e l iv i n g c o n d i ti o n s o f t h e l e s s e e o r h i s f a m i l y
the
hardship
of
which
cannot
be
justified
even
after
due
co n sid e ratio n o f th e lesso r's in terests, th e lessee can o bject to th e
n o tic e an d d e m a n d o f th e le sso r th e c o n tin u atio n o f th e le a se as
long as this is reasonable taking into account all circumstances.
(2)
If
the
lesso r
cannot
be
expected
to
co n tin ue
the
present term s the lessee can dem and a con tinu atio n
only after an appropriate amendment of the terms.
(3)
If
no
agreem en t
can
be
reach ed
th e
term s acco rd in g to w h ich it w ill be
court judgment.
lease
on the
of the lease
duratio n
of
th e
le ase
and the
continued are determ ined by
Thus,
te n a n ts
in
G e rm a n y
have
what
am o un ts
to
a
"v e to "
over
te rm in a tio n
o f th eir ten an cies.
T e n a n t s c a n l o d g e a n a p p e a l a g a i n s t a te r m i n a t i o n n o t i c e a n d
the court w ill have to balance the hardship to the ten an t against the reasonable
i n t e r e s ts o f t h e l a n d l o r d .
I t s e e m s th a t a s e a r ly a s 1 9 7 0 a b u n d a n t c a s e la w h a d
already ap p eared , relatin g to the in terp retation of the clause, and the cou rts seem
to have been interp retin g it v ery restrictively.
T hey have determ ined that it w ill
only be used in "exceptional" cases.50
46.
See A udain, op. cit. supra, n. 35, at 32.
47.
L.
N eville
Brown,
“C om parative
Rent
C ontrol”
(1970)
19
International
and
C om parative Law
Q u a r te rly 2 0 5 , 2 0 9 .
A t 2 1 4 h e s a ys th a t a lth o u g h tr ad itio n a lly th e c iv il la w v ie w o f a t e n a n c y w a s th a t
it w a s m erely a co n tra ct, t o d a y , in E u r o p e , “ [t]h e n o t io n o f t en a n t s-r ig h t s, o r th e c o n c e p t o f th e
tenant enjoying a status over an d b eyond h is contractual relationship w ith the landlord, appears to
be a general trend.”
48.
A p a rt
fro m
th e
fa ct
th a t
poor
te n a n ts
m ay
usury (i.e., dem anding an exorbitant rent) is a crim inal offence.
49.
S. 556-aBGB.
50.
For
a
detailed
discussio n
of
th e
W est
G erm an
sch em e,
see
B ro w n ,
op .
cit.
su pra
n.
47,
gt
M ich ael L ipsky an d C arl A . N eu m an n , "L an d lord - T en ant Law
in the U nited S tates
G erm any: A C om parison of Legal A pproaches," (1969-70) 44 Tulane Law R eview 36, at 63-64.
51.
Lipsky and N eum an, op. cit. supra, at 63-64.
-7 2 -
q u a lify
fo r
re n t
a ssistan ce
out
of
p u blic
fu n d s,
a n d re n t
210-211; and
and W est
D e s p ite
its
re la tiv e ly
have described it as providing:51
lim ite d
a p p lic a tio n ,
tw o
A m e r ic a n
c r itic s
of
th e
schem e
... a system in which tenant rights are assumed to have equal priority with
those of landlords.
T h e Ge r man l aw sug g est s a r e sp ec tab le , so ci al ly desirable
defence against an order for eviction.
In cases where low-income or large
family units are scarce, or where the housing market is restricted by
discrimination, a case can be made that the likelihood of some tenants finding
acc ep ta bl e a cco mm od at io ns in a sh or t pe rio d o f t im e a re sl ender and thus it
would be a hardship on the tenant to move immediately.
Under these
c ir cu ms t an c e s , d e t e rm i n e d b y j u d i c i a l o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n d i n g s o f fa ct , a st ay
of eviction might be granted, until both parties agree on additional terms to the
rental agreement.
In this procedure mediation by th e court might include
consideration of the cause o f whi ch the landlord wants the apartments vacated,
since the statute requires a consideration of the full interests of the lessor as well
as the lessee ...
(b)
Switzerland
A
report
published
in
m id-1970
in d icated 52
the
Federal
Parliam ent
of
Sw itzerland w as bringing in reform ing legislation aim ed at prov iding a lim ited
fo rm of security of tenure.
The effect of the legislation w ould be to curtail
co n tractu al freed o m b etw een lan d lo rd s a n d te n an ts b y allo w in g th e p ro lo n gatio n
o f an ex p ired or term in ated ten an cy fo r up to on e year o n th e gro un d o f h ard sh ip .
T h e a i m w a s t o o p e r a t e t h i s l i m i t e d s e c u r i t y o f t e n u r e q u it e in d e p e n d e n tly o f r e n t
control, wh ich w ould be gradually restricted to areas of acute ho using sho rtage
only.
(c)
United States
In
the
U nited
States
a
con cept
of
s e c u r it y
of
te n u r e
has
gradually
been
em erging in relation to h ou sing p rojects o p erated by p ub lic ho using autho rities.
A s e rie s o f d ire c tiv es53 fro m th e D e p artm en t o f H o usin g an d U r b an D e v elo p m e n t
(H U D ) hav e b een d esign ed to fo rc e p u b lic h o usin g au tho rities n o t to term inate
leases arbitrarily.54
U ntil recently, ho w ever, the status of the H U D directives
52.
See Brow n, op. cit. supra, n. 47; at 211.
53.
The
HUD
C ircu la r
of
F e b ru a ry
7 / 67
req u ired
th a t
ev ery
ev icted
ten a n t
be
g iv e n
a
r ea so n
fo r
h is o r
her evictio n an d that the ten an t, in a "p rivate co n versatio n o r oth er ap p rop riate m an n er" b e "g iven
a n o p p o r tu n ity to m a k e su c h a r e p ly o r ex p la n a tio n a s h e m a y w is h .”
It w as said to h ave been
p ro m u lg ate d to e n d “ sim p le , u n e x p la in e d ca n ce lla tio n o f le a se s.”
A further H U D C ircular of Feb.
22/71 d irected that: “A tenant shall be afforded an o p p o rtun ity for a hearing b efore an im partial
official of a hearing panel if he disputes w ith in a reaso nable tim e any L ocal H ousing A uthority
(LH A ) action or failure to act in accordance w ith the lease requirem ents, or any LH A action or
failure to act invo lving in terpretatio n or of the L H A ’s regulation s, po licies, or procedures w hich
a d v e r s e ly affect th e ten an t’s rig h ts, d u ties, w e lfare, o r statu s.”
A n d fu rth erm o re th a t:
“N otice of
te rm in a tio n m a y o n ly b e giv en fo r g o o d c a u s e , s u c h a s n o n - p a y m e n t o f re n t, s er io u s o r r ep e a te d
dam age to prem ises, creation of physical hazards, or over-incom e status.”
54.
F orm erly,
p ub lic
landlords
were
held
to
no
higher
standards
than
those
of
th e
p rivate sector.
H o w e v er, in R u dd er v . U .S . 2 2 6 F . 2 d 5 1 ( D .C . C ir . 1 9 5 5 ), th e C o u r t h e ld t h a t “ t h e g o v e r n m e n t a s
l a n d l o r d is s t i l l th e g o v e r n m e n t .
I t m u s t n o t a c t a r b i t r a ri l y , fo r , u n li k e p r i v a t e la n d lo r d s , i t i s s u b j e c t
to the req uirem ents of due process of law .
A rb itrary actio n is n o t du e p ro cess.”
The HUD
directives w ere a clear recognition of this constitutional boundary.
55.
E .g., E scalera v. N ew Y ork C ity H ousing A uthority 425 F. 2d 85 (2d. Cir. 1970); V inson v. G reensburg H ousing A uthority 29 A pp.
D iv. 2d 388, 288 N .Y.S. 2d 159 (1968); Thorpe v. H ousing A uthority of the C ity of D urham 386 U .S. 670 (1967); R olle
v. N ew Y ork C ity H ousing A uthority 425 F. 2d 853 (2d C ir. 1970).
-7 3 -
rem ained unclear.
I n s e v e ra l d e c is io n s 55 it h a s b e e n h e ld th a t th e d ire c tiv es are
binding
on
public
housing
authorities
and
it has
been
indicated
that the
F o urteen th A m en d m en t requirem en t of due pro cess of law is ap plicab le to th e
action s of pub lic ho using o fficials.
T h us a citizen m ay n o t be dep rived of a
c o n t i n u e d t e n a n c y i n p u b l i c h o u s in g , o r r e q u i r e d t o p a y a n a d d i t i o n a l r e n t , w i t h o u t
affording him the m inim um procedural safeguards required by due process of
law.56
The
actual
rights
w hich
tenants
have
a cq u ire d
rem ain
somewhat
un certain .
Presum ably, tenants m ust be given reasons for eviction from public housing
p ro je c ts an d th ey m u st b e g ive n an o p p o rtu n ity to an s w e r.
A t th e v e ry lea s t th is
w o u ld se e m to in v o lv e th e rig h t to a h e arin g, th e rig h t to b e re p re s e n te d an d th e
rig h t to c ro s s - e x a m in e w itn e s s e s .57
T h e im p licatio n is th at ev ictio n can o nly b e
s u p p o r ta b l e w h e r e i t i s f o r " ju s t c a u s e ."
T h e r e h a v e , h o w e v e r , b e e n f e w d ire c t iv e s
from Legislatures, administrators, or courts as to what this entails.58
T hus,
w hile
no
security
of
ten ure
exists
in
the
U nited
States
in
the
p rivate
s e cto r o u ts id e th e re n t co n tro l ju risd ic tio n s o f N e w Y o rk C ity an d M assac h u se tts ,59
the re sid e nts o f p u b lic h o u s in g can n o lo n g er b e e vic te d at th e w ill o f th e landlord.
T his developm ent has been w idely acclaim ed as on e step aiding the serious
problems of the urban poor.60
(d)
Canada
Two
of
th e
more
in terestin g
schemes
of
security
of
tenure
existing
independently of rent control are Canadian.
O ne schem e has been operating in
M anitob a since 19 71, the o ther has been operating in Surrey, British C olum bia.
56.
See A dm inistrative Law N ote, (1970) 37 Brooklyn Law R eview 184, at 185.
57.
See
John
E.
A m erm an,
"C om m ent:
C onstitutional
Law
P ublic
H o u sin g ,"
(1967-68)
Lawyer
453;
and
"D evelopm ents
in
Contemporary
Landlord-Tenant
Laws:
Bibliography," (1973) 26 V anderbilt Law R eview 689.
58.
A p a rt
fro m -th e
HUD
d irectiv es
o u tlin ed
in
n.
53
su pra .
T h ere
a re
no
leg isla tive
g u id elin es
o th e r th an
a sh o r t r ef e r e n c e in t h e U .S . H o u s in g C o d e 1 9 6 7 a n d le g is la tio n in M ic h ig a n w h ic h in d ic a te s th a t
th ere m u st b e n o e v ic tio n w ith o u t " ju s t c a u s e ," w h ic h in c lu d e s a fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith ru le s a n d
r e g u la tio n s , th e u s e o f a u n it fo r an u n la w fu l p u rp o se , th e m ain te n a n ce o f u n s a fe , u n s a n ita ry , o r
unhealthful conditions, and over-incom e; judicial guidelines have been m inim al.
59.
See text at n. 34 supra.
It appears that the em phasis at the m om en t in the p rivate secto r in the U .S. is
d ire c te d to w a rd th e in stitu tio n o f p ro te c tio n a ga in st re ta lia to ry e v ic tio n in all ju risd ic tio n s a n d th e
gu ara n tee o f safe an d san itary housing.
S ee R o b ert J. M o rg an , " P ro p o sed S ta tu to ry A ltera tio n s o f th e
L a n d lo r d -T e n a n t R ela tio n s h ip fo r th e S ta te o f I llin o is ," (1 9 7 0 ) 1 9 D e P a u l L a w R ev ie w 7 5 2 ; C .G .
Bruno, "New
Jersey
L a n d lo rd -T e n an t L a w : P r o p o s a ls
for
R eform ,"
(1969) 1
R utgers-C am den
Law
Journal 299.
60.
For
exam ple,
in
"A dm inistrative
L aw :
A
T en an t
M ay
Not
Be
D ep rived
of
C o n tin u ed
Tenancy
in
Public H ousing
W ithout First Being
A fforded
the
M inim um
P rocedural Safeguards G uaranteed
by
Due
Process,"
(197D )
37
Brooklyn
Law
R eview
184, 192
the
author
com m ented
that:
"The
g o v e r n m e n ta l in t er es t a p p r o a c h m a y w e ll p r o v id e th e n ecessa ry veh icle to t ra n s p o r t th e b e n e f ic ia rie s
of public assistance o ut of th e category o f constitu tio nal 'non-persons'.
In th e field o f p u b lic
h o u sin g , th e a vo w e d g o a l h a s b e e n t o fr ee th e p o o r fr o m t h e d is ea se , d a n g e r , a n d a n o m ie ra m p a n t
in t h e u r b a n s l u m ; t o f r e e t h e m s o t h a t t h e y m a y d e v e lo p t h e ir ta le n ts an d in t er es ts to t h e fu l le s t
e x te n t, a n d b y so lib era tin g th em , to allo w fo r th e ir as su m p t io n o f p ro d u c tiv e ro le s in A m e ric a n
society.
C an th is go al b e realized as lon g as a ten an t m ay n eve r feel secu re fro m u n ju stifiab le
eviction? The holding in E scatera v. N ew Y ork C ity H ousing A uthority im plicitly rejects such a b latant contradiction."
61.
The L andlord and Tenant A ct, S.M . 1971; c. 35, am ending The L andlord and Tenant A ct, S.M . 1970, c. 106, now
L70.
-7 4 -
43
An
N otre D am e
Annotated
C .C .S.M ., c.
Each of these schemes will be examined in some detail.
-7 5 -
(i)
Manitoba
The
p ro visio n s
of
th e
M an ito b a
le g is la tio n ,61
tenure without reliance on rent regulation, are as follows:
103
aim ed
at
creatin g
secu rity
of
(1)
In this section
(a)
''term of tenancy"
agreement is to run; and
(b)
"rental payment period" means the interval at which rent is payable
under a tenancy agreement but notwithstanding any agreement to the
c on t ra ry , fo r th e p urp o se o f t hi s sec ti on , n o re nt al p aymen t period
shall excited one month.
(2)
A
rental
payment
calendar period.
(3)
W h e r e a t e n a n c y ag re e m en t h a s n o p re d e t e r m i n e d e x p i r y d a t e , a
notice to terminate shall be given by the landlord or the tenant on or
before the last day of any rental payment period to be effective on
the last day of the ensuing rental payment period.
(3.1)
means
the
period
length
need
of
time
not
over
which
necessarily
the
coincide
tenancy
with a
Where the term of a tenancy agreement is less than twelve
months a notice to terminate shall be given by the landlord or
t en a n t a t le as t o n e mo n t h p r i o r t o t h e p r e d e t e r m i n e d e x p i r y
date of the tenancy agreement to be effective on the
predetermined expiry date of the tenancy agreement.
(4)
Where the term of a tenancy agreement is twelve months or more a
notice to terminate shall be given by the landlord or tenant at least
t wo m o n t h s p r i o r t o t h e p re de t e r mi n e d e xp i r y da t e o f t h e t enancy
a greem en t to b e effect ive on t h e predet erm in ed ex p iry da t e o f t h e
tenancy agreement.
(5)
Where
the
term
of
a
tenancy
agreement is twelve months or more
the landlord shall in writing advise the tenant at least three months
p r io r to th e predet ermi ne d ex p iry dat e o f t he t en anc y agr ee me nt of
the tenant's responsibility to give notice in accordance with
subsection (4) if the tenant wishes to terminate the tenancy
agreement and where a landlord fails to comply with this subsection
the tenant may at his option
(6)
(a)
terminate the tenancy agreement
date of the tenancy agreement without notice; or
(b)
continue the tenancy subject to subsection (6).
on
th e
p re de te rm i n ed e x p i r y
Where a tenant
(a)
is not in default
tenancy agreement; or
of
(b)
the landlord or
own occupancy; or
owner
(c)
the
not
premises
are
-7 6 -
any
of
does
his
obligations
not
administered
require
by
or
for
under
the
the
this
Act
premises
or his
for his
Government
of
C a n a d a or M an i t o b a o r a mun i c i p al i t y , o r an y ag e n c y t hereof,
or otherwise administered under the National Housing Act, 1954(Canada);
a tenant shall have the right to renew the tenancy agreement, subject
t o s u b s e c t i o n ( 1 ) o f s e c t i o n 1 1 6, af te r t h e t en a n c y a gr ee me nt h a s
expired; but where a dispute arises under clause (a) or (b) the matter
shall be referred to the rentalsman for determination.
(7)
W h er e a l an dlo rd or ten an t is agg ri eved wi th a dec isio n of the
r en t al sm a n un der subsec ti on (6), th e lan dlo rd or te nan t w it h in thirty
days after the date of determination by the rentalsman pay appeal the
decision to a court for review but pending the app eal decision, the
landlord shall not be entitled to possession of the premises in
dispute.
(8)
Where a landlord provides residential premises
(a)
to a person in consideration in whole or in part, of
management services, or t he arr an gem en t is can cell ed
party, or
(b)
to a tenant who is an employee of the landlord as a term of, or
in connection with his employment or the employment is
terminated by either party,
the landlord, notwithstanding any other provision of this
e nt it le d t o t ak e p o ssessio n of th e premises on givin g no t
month's notice to the tenant.
116
Act,
le ds
custodial or
b y eit her
shall be
th an one
(1)
A landlord shall not increase the rent payable under a tenancy
a g r e e m e n t o r a n y r en e w a l , e x t e n s i o n , r e v i s i o n o r a s s i g n m e n t t h e r e o f , o r
b e en t it le d t o r e c ove r an y addit io n al r en t r esul ti ng f ro m such a increase
unless he gives to the tenant a written notice of the increase in rent at least
three months prior to the date on which the increase is to be effective.
The
statute
also
provides
the
following
defences
to
proceedings
for
possession:
113
(3)
Notwithstanding
subsection
landlord for possession the landlord alleges
of
(2),
the
if
in
premises
any
for
proceedings by a
(a)
t h at h e r e q ui r e s p o s s e s s i o n
demolishing the premises; or
the
p u rp o se o f
(b)
that repairs of or the rectification of any condition complained of by
a tenant or ordered to be carried out by a landlord in respect of the
premises are either too costly or of such a nature that they cannot be
carried out while the tenant continues to occupy the premises;
and the court is satisfied from the evidence adduced of the validity of the
allegations of the landlord, the court may grant an order for possession or
order for eviction as the case may be, subject to such terms and conditions
as the court deems fit to impose.
113
(4)
Where a tenant of residential premises has a child of compulsory
school age living with him in those premises, the landlord shall not
terminate the tenancy or evict the tenant from those premises at any time
during any school year in which the child is attending school.
113
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply where
-7 7 -
(a)
a tenant is in arrears of rent; or
(b)
Repealed, S.M. 1971, c. 35, s. 21.
(c)
a tenant has violated subsection (2) of section 98.62
113
(6)
Notwithstanding
subsection
(4),
where a
bona
fide sale of
residential premises that is not subject to a written tenancy
agreement for a specific period, takes place and the purchaser
intends to occupy the entire residential premises himself, he may
obtain possession thereof by giving the tenant one month's notice to
vacate the premises.63
114
In the renting of
shall discriminate
refusing to rent or renew
premises or
against any
(a)
because of the race,
or national origin of; or
(b)
because
by;
of
religion,
membership
or
the renewal
prospective
religious
participation
of tenancies, no landlord
tenant or tenant by
creed,
in
an
colour,
ancestry, ethnic
association
of tenants
the prospective tenant or tenant.64
Thus Manitoba took an initial step towards security of tenure in 1970 with the
e n ac tm en t o f legislatio n pro h ib itin g ev ictio n du rin g th e sch o o l ye ar.
A t the sam e
tim e an anti-discrim ination p rovision w as included in the legislation b y virtue of
section 114.
In 19 71 b o ld er step s w e re tak en to w a rd s a m o re co m p reh en siv e
schem e of tenant security - tenants w ere provided w ith the right to rem ain in
re n te d p re m ise s u n le ss th e lan d lo rd co uld sh o w th at certain circu m stan ce s ex iste d .
T h e k e y f e a tu r e o f t h e s e c u r i t y o f te n u r e s c h e m e is s e c t i o n 1 0 3 ( 6 ) w h i c h a t f i r s t
blush app ears to p rov ide the landlord with very few grou nd s on w hich h e can
show cause.
It sh ould be no ted, ho w ever, th at th e gro un d set o ut in sectio n
1 0 3 ( 6 ) ( a ) r e q u i r i n g t h e l a n d l o r d t o s h o w th a t th e te n a n t " is n o t in d e f a u lt o f a n y
o f h is o b ligatio n s un d er th e A c t o r h is ten an cy agree m e n t ..." m ay p ro vid e th e
landlord with many grounds for cause.
As
has
been
p o in te d
out
elsewh ere
in
this
Report
the
current
M anitoba
schem e appears to be working adequately.
The sch em e is ap plied both to
ten an cies fo r a term an d to perio d ic ten an cies.
O ne com m entator has, however,
q u estio n ed th e tech n ical accuracy o f th e leg islatio n ,65 an d h as su g g ested th at it
c o n ta in s a n u m b e r o f im p e rfe c tio n s.66
A s in d icated ab o ve, sectio n 10 3(6 ) is th e
62.
S. 98(a) relates to the duties of the tenant in regard to cleanliness and dam age.
63.
S. 113(6) w as enacted in The L andlord and Tenant A m endm ent A ct, S.M . 1971, c. 35.
64.
Ss. 113(3)-(5) and s. 114 were enacted in The L andlord and Tenant A m endm ent A ct, S.M . 1970, c. 106.
65.
M.
G orsky,
"A n
E x a m in a tio n
Tenant A ct" (1972), 5 M an. L.J. 59.
66.
Ibid. at 60-66.
67.
Ibid. at 62.
68.
F u r th e r m o r e ,
it
should
be
n o te d
that
fix ed term ten a n cies d o n o t req uire a
flaw . See G orsky, op. cit. supra, at 63.
and
A ssessm ent
of
the
th e
defences
u n d er
"n o tic e to q u it."
-7 8 -
A m endm ents
to
the
M anitob a
s.
113
ap p ly
o n ly
to
p erio d ic
T h is w o u ld se e m to b e a n o th e r
Landlord and
te n a n c ie s, a s
in a d verten t
c e n t r a l p o i n t o f t h e s c h e m e , b u t i t a p p e ars t o ap p l y o n l y t o t e n an c i d s f o r a term
c e r t a in .
T h i s i s b e c a u s e t h e s e c t i o n s p e a k s i n t e r m s o f " t h e r i g h t t o r e n e w th e
t e n a n c y a g r e e m e n t , " a n d a s th e r e i s n o c o n c e p t o f r e n e w a l o f a p e r i o d i c t e n a n c y ,
th e secu rity p ro v is io n can o n ly ap p ly to ten an cies fo r fixed term s. 67
T h is can su re ly
n o t h a v e b e en th e in te n tio n o f th e L e gislatu re fo r th e te n a n t s h a v in g a te n a n c y
fro m m o n th -to -m o n th (o r o th er p erio d ic ten an cy) ard no rm ally m o st in n eed of
protection.
A further flaw in the M anitoba scheme is the failure to make provision against
lan d lo rd s w h o m ay im p o se exo rb itan t ren t in creases as a co nd itio n of ren ew in g
or co ntinuing the ten an cy, and thus effectively evict ten an ts w ithout h aving to
com ply with the security provisions.
T he defences in section 113(2) do not
provide for a situation where a retaliatory rent increase is imposed.68
(ii)
Surrey, British Columbia
The
o ther
security
of
tenure
system
w hich
a p p l ie s
in
Canada
independently
o f r e n t c o n t r o l is in S u r r e y, B r it is h C o l u m b i a .
I t w a s c r e a te d u n d e r B y - la w 3 1 2 9
of T he C orporation of the D istrict of Surrey, and is operated by the Su rrey
Landlord and Tenant Advisory Board (set up under section 66 of the Landlord and Tenant
A ct).
The By-law provides that a notice to quit can be appealed by a tenant to the
B o ard .
T h e n o tice w ill be revo ked un less th e lan dlo rd is ab le to p ro ve th at on e o f
the enumerated circumstances exists. The By-law (paragraph 1) provides:
Where a tenant received notice to quit from a landlord, he may appeal this
notice to quit to the board.
The Board shall revoke the notice to quit unless the
landlord proves that one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)
occupancy by the tenant
beyond reasonable wear and tear;
has
(b)
the tenant is in arrears for a period of twenty-seven days;
(c)
the tenant is a nuisance to his neighbours;
(d)
the tenant is utilizing the premises for illegal activity;
(e)
he, the landlord, requires the premises for occupancy
(f)
the tenant has
buyer or tenant;
(g)
the building is to be demolished;
(h)
the building is to be held empty for sale.
deliberately
resulted
in
misrepresented
deterioration
the
premises
of
to
the
premises
a
potential
A
num ber of observations
m ay
be
m ade
ab out the
Surrey
schem e.
First, it
a p p e a r s t o b e l i m i t e d t o p r o v i d i n g s e c u r i t y o f t e n u re o n l y i n t h e c a s e o f p e rio d ic
te n an c ie s.
T h e B y -la w s p ec ific ally refers to n o tices to qu it w h ich n eed o n ly b e
given in th e case o f ten an cies from m o n th -to -m o n th o r othe r perio d ic ten an cies.
T enancies fo r a fixed term d o n o t require a n o tice to quit. 69
Seco n dly, it sh o uld be
69.
See M . G orsky, op. cit. supra, n. 65, at 63.
70.
For exam ple, in Britain, V ictoria, and N ew South W ales.
-7 9 -
n o ted th at th e ten an t is req uired to ap p eal a n o tice to qu it
landlord's b ein g req uired to ap p ly to a court or other tribu nal for
s e s s i o n , w h ic h is th e c a s e in o t h e r se c u rity o f te n ur e sc h e m e s . 7 0
n o t e th a t th e g r o u n d s o n w h i c h a la n d lo r d m a y s h o w ca u s e a re
in m a n y o th e r s c h e m e s .
I n p a r t ic u la r th e r e is n o g ro u n d b a s e d
the Landlord and Tenant Act, Part II or upon breach of the tenancy agreement itself.71
rather than the
an o rder for po sI t is a p p o site to
m o r e lim it e d t h a n
upon breaches of
There
does not appear to
have been
a great volum e of tenant appeals before
t h e S u rre y B o ard .
I n 1 9 7 2 th ere w e re 1 2 ap p lic a tio n s b y te n a n ts d is p u t in g e v ic t io n
noticest w hile in the first eight m onths of 1973, there w ere approxim ately 30
ap p lic atio n s .72
It is perhaps app rop riate to ind icate the n ature of the various
ap p licatio h a un der th e secu rity o f ten ure p ro visio n s w h ich h av e co m e b efo re th e
Surrey Landlord and Tenant Advisory Board.
The follow ing table shows a
break-down of the applications in 1972 and 1973 (up to August):
No. of
Orders
Sought
No. Disputed
Successfully
Per Cent
Disputed
Successfully
Landlord as Applicant
(Seeking Possession Order)
Tenant in arrears 27 days
Landlord requires premises personally
Building to be held empty for sale
Totals
2
1
1
-
-
4
-
Tenant as Applicant
(Disputing Eviction Order)
No reason given
Tenant has deteriorated premises
Tenant in arrears 27 days
Tenant nuisance to neighbours
Tenants using premises for illegal activity
Landlord requires premises personally
Tenant has misrepresented premises
Building to be demolished
Building to be held empty for sale
Illegal rent increase
Too many people / pets on premises
Other
Total
1
9
3
5
2
2
6
2
1
5
4
-
1
3
1
1
7
3
2
3
42
2
22
56
66
100
80
-100
33
43
2100
66
521
Average
The
Surrey
sch em e
ap pears
to
be
w ork ing
71.
C f. s.103(6) of the M anitoba legislation w hich is outlined in the text, n. 61 supra.
72.
It
should
be
noted
1 9 7 1 C e n su s f ig u r e s
"F ").
w ell,
and
is
said
to
be
fu lly
that
Surrey
is
not
an
area
where
the
tenant
po pu lation
is
particularly
high.
The
r e v e a l th a t o n ly 2 1 .7 p e r c e n t o f a ll d w e llin g s in S u rr ey a re ren te d . (S e e A p p e n d i x
-8 0 -
a c c e p te d b y la n d lo rd s an d te n a n ts a lik e . 7 3
In p artic u la r, th e re d o n o t a p p e a r to b e
any difficulties in ob taining eviden ce from tenants (i.e. the applicants them selves
o r other ten an ts in the sam e b uilding).
Apparently, the Surrey Board accepts
letters o r affid av its fro m te n an ts in s u p p o rt o f claim s b e in g m ad e b efo re th e
Board.
If th e su p p lier o f th e info rm ation w ish es to rem ain an o n ym o u s th is is
h o n o u re d b y th e B o a rd , so lo n g a s th is d o e s n o t je o p a rd iz e th e c a s e o f th e o th e r
party to the application.
It
does
not
appear
that
extra
pressure
is
being
in the screening pro cess because of th e existen ce o f
though this m ay be because the dem ands on rented
not as high as they are in Vancouver City.
In
short, from
the
inform ation
available
to
in t ro d u c tio n o f a c o n c e p t o f te n a n t s e cu r ity in
all, disrupted relations between landlords and tenants there.
D.
applied
to
prosp ective
ten an ts
a ten an t security sch em e, alacco m m o dation in Surrey are
the
Com m ission,
S urrey has no t
it seem s
that the
substantially, if at
An Evaluation of Tenant Security
It
is
e s s e n tia l
to
n ote
th a t
s u b s t a n ti a l
num bers
of
th e
p o p u la t io n
in
th e
P ro v in ce o f B ritish C o lu m b ia n o w m ak e th eir ho m es in ren ted prem ises.
The
1 97 1 C e n su s o f C an ad a 74 s h o w e d th at 3 6 .7 p er cen t o f all d w e llin gs 75 in th e
Province were rented.
This figure is up from 33.8 per cent in 1966.
In the Low er
M a in l a n d a r e a , 7 6 th e f ig u r e ris e s to 4 1 .6 p e r c e n t ; a n d i n V a n c o u v e r C it y 5 3 .1 p e r
c e n t o f a ll d w d llin g s a r e re n te d ra t h e r th a n o w n e d . 7 7
T hus su bstan tial n um b ers o f
p eo p le in th e P ro v in c e78 liv e u n d e r a sy ste m w h e re th e ir c o n tin u e d o c c u p a tio n o f
their homes is dependent on the good will of the landlord.
The notion that a landlord should be free to determine a periodic tenancy and
should be free to refu se to ren ew a ten an cy fo r a fixed term item s directly fro m the
d o ctrin e of freedo m of co ntract an d th e co ncep t of m u tu ality o f term in atio n
rights.
In th e c o n tex t o f p res en t d ay lan d lo rd and ten an t relatio n s, ho w ev er, to
a d h e r e r i g i d ly t o s u c h c o n c e p t s w o u l d b e t o i g n o r e t h e r e a l i t i e s o f t h e s i t u a t i o n . 7 9
73.
A cco rd in g
to
the
a d m in istra to r
of
the
scheme.
T his
in f o r m a tio n
interview on 25 O ctober 1973, conducted by a m em ber of the C om m ission's research team .
74.
1971
C ensus
of
C a n ad a ,
" D w e ll i n g s
93-727, vol. III, part 3 (Bulletin 2.3-2) June 1/73.
75.
The
d e fin itio n
of
" d w e llin g "
is :
"a
str u c tu r a lly
s ep a r a te
s et
of
liv in g
q u a rte rs
w it h
fro m o u tsid e o r fro m a co m m o n h a llw a y o r sta ir w a y in s id e t h e b u ild in g , i.e ., th e
be through som eone else’s living quarters.”
76.
This
is
the
“Vancouver
Census
D istrict,”
which
includ es
W est
R ichm on d, D elta, Su rrey, Coquitlam , Port M oody, Burnaby, V ancouver
Island.
77.
For a m ore extensive statistical analysis for the area, see A ppendix F to this R eport.
78.
1971
Census
resu lts,
tenants, are not yet available.
79.
The enactm ent of Part II of the L andlord and Tenant A ct in 1970 m arked a significant departure from the
concept of freedom of contract in this area of the law .
80.
breaking
down
by
Tenure
the
-8 1 -
and
percentage
S tr u c t u r a l
of
th e
was
T y p e ."
o b t a in e d
S ta ti s t i c s
from
a
C anada.
te le p h o n e
C a ta lo g u e
a
p r iv a t e
entrance
entrance m ust not
Vancouver,
North Vancouver,
C ity, W hite R ock, and S ea
p o p u latio n
in
the
p rov ince
w ho are
In 1 9 6 8 th e O n tario L aw R efo rm C o m m issio n sa id:80
It is n o t n o w p o ss ib le to
a c c e p t f r e e d o m o f c o n t r a c t a t a n y g iv e n tim e a s a f a c t in t h e a r e a o f th e la n d lord-tenant
relationship
any
more
than
it
is
in
the
mortgagor
mortgagee
relation ship."
Ideas based on theo ries of free econom ic com petition in the area
o f r e n t a l a c c o m m o d a t i o n , w h e n l a n d a n d h o u s i n g a r e i n s h o r t s u p p l y , n e e d to b e
reexam ined.
E quality o f b argaining p o w er b etw een lan dlord and tenan t borders
o n th e fictional w hen the ap artm ent vacancy rate is said to be 1.0 per cent in
M etropolitan
Vancouver
and
0.6
per
cent
in
Vancouver
City.
Moreover,
a rg u m e n ts o f m u tu a lity 81 in la n d lo r d a n d te n a n t r e la tio n s a r e w e a k e n e d b y th e f ac t
that the term ination of a tenancy generally involves m ore serious econom ic and
s o c ia l c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r th e te n a n t th a n fo r th e la n d lo r d .82
T hu s it w ou ld seem
th a t re lia n c e o n th e p rin c ip le s o f a fre e m a rk e t is n o t su ffic ie n t to p re clu d e se rio u s
consideration of a concept of security of tenure in British Columbia.
We
have
thought it appropriate
to
consider the
social im plications
of a
system
w here tenants can be dislod ged at w ill.
W hile the landlord's interest in rented
p r e m i s e s w i l l g e n e r a l l y b e a p u r e l y e c o n o m i c o n e , a t e n a n t w i l l u s u a l l y r e g a r d th e
p re m is es as a h o m e an d h e m a y h av e a sp ec ia l atta c h m e n t to th e p re m is e s .
M any
c o m m e n ta t o r s h a v e n o te d t h a t a s e c u r e h o m e is a f u n d a m e n ta l n e e d o f a l l f a m i l i e s
a n d a ll in d iv id u a ls ;83 a n d w h e re te rm in a tio n o f a te n a n c y c a n ta k e p la c e w ith in a
s h o r t p e r io d o f tim e , a n d j u s t if ic a tio n i s n o t r e q u ire d , th is n e ed is n o t f u lf ille d .84
L a c k o f t e n a n t s e c u r it y m a y a ls o h a v e s e v e r e p r a c t i c a l c o n s e q u e n c e s .
For exam ple,
t h e n e e d f o r a s e c u r e h o m e i s a c c e n t u a t e d w h e re s c h o o l a g e c h ild r e n a r e in v o l v e d .
T he situatio n m ay also b e seriou s in p ractical term s w here the tenancy of an
81.
In som e subm issions m ade to us it w as argued that if landlords w ere to be required to justify the
term ination of tenancies, tenants should be required to do likew ise. This argum ent seem s to
ignore the fact that landlords m ay already m ake at least partial provision for this by requiring the
signing of a lease for a term .
82.
N ot
o n ly
is
it
v e ry
d iffic u lt
to
f in d
a lte rn a tiv e
ac c o m m o d a tio n
t h e c o s t o f t h e m o v e a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f s o c i a l u p h e a v a l.
accom m odation can scarcely be a difficult one in contem porary circum stances.
83.
L yn d al
E v an s,
M in o rity
R ep o rt,
R ep o rt
of
the
C o m m ittee
on
th e
R en t
A c ts ,
su p ra ,
n.
8,
at
p. 228,
exp re ssed th is th o u gh t.
A d e la N e v itt in “ T h e N a tu re o f R e n t C o n tr o llin g L e g isl a tio n in th e U .K .,”
C entre of E nvironm ental Studies:
U niversity W orking Papers, Jan. 1 970, p oints out th at m an’s
a ttitu d e to la n d , a n d to h is h o m e , is a n irra tio n a l o n e .
S h e critic iz es e c o n o m ists, w h o se :
“ ... w ritin g s
s t a r t a n d f i n i s h w i t h t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t o n e h o u s e i s t h e s a m e a s a n o t h e r o f a s i m i la r s i z e .
T his
v iew ig n o res th e sen se o f a tta c h m e n t w h ic h a n o c c u p ie r d e v e lo p s fo r h i s o w n p a rticu la r p iece o f
te rr ito r y .
U n d e r p r iv a te c o n d i tio n s th e e v ic tio n o f o n e m a n b y a n o t h e r is a m a tte r o f p h y s ic a l
s t r e n g t h a n d , a l l a n i m a l s , i n c l u d i n g m a n , a r e c a p a b l e o f t h e u l t i m a t e a b s u r d i t y o f s a c r i f i c i n g t h e i r li v e s
i n d e f e n c e o f a p ie c e o f l a n d .
I n a m o d e r n s o c i e t y th e tr i a l o f s t r e n g t h i s c o n d u c t e d t h r o u g h t h e
p ric in g m e c h a n ism a n d th e rich er b id aw a y p ro p erty fro m th e p o o rer.
W e h av e n o rea so n to th in k
th a t th e d e fe a te d a n d d isp o ssessed feel th at th is fo rm o f c o n te st is a n y ‘fa ire r’ th a n a sh o o tin g
m a tc h .”
(P p . 9-1 0).
I n a sim ila r v ie n , J er o m e R o s e (in L a n d l o rd s a n d T e n a n t s: A c o m p le te G u id e
t o t h e R e s i d e n t i a l R e n t a l R e l a t i o n s h i p , N e w J e r s e y , 1 9 7 3 ) , a t p . 3 , s ta t e s :
“T he statu s o f ten an t is in
fundam ental contraction to m an’s innate quest for secure shelter and to his territorial instincts.”
84.
D a v id
D o n n is o n
in
the
C a n a d ia n
C o u n c il
on
S o c ia l
D e v e lo p m e n t
S e m in a r
p u b lic a tio n ,
op .
c it ,
s u pr a , n .
34, draw s the analogy betw een
security
of tenure
and
security
of em ploym ent.
He
says: A n
in cre asin g ran ge o f em p lo yers n o w assu m e th at p eo p le m ust be given secu rity in their jobs, po ssibly
u n til re tire m e n t an d certain ly fo r a co n sid erab le p erio d ah ead .
You cannot sim ply ride people out
o f t h e i r j o b s a n d ti m e y o u w a n t.
F o r a fa m i l y w i t h c h i l d r e n , w h o s e e d u c a t i o n d e p e n d s o n c o n t i n u i n g
in
the
same
school and
whose
w elfare
may depend
upon
preserving
links betw een
fam ily
and
com m unity, security in the hom e is just as im portant as job security ...” (A t pp. 107-108).
85.
T his is particularly true if that
h is ro o ts a re th ere; o r w h ere
him .
person has
m o v in g in
resided
itself,
-8 2 -
to d a y,
The
in the sam e p lace for
a n d fin d in g altern a tiv e
but
also
th e
l a n d lo r d ’ s t a s k
a lon g period
a cco m m o d a tio n ,
tenant
must bear
o f fillin g va ca n t
of
is
tim e, so that
d ifficu lt fo r
elderly person
is term inated.85
The
economically and psychologically, may be substantial.
cost
of
upheaval
to
the
tenant,
both
There
are
oth er
un fo rtun ate
practical
m an ifestatio n s
which
may
arise
from
unsecure tenancies.
Tenan ts sh o h ave n o certain right to rem ain in p rem ises
beyo nd a short-term period seem less likely to be interested in m aintaining.86
F u rth e rm o re , w h ile P a rt I I o f th e L a n d lord a nd T ena nt A ct d oes p ro v id e p ro tectio n fo r
tenants from
retaliatory eviction (because of com plaints to any governm ental
a u th o r ity th a t th e la n d lo r d is in v io la tio n o f h e a lt h a n d s a f e t y s t a n d a r d s o r b e c a u s e
o f an attem p t to s e c u re o r e n fo rc e le g a l rig h ts ),87 te n a n ts m a y b e le s s lik e ly to
attempt to
enforce their legal rights as
long
as
they
are
not granted a
co m p reh en sive righ t o f secu rity.
R etaliato ry ev ictio n m ay be p articu larly d ifficu lt
to prove wh e re it is o p en to a lan dlo rd to term in ate a te n an c y fo r an y o th er reason
whatever.
The
la n d lo rd
an d
the tenant's point of view only.
te n a n t
r e la t io n s h ip
s h o u ld
n o t,
however,
be
assessed
fro m
L an d lo rd s,
an d
th eir
spokesm en,
have
advan ced
a
num ber
of
reasons
why
th e y f ee l in c r e a s ed te n a n t s e c u r ity is n o t d e sira b le .
W e w e re to ld , firs t, th a t u n d e r
e x istin g re n tal p ra c tice s un justified term inatio n s d o no t o cc u r bec au se it is n o t in
t h e la n d lo r d 's b e s t in t e r e s t to t e r m i n a t e a te n a n c y w i t h o u t a v e r y g o o d r e a s o n f o r
doing so. one landlord; in his brief, put it as follows:
No landlord behaves irresponsibly in evicting tenants.
It is not to his
advantage to do so. Rehabilitating the premises for a new tenant usually costs
the equivalent of a month's rent, and may also involve a loss of revenue in thp
process.
T h e p r i m e r e aso n f o r e vi c t i n g a t e n an t i s t h a t h e i s maki n g life
miserable for other tenants in the building.
It may be that his life style is
i nc om p at ib le w it h t h at o f t he o t he r t en a nt s .
It is th e r es p on s ib il it y o f t he
landlord to insure the quiet enjoyment o f t he majority of his tenants.
It is
i mp er at iv e t ha t h e n o t b e r es t ri ct ed in p ro vidin g th e d es ir ed li vi ng c on d it io n s
for this majority.
T ho se sentim ents
our hearings.
were
repeated
in
a
larg e
number
of
briefs
and
presentation s
at
We
w ere
also
told
that if
a
landlord
were required
to
justify the term ination
of a tenancy the burden of proof w ould be an intolerable on e.
N um erous
landlords reported encountering situations where they were satisfied that the
prem ises w ere being used for prostitution, narcotics distribution, or other illegal
a c tiv itie s , b u t w o u ld b e u n ab le to p ro ve th o se allegatio n s if re q uire d to d o so in a
co u rt o f la w .
T h e a rg u m e n t is th a t s u c h b e h a v io u r w ill c a u s e th e g o o d ten an t to
move.
T h at w o u ld su p p o se d ly lea v e th e lan d lo rd h e lp le s s .
H e w ould be unable
to ad d u ce su ffic ie n t ev id e n ce to co n v in c e a co u rt th a t te rm in a tio n is ju stifie d ; b u t
th e ev ide n ce , an d in feren ce s to b e d ra w n th ere fro m w o u ld b e s u ff icien tly clear to
86.
R ose, op. cit. supra no. 83, says at p. 227:
"Tenants of p rivate and public landlords have little incentive
to preserve, pro tect an d m aintain the structu res that co n tain th eir units.
A s long as all increases in
v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r ty i n u r e to t h e b e n e f i t o f th e la n d l o r d , te n a n t s o f p r iv a t e a n d p u b l i c l a n d l o r d s a r e
unw illing C ontributors to the costs of repair.
T h e te n a n ts' a ttitu d e is re in fo rc e d b y th e re a liz atio n
that
their
interest
in
the
prem ises
m ay
be
term inated
by
the
summary
and
often
arbitrary
determ ination of the landlord ..."
87.
S. 61.
-8 3 -
induce the good tenant to move.
We
w e re
als o
to ld
th a t
the
good
tenant
does
not
n o r m a lly
w is h
to
"get
involved."
The tenant who has a complaint regarding the behaviour of his
n e i g h b o u r m a y b e w i l l i n g t o c o m p l a i n in f o r m a l l y t o t h e o w n e r o r m a n a g e r b u t h e
is seldom prepared to go any further. He would prefer
to m o v e rath er th an assist th e lan d lo rd by giv in g fo rm al ev id en ce c o n c ern in g th e
misbehaviour of his neighbour.88
A
further
theme,
w hich
runs
through
alm ost
all
subm issions
made
by
la n d lo r d s , is th e n o tio n th a t if th e la n d lo rd is r e q u ir e d to g iv e th e te n a n t r e a s o n s
fo r term in a tin g his ten an cy, an d th o se reaso n s co n tain defam ato ry allegatio n s, th e
landlord w ill expo se him self to the p o ssib ility of a defam ation action by that
tenant.89
In
th e
f in a l
a n a ly s is ,
h o w e v e r,
th e
a rg um e n ts
ag ain s t
te n a n t
s e cu r ity
p r es e n te d
b y lan d lo rd s ap p ear to allo w th e co nclusio n th at lan dlo rd s w o uld no t fin d th e
co n cep t un w orkable provided th at certain ev iden tiary rules are relaxed , that a
speedy and efficient m eans of dislod ging un desirable tenants is devised, and that
provision
is
made
for
the
granting
of
possession
to
landlords
in
special
circum stances, such as those where the landlord requires the prem ises for his
p e r s o n a l u s e , w h e r e t h e b u i l d i n g i s t o b e d e m o l i s h e d o r w h e r e it h a s b e e n s o l d ,
and so on.
W e recom m end a schem e to m eet these conditions elsew here in this
Report.90
A
sc h em e
of
ten an t
sec u rity
w h ich
is
ad m in istered
fairly
an d
place landlords under no real disadvantage.
It can be assum ed
ob jectives are eco n o m ic; that th ey w ish to gain p rofit from the
fro m ren ted d w ellin g s.
T h u s, it is n o t co n trary to th e ir in te re s t to
c o n t in u e th e t e n a n c y o f t e n a n t s w h o p a y t h e i r r e n t o n t im e , f u l f il
tenants, and are neither disorderly nor destructive.
We
have
co n clu ded
th at
th ere
institution
of tenant security, and
adm inistered
schem e, outweigh
the
objectives of such a scheme should be:
sp ee d ily
s h o u ld
that landlords'
rents collected
b e re q u ired to
th e i r d u t ie s a s
are
p o sitive
an d
needed
advan tages
in
th e
that the advantages will, in
a properly
disadvantages.
In
our
view, the
broad
88.
The
inform ation
w hich
we
have
co n cernin g
the
o p eratio n
of
both
the
M anitob a
and
S urrey schem es
o f te n a n t s e c u r ity d o e s n o t su p p o rt th is view .
U n d er n eith er sch em e d o e s it a p p ea r th a t la n d lo rd s
h av e d ifficu lty in p ersu ad in g ten an ts w h o c o m p la in to g ive ev id en ce ag ain st an o ffen d in g ten an t.
T a k in g in to a cco u n t th e lo w v aca n cy ra te in ren ted a c c o m m o d a tio n in th e P ro v in ce, it d o es n o t
seem
realistic to suggest tha t m o st ten an ts w o u ld rath er m o ve th an
give evidence in order to
preserve their peace of m ind.
89.
T h is
v ie w
se e m s
to
be
based
on
m isco n cep tio n
of
th e
law
of
d efam atio n .
F irst,
sta te m e n ts
a re n o t
d e f a m a t o r y if tr u e .
S e c o n d ly , a d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t is n o t a c t i o n a l i f m a d e o n l y t o t h e p e r s o n w h o
alleges that he has been d efam ed.
Thus, a landlord w ho gives notice to a tenant in allegedly
d e fa m a to ry te rm s d o e s n o t in cu r liab ility u n less th e n o tice is p u b lish ed to so m e o n e o th e r th a n th e
tenan t.
N either can there b e an action for defam ation w here the landlord m ak es his statem ent in
a Court of law.
In any event, it w as held in Toogood v. Spyring (1834) 1 C .M . & R . 181; 149 E.R . 1044, the
r ela tio n s h ip o f la n d l o rd a n d ten a n t ju stifies co m p la in t s b y o n e to t h e o th e r co n c e rn in g t h e c o n d u c t
o f o th er ten a n ts.
In o th er w o r d s , t h e r ela tio n s h ip is p r o te c te d b y q u alified p riv ileg e a n d an a ctio n
for defam atio n w ill lie only w here the statem ent is m ade m aliciously.
See generally Fleming, The L aw of T orts 455525.
90.
See infra and C hapter III supra.
91.
L. N eville Brown, “Com parative R ent C ontrol” (1970) 19 I.C .L.Q . 205, 290.
-8 4 -
(a)
to provide tenants with a right to
prohibiting unjustifiable terminations of tenancies;
rem ain
in
their
(b)
to
en su re
th at
th e
lan d lo rd
is
ab le
to
term in ate
tenants who do not comply with their obligations as tenants; and
(c)
to
ensure
that the
landlord
can
regain
in circumstances where it would be unfair not to do so.
possession
rented
th e
of
homes
by
te n an c ie s
of
rented
prem ises
We
have
also
co ncluded
that
a
schem e
of
tenant
security
m ay
be
introd uced
independently of a schem e of rent control, p rov ided that som e attem pt is m ade
to re g u la te t h e s itu a ti o n w h e r e a la n d lo r d u s e s t h e w e a p o n o f th e re n t in c re a s e in
o rd e r to d islo d g e a ten an t.
W e refer to th e q u es tio n o f re n t co n tro l late r in th is
C h ap ter, an d refrain fro m m ak in g a reco m m en d atio n on th e qu estio n .
At the
s a m e tim e , h o w e v e r, w e d o p r o p o s e a s c h e m e w h e re b y a te n a n t w h o f e e ls th a t h e
has been singled out fbr a rent increase in order to dislodge him m ay obtain
redress.
A
leading
E nglish
c o m m e n ta t o r
has
suggests that rents can b e freed w hile
and Professor Donnison has said that:92
in d i c a t e d
p reservin g
t h a t: 9 1
"C ontinen tal
experience
reasonable security of tenure;"
Insecurity is often an even worse problem than high rents, particularly for
e ld e r ly p e o p l e a nd fa m il ies w it h y oung c hi ldre n.
Too o ft en th is pr o bl em has
b ee n d ea lt w it h t hr o ug h r en t co n tr o l, r at h er t ha n b ein g treated as a s ep a ra te
issue.
The two are obviously related:
no one can be sure of retaining his home
if his rent can be suddenly and sharply raided.
But with some exceptions ...
every tenant ... whether protected by rent regulation or not, should be assured
that if he pays his rent and keeps to the usual rules he cannot be evicted from
his home unless the landlord provides a fair and adequate alternative.
In
th e
f o llo w in g
recommend for this Province.
E.
pages
we
o u t lin e
th e
sch em e
of
te n a n t
s e c u r it y
w h ic h w e
Recommendations
The
term ination
of
periodic
tenancies
is
now
governed
by
sections
52, 55, 56,
and 57 of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
The text of those provisions has been set out earlier
in th is C h ap te r.
S e c ti o n 5 2 s e ts o u t t h e m a n n e r o f te r m i n a ti o n a n d s e c t io n s 5 5 ,
56; and 57 set out the tim e lim its w ithin w hich a no tice to term inate m ust be given
to b e eff e c tiv e .
In o u r v ie w , th o s e p ro v isio n s sh o u ld , in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e a n d in
spmewhat modified form , continue to govern the term ination of periodic tenancies.
A n y sp e cial p ro visio n s relatin g to ten an t secu rity sh o uld beco m e relev an t
o n l y w h e n t h e l a n d l o r d 's r ig h t to g iv e a n o t ic e te rm in a tin g th e te n a n c y is d i s p u t e d
by the tenant.
Reference
has
been
made
to
m odifying
these
sections.
Most
of
the
m odifications w hich we propose are m ost appropriately dealt with in the context
of
particular
problems
arising
out
of
tenant
security;
however
one
such
modification can be conveniently discussed at this point.
92.
“The R egulation of H ouse R ents: Som e Background N otes” in Is There A C ase For R ent C ontrol? Op. cit. Supra, n. 34, at 10.
-8 5 -
It is
the
practice
in
the
cape of
month-to-m onth
tenancies
that
any given m onth be paid on the first day of that m onth.
W hen that
th e la n d lo rd 's rig h t to te rm in ate th e te n an cy is go vern ed b y sectio n
n o tice to term inate w h ich th e lan dlord serv es can on ly be effectiv e
t h e t e n a n c y a t t h e e n d o f t h e f o l lo w i n g m o n t h .
T h u s, th e l an d l o r d
perm it the tenant to fall into arrears for up to tw o m onths before he
to initiate proceedings for possession.
T his seem s unduly long
c o n s id e r ab le ju s tif ic a tio n f o r t h e c o m p la in t, b y l a n d lo r d s , t h a t s e c t io n
unfair burden on them when rent has not been paid.
It
is
instructive
to
note
the
rem edies
available
to
M anitoba
circum stan ces.
S u m m a r y p r o c e e d in g s a r e a v a ila b le fo r p o s s es s io n
rent. The relevant sections of The Landlord and Tenant Act93 provide:
77
93.
the
rent for
rent is unpaid
56 and any
to term inate
is o b l ig ed to
has any status
and there is
55 places an
landlords
in
these
on failure to p ay
(1)
If a tenant fails to pay his rent within three days of the time agreed on,
a n d wro n gful ly r efuses or ne gl ec ts up o n deman d made in writin g, t o pay
t h e r en t o r t o d eliver up th e p re mi se s demised, w hi c h de man d shall be
served upon the tenant or upon some grown-up person upon the
premises, or, if the premises are vacant, be affixed to the dwelling or other
building upon the premises or upon some portion of the fences thereon,
the landlord or his agent may file with the clerk of the County Court of
t h e C o u n t y C o u r t d is t r i c t i n w h i c h t h e p r e m i s e s a r e s i t u a t e d , o r p a r t l y
situated, an affidavit setting forth the terms o f t he demi se or occupancy,
the amount of rent in arrear and the time for which it is so in arrear,
p r od uc in g t h e d em a nd made f o r t h e p aymen t o f r en t o r delivery of the
possession, and stating the refusal of the tena nt to pay the rent or to
d el iv er up p os s es s io n, an d t h e an swe r o f t he t en ant , i f any an sw er was
made, and that the tenant has no right of set"off or reason for withholding
possession.
N . 61 supra.
-8 6 -
77
(2)
Upon the filing, the clerk shall cause to be issued from the court a
summons, in Form 3 in the Schedule, calling upon the tenant, at the time
and place appointed in the summons, to show cause why an order should
not be made for delivering up possession of the premises to the landlord;
and the summons shall be served in the same manner as the demand and
at least three days before the day so appointed.
77
(3)
Upon the return of the summons, the judge of the court or, in his
absence from the place of return of summons, a magistrate, shall hear the
evidence adduced upon oath, and make such order, either to confirm the
t en a nt in p os s es s io n or to deliver up p ossessio n to th e lan dlo rd, as the
facts of the case may warrant; and the order may be in Form 4 in the
Schedule.
Som e asp ects of those provisions are attractive, such as th e requirem en t that a
w ritten d em an d fo r paym en t be m ad e b y th e lan d lo rd .
T h at w o u ld preserv e th e
t e n a n t 's r i g h t s w h e r e , f o r e x a m p l e , a c h e q u e m a i l e d t o t h e l a n d l o r d h a d b e e n l o s t
or becom e m isdirected.
O n the other hand, the em ph asis w hich the M anitoba A ct puts
on speed may work a hardship on tenants in some cases.
W e have concluded
that when
an
instalm ent of rent is not paid
the
landlord
sh o uld d e liv er a w ritte n d em an d a fte r w h ic h th e te n an t w o uld hav e a p erio d o f
grace of, say, five days in which to m ake paym ent.
If, after the period of grace has
e x p i r e d , t h e r e n t r e m a i n s u n p a i d t h e l an d l o r d sh o ul d b e f re e t o d e l i ve r a n o t ice to
the tenant w h ich is effective to term inate the tenancy at the end of the rental
period
relating
to
the
arrears.
Under
the
existing
legislation
and
under
recom m en dations m ade elsew here in th is R ep o rt the lan dlord w ould continue to
h ave th e pow er to require th at th e ten an t pro vid e security fo r th e last m o n th 's
re n t .
T h e la n d lo rd w h o re qu ire s su ch s e cu rity w ill b e p ro te cte d a n d n o a rre ars ca n
ac cru e b efo re th e lan dlo rd has status to ap p ly fo r p o ss es sio n .
This seem s to
provide an equitable balance of the interests of all parties.
The
ten an t
security
sch em e
w h ich
we
p ro p o se
is
co m p arab le
to
th at
curren tly
o p e ra tin g in th e D istric t o f S u rre y .
It is o u r o p in io n th a t e x istin g te n a n c ie s sh o u ld
no t be d isturbed un less the landlord can dem on strate that specified circum stances
exist.
W h e n a te n an t re c e iv e s a n o tice fro m h is lan d lo rd term in atin g a p e rio d ic
t e n a n c y , t h a t n o ti c e s h o u l d , a t t h e o p ti o n o f t h e t e n a n t , b e s u b j e c t t o r e v ie w b y
s o m e p e r s o n o r a u t h o r ity w h o s h o ul d h av e t h e p o w e r to se t asid e t h e n o t ic e unless
circum stances exist w hich "justify" it.
T h is review fun ctio n is one w hich w e
p r o p o s e s h o u ld b e c a r r ie d o u t b y t h e r e n t a ls m a n .
T h i s p r o c e d u re w ill b e d is c u s se d
in more specific terms below.
The
circu m stan ces
w h ich
in
o ur
periodic tenancy by a landlord are the following:
op in io n
served
in
w ould
(a)
The
n o tice
was
relating to unpaid rent;
(b)
The
tenant
has
failed
occupancy of the premises;
(c)
The
conduct
by him , is
disturbed;
(d)
O ccupancy
by
the
tenant
has
premises beyond reasonable wear and tear;
to
of
th e
te n an t,
such that the
-8 7 -
ju stify
acco rdan ce
obey
any
th e
with
court
term in atio n
our
order
or
p e r so n s
p e r m itte d
quiet enjoym ent of
resu lted
in
of
th e
recam m endation
related
to
h is
on
th e
p rem ises
other tenants is
deterioration
of
the
(e)
The
landlord
bona
or his immediate family;
fide
requires
(f)
The premises are in a building which is to be demolished;
(g)
The
tenant has
failed
to
m ake
an
agreed
statutory
rentalsman within 30 days of the commencement of the tenancy;
deposit
(h)
The
tenant
has
potential buyer or tenant;
prem ises
(i)
The
tenancy
was
for
an
"off
season"
perio d
otherw ise used as a hotel or for recreational
tenant was aware of the fact at the time the tenancy commenced;
(j)
The
prem ises
are
p erm an en tly
occup ied
m inors than is perm itted by an express
agreement;
(k)
The
s afe ty,
or
an y
o th er
leg itim ate
in tere st
of
o r o f th e la n d lo r d is s e r i o u s l y im p a ir e d b y a n y
the tenant or persons permitted on the premises by him.
deliberately
the
prem ises
for
m isrepresented
occupancy
the
by
only,
of
purposes,
by
agreater
lim itation in
him self
with
to
the
a
prem ises
and the
number
of
the tenancy
n eig h b o u rin g
ten an ts
a c t o r o m is s io n o f
T his list represents the attem pt of this C o m m issio n to strike an eq uitable balance
b etw een th e in terests o f th e ten an t, the landlord, and neighb ou ring tepan ts.
In
so m e cases o u r re aso n f o r in c lu d in g a " circ um stan c e" in th at list is self-ev id en t
but, with respect to others, specific comment is called for.
It
has
been
s u g ge s t e d
to
us
t h at
a
b re ac h ,
by
th e
te n an t,
of
a
ten an cy
a g re e m e n t s h o u l d p r o v id e ju s t c a u s e f o r a t e r m i n a t io n o f th e t e n a n c y .
W h e r e th a t
breach inv olves behaviour which w ould ordinarily justify term ination this creates
little difficulty; but w here th e breach is of a co v en an t w h ich is o utsid e o f o r
b e y o n d t h e A c t , 9 4 t h i s s u g g e s t i o n w o u l d o p e n th e d o o r to te r m i n a t i o n f o r r e l a t i v e l y
triv ia l in f ra c tio n s . o n th e o th e r h an d , it can b e arg ue d th a t th e lan d lo rd h a s a
legitim ate in terest in en fo rcing th e reaso n ab le term s of a ten an cy agreem en t w ith
t h e u lt im a te s a n c t io n o f th e t e r m in a t io n o f th e te n a n c y .
I te m (b ) is o u r r e s p o n s e
to th at in terest.
I n o u r v i e w , t h e p r o p e r c o u r s e f o r a l a n d lo r d to f o l l o w u p o n
b r e a c h o f t h e t e n a n c y a g r e e m e n t is to m a k e a n a p p l i c a t io n to S m a l l C l a i m s C o u r t
fo r an o rd er, u n der th e p ro visio n co m p arab le to sectio n 60 B , p ro hib itin g th e
tenant from con travening the p rov ision s of the A ct or the term s of the tenancy
agreem ent or ordering him to perform and carry out those obligations.
If the
tenant then disobeys the order, termination would be justified.
C ircum stan ce
(g)
is
designed
to
relate
to
the
sch em e
w hich
we
p ropose
w ith
re sp ect to secu rity dep osits.
E lse w h e re in th is R e p o rt95 w e re c o m m e n d th a t all
perm issible security deposits be held b y the rentalsm an.
Circum stances m ay arise
w h e re it is im p o s sib le to d ep o s it th e ag re ed se cu r ity d e p o s it w ith th e r en t als m a n
94.
See C hapter VI.
95.
See C hapter V .
96.
R .S.B.C. 1960, c. 195.
-8 8 -
a t o r b e fo r e th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th e t e n a n c y ,
an early date.
T h e failure of th e ten an t to
justify termination by the landlord.
b u t th e te n a n t a g re e s to d o
perform such an undertaking
so at
should
C irc u m s ta n ce
(i)
relates
to
p rem ises
w h ich
fu n ctio n
as
re s id en tia l
p re m is e s
fo r
o n ly p a rt o f th e ca le n d a r y e a r.
S o m e m o te ls , f o r e x a m p le , le t a n u m b e r o f th e ir
un its on a tenancy basis during the w inter m onths and pu rsuant to the Innkeepers A ct 96
during the sum m er m onths.
Sim ilarly, a sum m er cabin used by the owner or
r e n te d f o r r e c r e a t io n a l p u r p o s e s d u r in g th e s u m m e r , m a y b e r e n te d to a t e n a n t f o r
residential purposes in the winter.
Circum stance
(j) has
been
included
only
after
m uch
deliberation.
It
relates
to
th e situ atio n w h e re th e re is an in crease in th e n um b er o f ch ild ren w h o o ccu py
rented prem ises.
This m ight occur through birth, adoption, or a change in
custody.
I n C h a p t e r X o f t h i s R e p o r t w e c o n s id e r o n a m o r e g e n e r a l l e v e l th e
difficulties associated w ith the in troduction o f child ren in to a b uild in g w hich is
"adult oriented" and conclude that landlords should not be forced to accept
fam ilies w ith ch ild ren as ten an ts.
It th erefore seem s reasonab le that the lan d lord
sho uld b e perm itted to p reserve the character of the building b y term inating a
t e n a n c y w h i c h i s in c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a t c h a r a c te r .
In p ractice th is see m in gly harsh
ground of termination will be mitigated in the following ways:
(a)
T enants
contem plating
an
addition
to
the
fam ily
n o tic e th a t th eir sec u rity w ill b e in jeo p ard y an d
opportunity to seek alternative accommodation;
(b)
Most such tenants will wish to seek larger premises.
w ill
have am ple
w ill h av e am p le
C ircum stance
(k)
is
a
"c atch -all"
p rov isio n
d esigne d
to
cop e
w ith
o ther
types
of tenant m isbehaviour not specifically enum erated.
For exam ple; in such
sch em es it is n o t u n co m m o n to sp ecify th at term in atio n is justified w h ere th e
t e n a n t i s u t i l i z i n g th e p r e m i s e s f o r i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y . 9 7 I n o u r v i e w , s u c h a p r o v i s i o n
is to o w id e an d m ay en co m p a ss b e h av io u r to tally u nrelated to th e ten an cy.
Thd
crim in al law p ro vid es p en alties fo r u n law fu l co nduct and there is little to be said
for adding the p otential pen alty of dispossession, particularly w hen the original
o f f e n c e m a y b b o n d p u n i s h a b l e b y a sm al l f i n e .
W h e re t h e o f f e n c e is r e l at ed to
t h e te n a n t 's o c c u p a n c y o f t h e p r e m i s e s , t o t h e e x t e n t th a t it d o e s n o t v io la t e th e
p ro h ib ition ag ain st disturb in g th e quiet en jo ym en t o f o ther tenan ts, it w o uld, if
serious, normally fall within heading (k).
C irc u m s ta n ce s
(e )
an d
(f)
p ro v id e
for
te rm in a tio n
in
s itu atio n s
w h e re
no
H
f a u l t " c a n b e a s c rib e d to t h e t e n a n t .
I n a l l c a s e s i n v o l v i n g d e m o lit io n , a n d m o s t
ca se s w h ere th e lan d lo rd req u ires th e p rem ises fo r h is ow n use, th e ne cessity to
g ive nonc e w ill b e fo re se eab le b y th e lan dlo r d w e ll in adv an c e o f th e tim e at w hich
it m u s t a c tu a lly b e g iv e n .
W e h a v e th e re fo re co n clu d ed th at, in th o s e c a s e s , it is
no t unreasonab le to require th at th e lan d lo rd give the ten an t tw o m o n th s' n o tice.
It
is
im p licit
in
ascertaining w hat the
tenancy.
It has been
97.
our
sc h em e
th at
landlord's reason s
s u g g e ste d th a t th e
th e
te n an t
sh o u ld
have
so m e
means
of
are w hen he purports to term inate a
re as o n s s h o u ld b e in c lu d e d in t h e n o t ic e .
See Surrey B y-law 3129, Schedule A , clause 1 (d).
-8 9 -
In o u r v ie w , to p ro v id e s u c h re a s o n s in th e firs t in s ta n c e m ig h t lea d to u n d e s ira b le
confrontations which would otherw ise be avoided if this were handled in a
d ifferen t fash io n .
W e h av e co n clu ded th a t w h e re a lan d lo rd deliv ers a n o tice o f
term in atio n th e ten an t sh o uld hav e th e righ t to dem an d w ritten reaso n s fo r th e
term in atio n alo n g w ith p articulars of an y alleged acts o r o m issio n s o f th e ten an t
which
might justify term ination.
Those reasons and
particulars
should
be
delivered by the landlord w ithin 48 ho urs of that dem and.
M o re o v er, a ll n o tic e s
b y lan d lo rd s p urp o rtin g to term in ate a p erio o ic ten an cy sh o uld clearly in fo rm th e
tenant that he has a right to dem and reasons and particulars and that he has a right
to ap p ly to th e ren talsm an fo r a rev iew of th a t n o tic e.
T h e te n an t sh o u ld also b e
m ade aw are of the ap plicable tim e lim its.
W e favour the developm ent of a
s ta tu to ry fo rm o f la n d lo rd 's n o tic e , p erh a p s to b e in clu d e d as a sc h ed u le to th e
proposed
Act, which
clearly
sets
out
the
inform ation
which
ought to
be
communicated to the tenant concerning his rights on termination.
N um ero us
la n d lo r d s
have
urged
t h at
the
l aw
sh o u l d
be
m o re
r e sp o n si v e
to
excep tio n al cases o f ten an t m isb eh av io ur an d pro vide so m e m ech an ism fo r th e
speedy term ination of tenan cies w h ere w arran ted.
W e are told that the n orm al
o n e-m o n th no tice perio d do es no t strike an eq uitab le balan ce betw een the righ ts
and interests of the tdnant and those of the lan dlord an d neighbourin g tenants in
such cases. One landlord put it this way:
[An aim of legislation should be] to provide for immddiate possession from
a real troublemaker to prevent him or her from using the law as a shield for
poor citizenship and lack of responsibility to others.
T h e r e is n o r e a l q u a r r e l b e t w e e n
submitted by a tenants' group stated:
lan dlo rds
and
tenants
on
this
po in t.
One
b r ie f
We also believe that if our proposed amendment [on tenant security] were
enacted then in cases of particularly flagrant anti-godial behaviour, ... [a tribunal]
... should have the right to order immediate evictions, that is, the power to waive the
normal one rental period notice.98
We
have
concluded
that
a
speedy
t e rm i n a t i o n
p ro c e d u re
should
be
av a ilab le
to the landlord in these exception al cases.
A dequate safeguards to the tenant can
b e b uilt in b y allo w in g su ch te rm in a tin g o n ly w ith th e co n sen t o f th e ren talsm an .
Upon
a landlord's application
for speedy term ination, the rentalsman
would
conduct such hearing or investigation as he thinks necessapy and should be
e m p o w e re d to giv e h is co n s en t up o n su ch te rm s an d c o n d itio n s as circ u m s ta n c e s
m ay require.
H e sh o u ld a lso b e g iv en th e p o w e r to s p ec ify h o w s p ee dy th e
term ination will be.
A s a sp eed y term in atio n in vo lv es a d eterm in atio n of th e
m erits by the rentalsm an it seem s reasonable that no further review of a no tice,
given with the rentalsman's consent, should be available.
It
is
im pe rative
that
all
d isp utes
co n cern in g
the
justification
for
giving
n otice
sh o uld be d ete rm in e d b e fo re th e p u rp o rte d term in atio n date.
W h ile w e exp ect th e
ren ta lsm an 's a d ju d icatio n o f s u c h d isp u te s to b e s w ift, it w o u ld b e u n rea listic to
expect that the schem e should function without well defined tim e lim its for
review .
W e have co ncluded that it w ou ld n ot be un fair to require that tenants,
w h o w is h to re q u e s t a re v ie w o f a n o tic e o f te rm in a tio n , ta k e a f f irm a tiv e s te p s n o
le s s t h a n 1 5 d a y s b e fo r e t h e e ff e c t i v e t e rm i n at i o n da t e .
T h i s s h o u l d p ro v i d e s u ff i-
98.
E m phasis in brief.
-9 0 -
cient time for all concerned.
T hat
tim e
lim it
m ay,
out of the following situation:
h o w ev er,
lead
to
p ossib le
an om alies
January
1 - tenant fails to pay rent for the month of January.
January
4 - landlord delivers a written demand for payment.
January
6 - tenant pays rent for January to landlord.
January
20
January 31.
-
lan d lo rd
delivers
no tice
term in atin g
such
the
as
th at
tenancy
arising
as
of
Landlord gives as his reason nonpayment of rent.
The
proposed
15-day
deadline
w ould
prevent
the
tenant
from
h av in g
the
n o t i c e re v ie w e d in s u c h a ca s e if th e l a n d lo r d r e m a i n e d a d a m a n t t h a t h e h a d n o t
been paid.
S o m e m i s t a k e m i g h t w e l l o c c u r w h ic h le a d s th e la n d lo r d t o a s i n c e r e
b elief th at h e h as n o t b een p a id .
I t s eem s un fa ir to lim it th e righ t o f rev iew in
such cases.
W e have concluded that som e flexib ility is jus tified w h ere a no tice
p u rp o rtin g to res t o n n o n p a y m e n t o f re n t is d eliv e re d la te in th e m o n th a n d w o u ld
give the rentalsman power to extend the time limit in such cases.
A
fu rth er
an o m aly
w o u ld
occur
w ith
resp ect
to
w eekly
ten an cies.
As
section
55 is presently w orded, a no tice given on day seven of one week is effective on day
sev en o f th e fo llo w in g w e ek .
A 1 5 -d ay tim e lim it w o u ld in variab ly b ar relief to th e
week-to-week tenant whose tenancy has been unjustifiably terminated.
Most
week-to-week
occupancies
are
licences
and
the
number
of
true
w eek -to -w eek resid en tial ten an cies is very sm all.
In m any cases where such a
ten an cy is created it is p u t o n a w ee k -to -w ee k b as is, as o p p o se d to a m o n th -to -m o n th b asis, no t fo r th e flexib ility w h ich "sh o rt no tice" giv es th e p artie s, b u t
to relate the frequency of rental paym ents to the period of som e recurring
circum stance collateral to the tenancy agreem ent.
For exam ple, the tenant who
is paid by th e w eek m ay w ish to h av e h is ren tal p aym en ts co in cide w ith th e in co m e
which
h e receiv es an d h as en tered in to
a weekly tenancy as a m atter of
convenience.
B earing
these
considerations
in
m ind,
we
have
concluded
that
the
n otice
p erio d w ith resp ect to w e ekly ten an cies co uld be len gth en ed w ith o ut d istu rb in g
existing rental patterns significantly.
Section 55(1) sho uld, therefore, be am end ed
to provide that four weeks' notice is necessary to terminate a weekly tenancy.
W hile
most
tenancies
in
B ritish
Colum bia
are
on
a
m on th-to-m on th
b a s is ,
there is a significantly large num ber of tenancies for a term to w arrant our
atten tio n .
U n d er th e existin g law , w h en a ten an cy fo r a term exp ires th e ten an t
loses his right to occupy the prem ises un less a ren ew al can b e n ego tiated o r is
p r o v i d e d f o r in t h e te n a n c y a g re e m e n t it s e l f.
W e f e e l th a t th e r e s h o u ld b e , a d d e d
t o a n y c o n t r a c t u a l r ig h t s w h i c h a t e n an t o r a t e r m m a y h a v e , a s t a t u t o r y r i g h t to
renew .
W e would be loathe to see the tenant for a term placed in a worse position
than the periodic tenant with security of tenure.
W hat
provisions
form
should
the
statu to ry
right
relating to the rights of renew al
-9 1 -
of
renewal
take?
have been set out
The
M an ito b a
earlier in this
C h a p te r.
T h e te n a n t f o r a te rm is g iv e n a n au to m a tic rig h t to re n e w th e te n a n c y
a r g u m e n t s o l o n g a s h e is n o t i n d e f a u lt a n d t h e l a n d lo r d d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e
p r e m is e s f o r h is o n u s .
T h a t r e n e w a l p ro c e d u r e is c ir c u m s c r ib e d b y a n u m b e r o f
n o t ic e r e q u i r e m e n ts if th e te r m is tw e lv e m o n th s o r m o r e .
T h e te n a n t w i s h i n g t o
t e r m i n a t e t h e t e n a n c y o n i t s e x p i r y d a t e m u s t g iv e t h e l a n d l o r d t o m o n t h s ' n o t i c e
an d th e lan d lo rd is re q uire d to giv e th ree m o n th s' n o tic e ad v isin g th e te n an t h e
m u s t g i v e t w o m o n t h s ' n o t i c e t o t e r m i n a t e th e t e n a n c y .
This seem s unnecessarily
cum bersom e.
M oreover, w e question the desirability o f requ irin g that the renew al
be for the same term as the existing tenancy.
In
our
view
the
statutory
renew al
should
be
on
a
m on th-to-m on th
b a s is .
T hat w ould leave th e relatio nship of the parties on a slightly m ore flexible basis
th an if it w e re ren ew ed fo r th e f u ll te rm .
I t s ee m a p p ro p ria te th at th e ten an t b e
r e q u i r e d t o g i v e th e l a n d l o r d a m o n t h 's n o tic e if h e in t e n d s to l e a v e t h e p r e m is e s
at th e en d o f th e term b ut ap art fro m th at n o tice req uirem en t ren ew al o n th e
statu to ry b asis sh o u ld b e au to m atic u n le ss th e p artie s b e h av e in c o n siste ntly.
One
f o r m o f in c o n s is te n t b e h a v io u r m ig h t b e th e r e n e w a l o f th e t e n a n c y f o r a s p e c if ie d
term , eith er under a renew al pro vision of th e tenancy agreem ent, or independently
of the agreement.
One
form
of
"inconsistent
behaviour"
should
be
sp ec ifica lly
provided
for.
W he re, u p o n the exp iratio n o f a ten an cy fo r a term , circum stances exist w hich
w ould justify the term ination o f a p erio dic tenancy th e landlord should be able to
bring proceedings for possession.
This exception should, how ever, be subject to
a re q u ire m e n t th at a la n d lo rd w h o fe lt h e w as en titled to p o ss e s s io n at th e en d o f
th e te rm , s e rv e o n th e te n an t a w ritte n n o tic e s e ttin g o u t h is refu sal to ren ew a n d
the grou nd s therefor at least on e m on th b efore the end of the term .
Such a no tice
would be reviewable.
A tenancy agrdement for a term is likely to be in writing and may contain a
n u m b e r o f te rm s re latin g to th e u se o f th e p re m is e s.
It s ee m s d e s ira b le th a t s u c h
t e r m s s h o u l d b e p r e s e r v e d i n t h e r e n e w e d t e n a n t ly .
I t a l s o s e e m s r e a s o n a b l e th a t
if the tenant had been in p ossession for a year or m ore and the rent had not been
i n c r e a s e d in t h e y e a r p r i o r t o t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e t e r m , t h e l a n d lo r d s h o u l d b e
p e r m it t e d t o in c re a s e t h e r e n t a t t h e t i m e o f th e r e n e w a l, s o l o n g a s t h e n o t ic e
requirements relating to rental increases were observed.
We
have
proposed,
in
th is
C h ap te r,
w hat
we
b elie v e
to
be
a
r e a s o n a b le
sch em e o f te n an t secu rity.
The apparent success of a sim ilar schem e currently
o p e r a t i n g i n S u r r e y ju s t i f i e s s o m e o p t i m i s m o n o u r p a r t t h a t t h e e x p a n d e d v e r s i o n
w h ich w e reco m m en d w o uld , if im p lem en ted , b e ac cep tab le to all co n cern ed .
For
convenience, our
recom m endation s are sum m arized
below.
Except as noted
b elo w th o se reco m m en d atio n s rep resen t th e un an im o us view s of th e C o m m issio n .
O n e reserv atio n w as exp re ssed b y a m em b er o f the C o m m issio n w ith resp ect to
th e g ro u n d s u p o n w h ic h th e te rm in a tio n o f a te n an c y is "ju s tif ie d ." P e te r F r as e r
is opposed to the in clusio n o f a "catch all" ground such as that set out in
recom m endation 2(k) below .
The other recom m endation s m ade in this Ch apter
have his support.
1.
Subject to the following recommendations, sections 52, 553 56, and 5 should continue to govern the termination of periodic tenancies but with these modifications:
(a)
Section 55(1) should be amended to provide that four weeks' notice is necessary to terminate a weekly tenancy;
-9 2 -
and a notice to terminate a weekly tenancy should be given on or before the last day of one week of the tenancy
to be effective on the last day of the week four weeks hence.
(b)
Where a landlord purports to terminate a periodic tenancy, the period of which is less than two months for any
of the following reasons:
(i)
(ii)
The landlord bona fide requires the premises for occupancy by himself or his immediate family,
he shall give the tenant no less than two months' notice.
©
(d)
2.
If a tenant fails to pay his rent within three days of the time agreed on the landlord may make a written demand
for payment; and if the tenant fails to pay the rent within five days of that demand the landlord may:
(i)
serve a notice on the tenant terminating the tenancy, effective the last day of the rental period for which
the rent is unpaid; and
(ii)
apply to the rentalsman for all or part of such statutory rent deposit, as may have been made by the
tenant.
Where the conduct of a tenant is such that a landlord would be justified in terminating a periodic tenancy and
the quiet enjoyment or safety of neighbouring tenants is impaired to the extent that it would be inequitable to
them to permit such conduct to continue, or the tenant is causing extraordinary damage, a landlord may with
the consent of the rentalsman and after such investigation or hearing and upon such terms and conditions as the
rentatsman thinks proper, terminate the tenancy upon such shorter notice, in prescribed form, as the rentalsman
may allow; and that notice should not be subject to further review by the rentalsman.
When a tenant receives a notice from his landlord terminating his periodic tenancy, thdt notice be subject to review by the
rentalsman who shall set aside the notice unless one or more of the following circumstances applies:
(a)
The notice was served in accordance with the foregoing recommendation for unpaid rent;
(b)
The tenant has failed to obey any court order related to his occupancy of the premises;
(c)
The conduct of the tenant, or persons permitted on the premises by him is such that the quiet enjoyment of other
tenants is disturbed;
(d)
Occupancy by the tenant has resulted in deterioration of the premises beyond reasonable wear and tear;
(e)
The landlord bona fide requires the premises for occupancy by himself or his immediate family;
(f)
(g)
The tenant has failed to make an agreed statutory deposit with the rentalsman within 30 days of the
commencement of the tenancy;
(h)
The tenant has deliberately misrepresented the premises to a potential buyer or tenant;
(i)
The tenancy was for an "off season" period only, of premises otherwise used as a hotel or for recreational
purposes; and the tenant was aware of that fact at the time the tenancy commenced;
(i)
The premises are permanently occupied by a greater number of minors than is permitted by an express limitation
in the tenancy agreement.
-9 3 -
(k)
The safety, or any other legitimate interest of neighbouring tenants or of the landlord is seriously impaired by any
act or omission of the tenant or persons permitted on the premises by him.
3.
When a landlord delivers to a tenant a notice terminating a tenancy, the landlord shall, upon the request of the tenant
and no later than 48 hours after such request is made, deliver to the tenant, in writing, his reasons for termination along
with particulars of any alleged acts or omissions of the tenant.
4.
The notice referred to in the previous recommendation should be in a prescribed form clearly setting out:
(a)
the right of the tenant to written reasons and particulars for the termination; and
(b)
the right of the tenant to apply to the rentalsman for review of the notice and the time limit governing that
application.
5.
A request to the rentalsman to review a notice terminating a tenancy should be made no later than 15 days before the
date upon which the notice purports to terminate the tenancy, except where there is a bona fide dispute as to whether the
tenant has allowed rent to fall into arrears, in which case the rentalsman may extend the time within which the tenant
may request such review.
6.
Upon the expiration of a tenancy agreement for a term, the parties shall be deemed to have renewed the agreement on the
same terms and conditions, but as a tenancy from month-to-month, except where
(a)
circumstances exist which would justify the termination of a periodic tenancy and the landlord has delivered to
the tenant a written notice setting out his refusal to renew and the grounds therefor no less than one month before
the end of the term;
(b)
the tenant has delivered to the landlord, no less than one month before the end of the term, a written notice of his
intention to vacate the premises at the end of the term;
(c)
the parties have negotiated a new tenancy agreement.
7.
A notice delivered by a landlord pursuant to the foregoing recommendation should be subject to review by the rentalsman
in the sade manner as if it had purported to terminate a periodic tenancy.
8.
Where a tenancy for a term is deemed to be renewed as a month-to-month tenancy, and a rental increase would have been
permissible had the original tenancy been from month-to-month, the landlord may require that the rent payable for the
new tenancy be at a higher rate but subsections (2), (3), and (4) of section 51 should apply to such increases.
-9 4 -
Part II - Rent Control
The question of controls on rents did not, as such, form part of our study and
v e r y f e w p e o p l e w h o m a d e s u b m i s s i o n s to us urg e d th e i m p o si t io n o f r e n t c o n tro l.
A num ber of landlords and landlords' groups, how ever, raised the m atter w ith us
in o rder to speak against it.
O ne tenants' grou p w as careful to p oint ou t that they
w ere n o t in fav ou r o f ren t co n tro l in th e trad itio n a l s en se b ut ad vo cated th e
collective bargaining process betw een
tenants and landlords as a m eans of
influencing landlords in the rent-setting exercise.
In
one
brief,
rent
con trol
w as
advo cated,
and
the
follow ing
sub m ission
m ade.
A Bureau of Rent Registry should be established under city jurisdiction to set
a uniform fair rental practice.
The Bureau [should] maintain a list of suites and rent
c ha r g e d a gai ns t s ui te s.
To fac il it at e t h e r e g i st r y o f sui t es t h ro ug h t h e Bure au, all
r e v e n u e h o u se s an d a p ar tm en t b lo ck s [s h ou ld ] h a ve a l i c en c e t o o p e r a t e , a n d s u ch
licensing [ought to] be done through the Bureau.
Consequently, the job of keeping
statistics, issuing licences and enforcing appropriate standards of maintenance of
suites (should] be greatly facilitated.
T h e Bu re au [ s ho ul d] es tab li sh a maximum re nt -f ee sch edul e.
The schedule
[ s h o u l d ] b e b a s e d o n m o r t g ag e co m p a n i e s ' p o l i c y o f c o m p ut i n g r ev e n u e b y a d d i n g
10% to the landlord's monthly mortgage payment plus property tax per monthly
assessment.
I n c on structin g
account [whet he r t he
are provided, etc.] ...
th e ren t-fee sch edule, th e
s uit e is fur ni sh ed, wh eth er
Bure au [sho ul d] furt h er take into
facilities are shared, what amenities
Tenants [should] have the right to consult the Bureau to find if their rent is
above the maximum ... Landlords [should be able to] raise rents by 10% per annum,
but ren ts [co uld] b e r ai se d o ve r 10% t o a maxi mum o f 25% o n ly upo n pro of of
improvements to the suite ....
Any increase in tax (should) be passed on to tenants.
In
its
1968
Report
th e
O n t a r io
Law
Reform
there are a number of differently conceived rent control schemes.99
C o m m is s i o n
p o in t e d
out
th a t
First there is the method of changing the common law landlord and tenant
relationsh ip by conferring upon existing co urts the p ow er to assist ten an ts
threatened eith er w ith eviction or an "unreasonable" dem and for ren tal.
T his
w a s th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f v a r i o u s A m e r i c a n p l a n s d u r i n g W o r l d W a r I .
Second,
th ere is th e "ren t freeze" m eth od w hich w as em p lo yed in C an ad a d urin g
W o rld W a r II.
It is als o th e ch ara c te ristic o f th e legislatio n p ass e d u n d er th e
United States federal Emergency Price Control Act of 1942.
The third device is "fair lent"
legislatio n w h ich pro vides m ach inery for testing any queried rental as to
w h eth er it affo rds a "fair return" to the landlord.
An exam ple of this
approach is found in the Virginia Emergency Fair Rent Act of 1947, and to a degree in
99.
100.
In B ritain, the A ustralian States of Victoria and N ew South W ales, the State of M assachusetts,
and N ew Y ork C ity.
101.
See R ent R estrictions A ct, S.N . 1943, c. 45.
102.
Ibid., s. 1 (b) (i, ii).
103.
S.N . 1973, c. 54. The legislation w as proclaim ed on M ay 31/73.
-9 5 -
the United States federal legislation of 1949.
Passing
reference
has
ren t co n tro l in o peratio n
phenomenon in peace-time.
already
been
m ade
o u ts i d e C a n a d a .100
earlier
in
this
Chapter
W ith in C a n ad a it is
to
not
schem es
of
a comm on
During
W orld
W ar
II
the
Federal
Government
found
it
necessary
to
im plem ent a rent control schem e, accom pan ied
by security o f tenure.
A full
descriptio n o f th e schem e is set out in the C hap ter of this Repo rt in w hich w e discuss the R ent C ontrol A ct now in force in B ritish C olum bia.
T he provinces carried on
th e sc h em e s fo r so m e tim e afte r th e fe d era l g o v e rn m e n t w ith d r e w in 1 9 5 1 .
B y th e
late 1950's, how ever, all provincial schem es had b een term inated except for tho se
in Newfoundland and Quebec.
From
1943
until
1972,
legislation
e x iste d
in
N e w f o u n d la n d
w h ich
gave
th e
go vern m en t p o w er to ap p o in t ren t restrictio n s b o ard s in vario us parts o f th e
p r o v i n c e .101
The legislation m ade provision for a rent review procedure w hich
applied to all dw ellings except those w hich w ere rented furnished or which
included board.102
Recently a new Act - the Landlord and Tenant (Residential Tenancies) Act103 was
enacted to regulate residen tial prem ises in the P rov ince.
T he legislation provides
t h a t R e s i d e n t i a l T e n a n c y B o a r d s s h a l l h a v e t h e p o w e r , i n t e r a l i a , t o r e v ie w a t t h e
r e q u e s t o f a l a n d l o r d o r a t e n a n t t h e r e n t c h a rg e d f o r r e s i d e n t i a l p r e m i se s , an d to
approve or vary the rent.104
Q ue b ec
h as
retain ed
th e
o n ly
full-scale
ren t
co n tro l
sc h em e
in
C an ad a.
o p e rate s o n an "o p tin g -in " b a sis fo r ea c h m u n ic ip a lity (it is o p e rativ e in o v e r
m u n ic ip a litie s to d a y ) a n d p ro v id e s th a t te n an ts o r lan d lo rd s w h o fail to r e ac h
104.
It
70
an
Ibid., s. 20 (7). The subsection w as proclaim ed on M ay 31/73.
It is the function of a Board, and it shall have pow er,
105.
(a)
to
in v estig a te
and
r e v ie w
m atters
a ffe c tin g
landlords
dissem inate inform ation concerning rental practices and rem edies;
(b)
to
m ed iate
disp utes
betw e en
to landlords and tenants in disputes;
©
to
investigate
a lleg atio n s
of
v io la tio n s
statutory condition provided for by Section 7;
(d)
to
review
the
rent
charged
fo r
r e s i d e n t ia l
p rem ises
at
the
w ritten
landlord o r a tenant, d eterm ine w heth er th e rent be appro ved o r,
specified by the Board, varied; and
(e)
to
accept
rent
p ayab le
by
a
ten an t
an d
h o ld
th e
sam e
in
trust
pend ing perform ance
b y a la n d lo rd o r a n y a ct th e la n d lo rd is re q u ired b y law to p erfo rm , a n d an y
la n d lo r d o r te n a n t d e sir in g th a t t h e B o a r d s h a ll c a rr y o u t , w ith resp ect a n d an y
l a n d lo r d o r te n a n t d e s i r i n g th a t th e B o a r d s h a l l c a r r y o u t, w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i m , a n y
f u n c t i o n o r p o w e r r e f e r r e d t o i n t h i s s u b s e c t i o n m a y a p p ly t o t h e B o a r d i n w r i t i n g
r eq u e stin g th e ca rryin g o u t o f su ch fu n ctio n o f p o w e r an d th e B o a rd sh a ll p r o c e e d
w ith all convenient despatch to com ply w ith such request.
lan dlo rd s
A n A ct to Prom ote C onciliation Betw een Lessees and Property O w ner, 1951.
-9 6 -
and
of
ten an ts
the
and
and
p ro v isio n
te n a n ts
give
of
and
ad vice
th is
p ro v id e a n d
and direction
Act
and the
request
from a
of a
date
a g r e e m e n t o n a n e w r e n t o n t h e e x p i r y o f a l e a s e m a y a p p ly t o t h e l o c a l r e n t
ad m in istrato r f o r a n e w re n t to b e f ix ed .
U n le ss it is sp ecifically req uested b y th e
m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l , t h e le g i s l a t i o n 1 0 5 d o e s n o t a p p l y to d w e l l i n g s f o r w h i c h t h e r e n t
on D ecem ber 1, 1962 exceeded $215 a m onth in M on treal and $100 elsew here.
M unicipalities can, how ever, apply to have controls placed on all residential
p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h w e re b u ilt n o t la t e r th a n A p r il 3 0 , 1 9 6 8 a n d w h i c h r e n t f o r l e s s
than a specified amount.106
The
question
w hether
a system
of
rent
C o lu m b ia is n o t o n e w h ich th is C o m m issio n
ourselves in agreement with the position
Commission in 1968, stated as follows:107
co ntrol
should
be
instituted
in
B ritish
is c o m p e t e n t to d e c i d e , a n d w e f i n d
taken by the O ntario Law Reform
Rent is an important element in the cost of living but it is only one element.
A consideration of any system of rent control cannot be dissociated from
consideration of control over all those elements which go into the cost of
construction and maintenance of housing accommodation.
This includes the
cost of land, building supplies, wages, and the [sic] food and clothing for the
w age- ea rn er s a nd th ei r famil ie s, to ge t h e r w i t h mun i c i p al an d o t h e r t axe s.
The
wisdom of such controls is something that requires a wide economic study and
p o li cy d ec is io n s t ha t go far b ey on d t h e p o we rs of th is Co mmi ssio n as a law
reform body.
We
can,
nevertheless,
p o in t
to
suggestions
that
rent
control
should
in s titu te d o n ly w h e n n o o th e r c o u rs e o f a c tio n is a v a ilab le .
A n e x p re s s io n o f
view is to be found in the writing of Professor Donnison, who has stated that:108
be
th is
Governments should always seek other and more direct routes to their ends
before resorting to rent control.
Since the supply of housing in the inner city
is inelastic in the short run - i.e., unresponsive for awhile to changes in price and since tenants have more votes than landlords, it is always tempting votes
t h a n l a n dl or ds , i t is al wa ys te mp t in g t o im p o se r en t c on t ro ls as a t em p o ra r y
solution to an urgent problem.
T h ei r m o s t d e s t r u c t i v e e ff e c t s a p p e a r m u c h
later, and the longer controls continue, the harder it becomes to eliminate them,
for the good reason that the immediate effect of freezing rents will generally be
even worse.
An industry which has grown unprofitable, whether through price
controls or other reasons, does not shed its least efficient producers: it is the
most effective who go, leaving in their place the ineffective and the
unscrupulous.
Thus, governments should first consider what they can do
t h ro ugh s ub sid ies (e. g. , ren t allo wa n ces fo r priva t e as well as pub l i c t en a n t s ),
public provisions (e.g., by building or acquiring houses), giving security of
tenure, selective extension of opportunities for access to owner-occupied or
public housing (mortgages and loans for those who really need them) and
h i g h e r p r i o r i t y f o r u n m a r r i e d m o t h er s o r o t h e r g r o u p s e x c l u d e d b y h o u s i n g
managers in the public sector, and policies that may get higher incomes to the
target groups (e.g., through better job opportunities, subsidized public
transport, or larger family allowances and pensions).
106.
For
a
d eta iled
discussion
of
the
legislation,
see
A ud ain,
“Rent
R egulation :
S k e tch es
o f V a rio u s
Schem es” in Is T here a C ase for Rent Control? Background Papers and Proceedings of a Canadian Council on Social D evelopm ent Sem inar on R ent P olicy 31-33
(1973); see also O ntario Interim R eport 66-68.
107.
Ibid., at 69-70.
108.
See paper presented to the C anadian Council on Social D evelopm ent Sem inar, n. 8 supra, at 7.
-9 7 -
One
p o in t
rem ain s
to
be
m ad e.
We
h av e
reco m m en d ed
th at
a
sch em e
of
tenant security b e im p lem en ted in this Prov ince, and h ave stated ou r belief that
it can successfully be op erated w itho ut con com itan t co n trols o n ren t.
T h is belief
m u st, o f co urse, b e m o d ified by a reco gn itio n of th e fact th at th e secu rity o f
tenure which a tenant m ay enjoy m ay be put out of his reach by an increase in rent
w h ich h e is u n ab le to af fo rd .
A m o d el ten an t again st w h o m n o co m p lain t is lik ely
t o b e m a d e m a y b e d i s l o d g e d b y a r e n t al i n c r e as e m o r e e a si l y th an an u n d e s ira b le
tenant m ay be ev icted fo r cause.
O n the broad fron t this m ay be a problem w hich
c an b e so lv e d o n ly b y th e i n s titu tio n o f a su b s ta n tia l re n t co n tro l sy ste m .
W e do
n o t b e l i e v e o u r s e l v e s t o b e i n a p o s i t i o n to e x p r e s s a p r o p e r ly in f o r m e d v i e w o f
ren t co n tro l, b ut th is d oes n o t p rev en t us fro m reco m m en d in g th at lan d lo rd s b e
p ro h ib ited fro m im p osin g discrim in ato ry ren t in creases fo r th e so le purp ose o f
dislodging a tenant.
We
th in k
it
un fo rtun ately
po ssib le
th at
in
th e
face
of
a
sch em e
of
ten an t
s e c u r it y s o m e l a n d l o r d s m a y r e s o r t t o t h e w e a p o n o f t h e r e n t in c re as e i n o rd er to
b e rid o f ten an ts w h o m igh t oth erw ise qu alify to sta y .
In su ch in sta n ce s w e th in k
t h e te n a n t s h o u ld h av e th e rig h t to a p p ly to th e re n ta ls m a n f o r a r u lin g th a t th e
rent increase is ineffective.
Because
this
recom m endation
in trudes
on
the
area
of
rent
control
we
em p h asize th e fact th at th e ren talsm an 's task o ugh t to b e n o t to determ in e
w heth er o r not the rent increase w as exorbitan t or justifiab le, but rather to
d e te rm in e w h e th e r it w as im p o s ed o n a d isc rim in a to r y b a s is in o rd e r to d is lo d g e
the tenant.
So that tenants will be inhibited from taking advantage of this
p ro v isio n in o rd e r to tu rn th e re n ta ls m a n in t o a de facto ren t co n tro l b o d y, w e
recom m end that w h ere an y com plaint of a discrim inatory rent increase is m ade,
t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h e f a c t o f d is c r i m i n a t i o n o u g h t t o r e m a in a t a ll ti m e s o n
th e ten an t.
In o th er w o rd s, it o u gh t nev er to be sufficien t fo r a ten an t m ere ly to
p ro v e th at h is re n t h as b ee n in c re as e d .
H e o u g h t a ls o t o b r in g e v id e n c e th a t th e
landlord
has
not im posed
similar
increases
on
tenants
who
occupy
sim ilar
p re m is e s o r h a s n o t im p o s e d sim ila r in cre a s e s in th e p a s t w ith re s p e c t to th e s a m e
p r e m is e s .
W e w o u ld g o e v e n f u rt h e r a n d lim it th e te n a n t 's c a s e o n ly to e v i d e n c e
of w hat his ow n landlord has done.
To allow the tenant to b ring evidence of w hat
other landlords charge for com parable prem ises w ould be to ask the rentalsm an
to e n g a g e in t h e v e r y d if fic u lt ta s k o f ju d g in g o n a p r o v in c e -w id e b a s is w h a t is a
r e a s o n a b l e re n t in a ll th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s .
T h a t is n o t th e p u rp o s e o f th e e x e r c is e .
I t i s , i n s te a d , t o d e te rm in e w h e th e r o r n o t th e la n d lo rd h a s s in g le d o u t th e te n a n t
f o r a r e n t i n c r e a s e i n o r d e r t o f o r c e h im t o le a v e t h e p r e m is e s w h e r e h e m i g h t
otherwise be in a position to stay.
Finally,
the
rentalsm an's
power
to
d ec lare
a
d isc rim in a to ry
rent
increase
in e f fe c tiv e o u g h t n o t to p re v e n t th e lan d lo rd fro m im p o s in g an y re n t in c re ase a t
all.
In th e even t th at th e ten an t does prove h is case; the lan dlo rd sh o uld, if it is
o t h e rw ise law fu l, b e p e rm itte d to im p o s e an in c re ase w h ic h is n o t d isc rim in a to ry .
It s h o u ld n o t b e p a r t o f t h e r e n t al sm an 's t as k o n t h e p ro v i n g o f d i s c ri m i n at i o n to
set a fair ren t.
H e sh o uld m erely declare th e fact o f d iscrim ination an d leave it to
th e la n d lo r d to m o d if y th e in c r ea s e a cc o r d in g t o th e s t a n d a r d s h e h a s s e t fo r o th e r
te n a n ts .
If th e te n a n t s till b e lie v e s th e in c re a s e to b e d is c rim in a to ry h e m a y b rin g
an o th er co m p lain t befo re th e ren talsm an , w ith th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f still rem ain in g
o n h im .
W e b e lie v e , h o w e v e r, th a t th e eff ect o f th e firs t h earin g w o u ld m ak e th is
an extremely unlikely occurrence.
-9 8 -
The proposed Act empower the rentalsman, on the complaint of a tenant that he has been discriminated against in the setting of a rent
increase with the purpose of dislodging him from the premises, the burden of proving which shall be on the tenant, to declare that the increase
is discriminatory and ineffective.
-9 9 -
CHAPTER V
A.
SECURITY DEPOSITS
Introduction
In any contract it is not unusual that one party will wish to take measures to
pro tect him self against the consequen ces o f th e o th er p arty failing to perform his
p art o f th e b arg a in sa tis fa c to rily .
W h ere m o n e y is lo a n e d o r c re d it is e x te n d ed th e
len d er m ay w ish to tak e a secu rity in terest in lan d or go od s.
Very often a
co n tracto r w ill b e req uired to p ost a p erfo rm an ce b o nd .
L a n d lo r d s h a v e b e e n n o
l e s s a n x i o u s to p r o t e c t t h e i r i n t e r e s ts to t h e f u l l e s t e x t e n t p o s s i b l e , a n d t h e u s u a l
mechanism for achieving that goal has been the security deposit.
T rad itionally,
B ritish
Colum bia
landlords
have
to protect themselves against three different kinds of potential liability.
taken
deposits
from
tenants
(a)
Nonpayment of rent - At one time it was a practice among some landlords
to ex tract from an in co m in g ten an t a se ries o f po stdated cheques.
T h e no tio n w as th at th e existen ce of th ese ch eq ues w o u ld p ro m p t
the tenant to live up to h is obligatio n s m uc h m ore readily than
m ight otherwise
be the
case.
A
widespread
m isunderstanding
concerning the crim inal sanctions attached to bad cheques adds
im petus to this.
In o ther cases, landlords w ou ld collect the last
m o n th 's ren t in ad v an ce.
T his pro tectio n added to th e lan dlo rd's
common law right to distrain for arrears of rent.
(b)
Damage to the premises - The purpose of a damage deposit has been to
provide a fun d against w hich the landlord could claim in cases
w h ere th e ten an t d a m ag ed th e p rem ises to an exten t go in g b eyo n d
reasonable wear and tear.
©
U ncleaned
prem ises The
distinction
betw een
dam age
deposits
and cleaning
dep osits is som ew hat b lurred .
T ech n ically, the clean ing d epo sit w as
d esign ed to co ver th e situ atio n w h ere, by th e ten an cy agreem en t o r
o t h e rw is e , th e te n a n t w a s o b lig e d t o le a v e t h e p r e m is e s in a fa u ltle s s
condition.
Very often deposits have been taken purporting to
cover both damage and cleaning.
At
com m on
law , freedom
of
contract prevails
and
there
are
no
restrictions
on
th e righ t o f a lan d lo rd to e x tra c t w h a te v e r d e p o s it h e c an .
I n th e lite 1 9 60 's th e
security deposit becam e a m atter of public concern.
There w as a widespread
f e e li n g t h a t t o t a l fr e e d o m o f c o n t r ac t h ad le d t o a n u m b e r o f ab u se s o n t h e p art
o f lan d lo rd s, an d vario us ju risdictio ns im p osed restrictio ns such as lim itatio ns o n
amount, type and permissible uses of security deposits.
B.
British Columbia: The Present Position
In
B ritish
C o lum b ia,
th e
first
w a s b y th e C ity o f V a n co u v er in
provided, inter alia, in schedule A":1
1.
leg islative
statem en t
relatin g
to
secu rity
d ep o sits
1969.
B y-law num ber 4448 w as passed w hich
The by-law purported to be passed under the authority of the R ent-C ontrol A ct. See c. 12.
-1 0 0-
1.
(a)
No
Landlord,
or
agent of the Landlord, shall dem and or
a c c e p t f r o m a n y T e n an t, o r p ro s p e c t iv e T e n a n t a d e p o s it to b e
u s e d to r e p a i r d a m a g e to p r e m i s e s o c c u p ie d b y th e T e n a n t , o r
to b e ap p lied to an y am o u n ts w h ich m ay b eco m e pay ab le to
the Landlord as a result of the breach by the Tenant of any of
t h e c o n d it io n s o f t h e l e a s e in e x c e ss o f th e fo llo w in g am o u n t s :
In the case of unfurnished premises
In the case of furnished premises
$25.00
$50.00
(b)
If a Landlord accepts a deposit not prohibited in subsection (a)
h e sh all retu rn su ch d ep o sit to th e T e n an t w ith in 1 5 d ays o f th e
date on w hich the Tenant vacates the prem ises unloess in the
m eantim e he has delivered to the T en an t a detailed statem en t,
supported
by
such
evidence
as
in
the
circumstances
may
be
reasonable, show ing the cost of repairs the Lan dlord is required to
effect or the am ou nts ow ing to the L andlord as a result of a breach
by the Tenant of any conditions of the lease or rental agreement.
©
If
the
Tenant
d isp utes
a n y t h in g
co ntain ed
d elive red to h im b y th e L an d lord h e m ay b ring
th e B o ard w h ic h s h a ll m a k e a b in d i n g d e c is io n a s
of the deposit.
The
by-law
does
not
s p e c i fic a l ly
p u rp o r t
to
r e g u l at e
in
th e
statem en t
the m atter befo re
to t h e d is p o s itio n
d e p o si t s
c o v e ri n g
fu tu re
rent.
The law was further
relevant sections provide:
37.
changed
in
1970
by
Part
II
of
the
Landlord
and
Tenant
Act.
The
(1)
Unless a municipality, by by-law otherwise provides, a landlord shall
not require or receive a security deposit from a tenant under a tenancy
agreement entered into or renewed after this Part comes into force other
than the rent payment for a rent period not exceeding one month, which
payment shall be applied in payment of the rent for the last rent period
under the tenancy agreement.
(2)
A landlord shall pay annually, or fifteen days after the tenancy is
terminated, whichever is earlier, to the tenant interest on the security
deposit for rent referred to in subsection (1) at the rate of six per cent per
annum.
(3)
A landlord
p o st -d a t e d c h e qu e
of rent.
38.
or a tenancy agreement shall not require the delivery of any
or ot h er ne go t iab le i nst rume nt to b e used fo r p aym ent
(1)
This section applies to security deposits held by landlords at the time
this Part comes into force, other than security deposits for rent only as
described in section 37.
(2)
The landlord shall pay annually to the tenant interest on any moneys
held by him as a security deposit at the rate of six per cent per annum.
(3)
Subject to subsection (4), the landlord shall pay the security deposit to
the tenant, together with the unpaid interest that has accrued thereon and
been retained, within fifteen days after the tenancy is terminated or
r en ewed , b ut a ju dge may , up o n summary app li cati on th erefo r, ex t en d the
time to such longer period as he considers proper.
-1 0 1-
(4)
Where the landlord proposes to retain any amount out of the security
deposit, he shall so notify the tenant, together with the particulars of and
grounds for the retention, and he shall not retain such amount unless
(a)
t h e t en a n t
notice; or
co n s e n t s
thereto
in
w r i ti n g
(b)
he obtains an order of a judge under subsections (5) and (6)
(5)
A landlord may apply to a judge for an
of all or part of a security deposit, and section
with the necessary changes and so far as is applicable.
a ft er
re ce ip t
of the
order authorizing the retention
60 applies to the application
( 6)
U p o n an a p p li ca t i o n un der sub s ec ti o n ( 5 ), t h e j ud ge m a y d is m is s t h e
application or order that all or part of the security deposit be retained by
the landlord to be applied on account of any obligation or liability of the
tenant for which the security was taken.
(7)
Where,
on
the
coming
into
force
of
this section, a by-law of a
municipality applies to security deposits, any of the provisions of this
section that are inconsistent with, or repugnant to, the by-law do not apply
in respect of that municipality.
62.
(1)
Any person who contravenes any provision of the Act or fails to obey
an order made under this Part is guilty of an offence and is liable, on
summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.
( 2)
W h er e a l a n d l o r d i s c o n vi ct ed o f a n o f f en ce o f c on t ra ve ni n g s ec ti o n
37 or 38, the judge making the conviction may order the landlord to pay
to the tenant the security deposit and interest or any part thereof that is
unpaid.
In exam ining the legal effect of those provisions,
the statutory definition of "security deposit." Section 34(l)(d) provides:
reference
must
f ir s t
be
m ade
to
"security deposit" means money or any property or right paid or given by
a tenant of residential premises to a landlord or his agent or to anyone on his
behalf to be held by or for the account of th e landlord as security for the
performance of an obligation or the payment of a liability of the tenant or to be
returned to the tenant upon the happening of a condition.
Section 37(1) can be regard ed as a b lan ket p ro h ibition against secu rity d ep osits
s u b je c t to tw o ex c e p tio n s .
F irst, a lan d lo rd is p e rm itte d to ta k e a s e c u rity d e p o s it
for rent.
The m oney so taken m ust be applied in p aym ent of the rent for the last
p e r io d o f th e t e n a n c y a n d t h e a m o u n t o f th e d e p o s i t m u s t n o t e x c e e d t h e m o n e y
d u e f o r t h e l a s t m o n t h 's r e n t p a y m e n t .
Seco n d, th e Legislatu re left it o p en fo r
m un icip alities, b y b y-law , to p erm it the tak in g o f security depo sits for dam age,
s e tt in g u p a lo c a l o p tio n s c h e m e in p re f e re n c e to a g e n e r a l p r o h i b i t io n .
Landlords
are prohibited from requiring the delivery of post-dated cheques.
C.
Shortcomings of the Present Legislative Scheme
T he
p urpose
of
the
existing
legislation
seem s
to
be
the
regulation
of
security
d ep o sits, th e b alan cin g o f co n flictin g in terests o f lan d lo rd s an d ten an ts an d th e
p ro v is io n o f a co n v e n ie n t f o r u m f o r th e re s o lu tio n o f d is p u te s .
A n an aly s is o f th e
legislation , ho w ever, reveals that there are g ap s w h ich co uld d efeat th at purpo se.
re n t,
It m ight be assumed
that
w h e th e r in ex iste n ce w h e n
the
P a rt
Legislature intended
that all security
I I w a s en a c te d o r ta k e n af te r th a t
-1 0 2-
deposits for
d a te , w o u ld
b ear in te re st at six p er cen t.
Sectio n 37 (2 ) p ro vid es th at in terest is p ayab le o n
s e c u r i ty d e p o s i t s f o r r e n t " r e f e r r e d t o i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 1 ) " b u t t h a t s u b s e c t i o n c o v e r s
only tenan cy agreem en ts "entered into or renew ed after this Part com es into
fo rc e."
A s se cu rity d e p o sits fo r re n t are e x p re s sly o u ts id e th e sc o p e o f se ctio n 3 8 ,
i t t h e r e f o r e a p p e a r s th a t , o n th e s t r i c t w o r d i n g o f th e A c t , n o i n t e r e s t i s p a y a b l e
on security deposits for rent taken prior to April 6, 1970.2
The
enforcement
provisions
of
the
Vancouver
by-law,
and
the
dispute
re so lv in g p o w ers of th e V an co uv er R en tal A cco m m o d atio n G riev an ce B o ard h av e
recen tly b een h eld to b e in valid .3
Sectio n 38 sets out elab orate pro ced ures fo r
d e a lin g w it h d a m a g e d e p o s i t s h e l d a t th e t im e P a r t I I c a m e in t o f o r c e a n d p la c e s
jurisdictio n in th e Pro vin cial Co urt.
Section 37 is silent on repaym ent and
r e t e n t i o n a n d i t m a y th e r e f o re b e a r g u e d th a t th e r e is n o m e a n s o f e n f o r c i n g t h e
valid
portions
of
the
Vancouver
by-law
with
respect
to
post-1970
damage
deposits.
W e understand that, in practice, the Provincial Court has accepted
jurisdiction and applied the provisions of section 38 mutatis mutandis.
The
A ct
is
silen t
on
p ro c e d u re s
relatin g
to
th e
d isp o sitio n
of
th e
s ec u rity
d ep o sit fo r ren t if th e ten an t ab an d o n s th e p rem ises o r if h e leav es b efo re th e en d
o f t h e t e n a n c y a g r e e m e n t w i th n o t i c e .
T h e r e i s n o p r o v i s i o n r e g u l a t in g t h e n a t u r e
of the dep osit or ho w it is to be han dled by th e lan dlo rd durin g th e ten an cy.
The
nature of the legal relationship is uncertain.
D o es the land lo rd h o ld th e secu rity
deposit as trustee, p ledger, b ailo r o r d eb to r? The legal nature of th e relationship
w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e s e c u r i t y d e p o s i t is im p o r t a n t in a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e t e n a n t 's r i g h t s
w h ere th e lan d lo rd go es b an kru pt o r ab sco n ds w ith th e dep o sit, o r w h e re th e
landlord's interest in the rented premises is terminated.
The extent to which
the Act has protected the tenant with respect to damage
d ep o sits is o p en to so m e q ues tio n .
N o tw ith stan d ing the fact th at subsectio n s (3),
(4), an d (5 ) o f s ec tio n 3 8 clearly p lace th e o n u s o n th e lan d lo rd to o b tain a co urt
o rd er p erm ittin g h im to re ta in a n y a m o u n t o u t o f th e s ec u rity d ep o sit, 4 it see m s to
be th e practice of a substantial num ber o f landlords to retain th e deposit in all
c a s e s a n d t o r e fu n d it o n ly w h e n it ap p e ar s t h at th e t e n an t is ab o ut to take legal
steps to h ave it return ed.
S t a t i s t i c s g a t h e r e d i n t h e V a n c o u v e r S m a l l C l a i m s C o u rt
for the year 1972 indicate th at in 50 per cent o f the cases w here tenants w ere
plaintiffs they w ere
seeking the return
of a dam age deposit even
though,
th eo re tic ally , th e le g al o n us w a s o n th e lan dlo rd to ap ply fo r a co urt ord er fo r
reten tio n .
T h ere is also evid en ce th at, in m u n icip alities o u tsid e V an co u v er w h ere
damage deposits are not permitted, landlords are still requiring them.
From
the
landlord's
point
of
view,
existing
procedures
seem
equally
unsatisfactory.
W e were frequently told by landlords in w ritten briefs and
p r e s e n t a tio n s a t o u r h e a r in g s t h a t it is s e ld o m w o r th t h e t im e a n d tr o u b l e re q u i r e d
to go to Sm all Claim s C ou rt and o btain a retention order.
The conscientious
la n d lo r d w ill f re q u e n t ly re tu r n th e f u ll d e p o s it to th e t en a n t ev en th o u g h h e m a y
have a legitimate claim on it.
2.
U nless the tenancy agreem ent has been renew ed since that date, in w hich case it com es w ithin s.
37 (1).
3.
See c. 12.
4.
Pre-1970 deposits and post-1970 deposits w here the C ourts have taken jurisdiction. See text at n.
3.
-1 0 3-
In our view, a fresh approach to the question of security
O ur search for a new approach has caused us to consider
jurisdictions designed
to
reco n cile th e co m p etin g in terests
tenants.
D.
Comparative Study
1.
General
deposits is required.
schem es in other
of lan d lo rd s an d
U seful
fo cal
p o in t
fo r
a
c o m p a ra t iv e
study
of
th e
le g is la t iv e
re g u la t i o n
of
s e c u r i t y d e p o s i t s i s p r o v i d e d in a r e c e n t c o m m e n t a r y w h e r e i t is p o i n t e d o u t t h a t
" th e te n a n t 's p a y m e n t o f m o n e y t o t h e la n d lo r d o n t h e e x e c u tio n o f a le a se ra is e s
fo ur b asic issu es co n cern in g th e n atu re o f th e p ay m e n t a n d th e righ ts o f th e
parties." 5 The issues referred to are:6
Purpose of the payment - The purpose of the payment depends on the intention of the
parties entering the lease agreement and frequently will be given the
construction most favourable to the tenant.
The payment ma y b e ( 1) advance
payment of rent, (2) consideration for granting the lease, (3) liquidated damages,
or (4) a deposit to secure payment of rent or fulfilment of all lease convenants.
Only the last of these four is properly described as a security deposit, although
modern statutes often treat alike advance payments of rent and security
d ep o si ts .
Co n si de ra ti on fo r g ran ti ng a le ase sel do m causes pro blems un less an
i na rt fu ll y d ra wn lea s e a gree me nt fail s t o art ic ul at e cl earl y t he i nt en t io n s of the
parties.
Liquidated damages clauses frequently are subject to challenge as
penalties which are disfavoured and unenforceable.
Nature of the deposit - A deposit to secure payment of rent or performance of
covenants may be characterized as a pledge, a trust fund, or a debt.
Title and
permissible use of the fund depend primarily upon the characterization and
purpose of the payment.
Ascertaining the nature of the payment is especially
important if one of the parties becomes insolvent during the term of the lease.
Many state statutes now resolve these questions.
Permissible use of the security deposit - Statutes or the lease agreement itself may impose
limits upon the lessor's use of the security deposit.
The lessor may be
p ro hib ited fro m co mm in glin g th e fun ds with h is own an d may be requ ir ed to
pay interest to the lessee.
Disposition of the security deposit - The landlord may retain the security deposit until the
tenant renders the performance secured by the deposit, unless the landlord
wrongfully evicts the tenant or misuses the deposit.
The money paid as security
c o n s t i t u t e s a f un d u p o n w h i c h t h e l a n d l o r d m a y d r a w t o c o m p e n s a t e h i m s e l f
f o r a t en a n t ' s b r ea ch o f co v e na n ts c ov er ed b y th e se cu ri ty .
T h e t en a n t i s
entitled to the timely return of the deposit subject only to the rightful claims of
the landlord consistent with the lease provisions.
2.
Canada
The
m atter
of
security
depo sits
for
the
perform ance
of
obligation s
under
tenancy
agreements
has
become
the
subject of
legislative
activity
in
most
p r o v i n c e s a n d t e r r i t o r i e s in C a n a d a o v e r t h e l a s t f e w y e a r s .
E igh t P ro vin ces an d
5.
C ontem porary Landlord and Tenant Law (1973), 4 V and. 689, 693-4.
6.
Ibid.
-1 0 4-
both
territories have enacted
legislation
regulating
security
deposits.7
con venience w e have set o ut the relev an t p rov ision s of this legislation in
form on the following page.
For
tabular
[CHART OMITTED]
In
all
th e
jurisd ictio n s
in d icated
except
M anitoba
d e fin itio n o f se cu rity d e p o sit is id e n tic al to th a t se t o u t in
Columbia Act. The Manitoba Act provides the following definition:8
and
N ew fo un d lan d
the
se ctio n 3 4 o f th e B ritish
"Security deposit" means money in the form of cash or cheque paid or given
by a tenant of residential premises to a landlord or his agent or to anyone on his
behalf to be held by or for the account of the landlord as security for the
payment of rent in arrears or for damage to the premises.
T he N ewfoundland A ct 9 defin es
by a tenant to a landlord besides rent.
security
d ep o sit
in
term s
of
an y
The
le g is la tio n
in
fo rc e
in
A lb e rta ,
N ew foundland,
Saskatchewan specifies that the landlord holds the security deposit as trustee.
m o n ey
P r ic e
or
E d w a rd
p ro p erty
paid
Is la n d ,
and
It is obvious from
the table that the emphasis in Canadian statutes is on the
regulation of the am ount of security deposits, the interest payable, and the
dispo sition of th e d ep o sit o n term in atio n o f th e ten an cy, except as no ted abo ve,
or in the table, no m ention is m ade of the handling or nature of the deposit or the
disposition of the deposit on the termination of the landlord's interest.10
3.
United States
R ecently,
a
number
of
jurisdiction s
in
the
U nited
statutory regulation of the m ajor security deposit question .
1970, have initiated legislation regulating security deposits
rew ritten the security depo sit section s in their lan d lo rd an d
new state statutes generally provide non-waivable protection to the tenant.
One
co m m en tato r
indicated that:11
has
re cen tly
co n sid ered
th e
scope
States
have
favoured
T hirteen states, since
or have substantially
tenant codes.
These
of
th is
legislatio n
and
Some of the statutes cover only residential leases.
Frequently they broadly
define a security deposit to include any payment or deposit of money (including
an advance payment of rent), the primary function of which is to secure the
p er fo r ma n ce o f a r en t al agr ee men t or an y part of suc h an agr ee me nt .
Many
statutes state that the tenant's claim to such a deposit shall be prior to the claim
of any of the landlord's creditors, although California's law grants a prior claim
to a trustee in bankruptcy.
All of the new statutes regulate the manner in which
7.
O nly N ew Brunsw ick and Q uebec do not have sim ilar legislation.
8.
N . 9 supra s. 2 (e).
9.
N . 10 supra.
10.
E .g., Saskatchew an.
11.
N . 5 supra, at 694.
-1 0 5-
the landlord may use or hold the security deposit funds.
Some statutes
c ha ra ct er iz e t he lan dlo rd as a trus t ee h o ld in g fo r t h e b en ef it of t en a nt s , a nd
m o st pr o hi bi t t he c om m in gl in g o f s uc h fu nd s.
A dditio nally, so me re qu ir e t he
payment of interest to the tenant.
Finally, most of the new statutes require
repayment or itemized justification of th e retention of the deposit within a
strictly enforced time period ranging from two weeks to forty-five days.
A table, com parable to that settin g
and is included as an Appendix to this Report.
out
M any
of
th e
A m e ric an
s ta tu te s
tenancy, and control their assignm ent
but the interest on the deposit, or its use, is rare.
r e g u la te
on the
4.
Canadian
legislation,
has
been
prepared
th e
h an d lin g
of
d ep o sits
d urin g
th e
d isp o sitio n o f th e lan d lord 's in terest;
Other Jurisdictions
O ther
relevant
landlord
and
tenant
systems
such
as
those
in
E ngland,
Australia, N ew Z ealand and are all treat security deposits w ithin the context of
"prem ium s" w hich, as a general rule, are prohibited.
The prohibition against
p rem iu m s seem s aim ed at p rev en tin g th e circu m v en tio n of ren t co n tro l legislatio n
an d the ex p erien ce of tho se co m m o n law co un tries is n o t particularly h elp ful to
us.12
In
G erm an y,13
S w e d en ,14
and
S w itz erlan d 15
there
are
no
p ro h ib itio n s
on
s e c u rit y d e p o s it s b u t th e y a r e n o t g e n e r a lly u s e d .
I n S w it z e r la n d , a n e f f ic ie n t d e b t
co llec tio n sy ste m se em s to elim in ate th e n ee d fo r se cu rity .
In France a landlord
is entitled to request a m axim um o f th ree m onths' rent in ad vance an d to retain
t h is u n ti l t h e t e n a n c y i s t e r m i n a te d . 1 6
H e is e n tit le d to s u b t r a c t a n y d a m a g e s f o r
w h ic h t h e t e n a n t is r e s p o n s i b l e a n d i s o b l i g e d t o re t u r n t h e b al an c e t o t h e ten an t.
E.
Policy Considerations
The
first
issue
confro nting
the
Com m ission
is
w hether
security
deposits
s h o u l d b e p r o h i b i t e d e n t i r e ly , c o n t r o l le d , o r l e f t s t r i c t ly t o b e a g r e e d u p o n b e tw e e n
lan d lo rd an d te n an t.
A n u m b e r o f reaso n s h av e b een ad van ced to su pp o rt th e
p ro h ib itio n of secu rity d ep o sits in E nglan d an d several oth er co un tries.
Some of
those reasons are:
12.
A
m o re
com p lete
analysis
of
a
law
relatin g
13.
Inform ation
concerning
the
position
R epublic of G erm any: telephone interview O ct. 17/73.
14.
In fo rm atio n
about
th e
Sw e dish
law
o btain ed
interview O ctober/73. The law is set out in a 1967 A ct.
15.
Inform ation obtained from the C onsulate of Sw itzerland in a telephone interview O ct. 18/73.
16.
A ccording to M onsieur Bougonin, Inform ation O fficer, C onsulate G eneral de France.
17.
Sam uels, C om m ent (1968), 118 N ew L.J. 4.
18.
Ibid.
in
-1 0 6-
to
p rem iu m s
G erm any
fro m
is
ob tained
th e
pro vided
from
Sw e dish
as
the
Trade
an
A p p en d ix
to
th is R ep o rt.
C on sulate
of
the Federal
C om m ission
in
a telephone
(a)
The
la n d l o r d
has
fre e
benefit in the form of interest;17
(b)
The
gen eral
law
giv es
lan d lo rd s
ad eq uate
a b reach of o b ligatio n b y ten an ts an d
pursue these remedies;18
©
The
te n a n t
m igh t
o w in g at th e en d
becomes insolvent;19
(d)
It is difficult for the tenant
a n d a b o v e th e s u m n ee d ed
(e)
Security
d e p o s it s
are
not
necessary
by tenants are not a significant problem.21
O ther
argum ents
commentator has stated that:22
have
use
of
th e
te n an t's
money
an d
o b ta in s
a
rem edies
in
th e
lan dlords should
ev en t
of
therefore
h ave
so m e
d if fic ulty
se c urin g
th e
r etur n
o f th e ten an cy if th e lan d lo rd refu ses to
o f m on ey
rep ay o r
been
to
fo r
advanced
find the
re n t at
in
capital to pay a
th e b e gin n in g o f
because
favour
b re a c h e s
of
deposit over
a te n a n c y ; 2 0
of
deposits.
o b lig a t io n s
One
A lease imposes reciprocal obligations on landlord and tenant and the
instrument reflects a mutuality of consideration.
In reality, however, the
landlord surrenders his property and places it in the tenant's control, and at the
same time for th e lease term disables himself from entering into profitable
arrangements with other interes ted p arties.
Th e t enan t, b y co nt rast , d oes little
m o r e t h a n u n d e r t a k e a c o m m i t m en t o f f u t u r e p e r f o r m a n c e .
In essence the
l a n d l o r d e x d h an ge s a co m p le te d pe rf or man ce f or a p romise ye t t o b e f ulfilled.
Failure to abide by the tenant's undertaking of course results in rights of action
against him, b ut the trouble and expense of such remedial steps make them a
poor substitute for performance, particularly in the case of a tenant who proves
financially irresponsible, and in any event there is no compensation for
o p p or t u ni ti es lo s t d u r i n g t h e l e a s e t e r m .
T h e l a n d l o r d t h e r e f o re n ee ds p r o t e ct io n t h at , f or t h e du ra ti on o f th e le as e, t h e te na n t wi ll i n fa c t f a i t h f ul l y
discharge his custodianship of the property and that he will actually adhere to
his commitments.
A lease, and particularly one of substantial duration, therefore typically
requires the tenant at the outset or in the early lease years to deposit funds or
other liquid assets which can be applied promptly in satisfaction of the tenant's
19.
Ibid.
20.
Ibid.
21.
Lam ont, The Landlord and Tenant A ct Part IV 4.
22.
T. W eiss, Security v. A dvance R ent U nder the Federal Income Tax (1969), 42 C onn. B.J. 356.
23.
-1 0 7-
promise in the event of his deviation or delinquency.
T his
argum ent
becom es
m ore
forceful
if
security
Further arguments were cited by the Ontario Law Reform Commission:23
of
tenure
is
introduced.
Landlords ... justify the taking of security deposits on the basis of the need
t o h a v e a m ea n s o f co n tr o ll in g d am a ge c om m it t ed by t en a nt s a n d a ls o a s a
means of recovering at least part of such damage without recourse to the courts
... It may have some deterrent value; it saves cost of collection; it is the source
of added revenue and may save the tenant who performs all of his obligations
f i o m c o n t r i b u t i n g f i n a n c i a l l y t h r o u g h i n c r ea s ed re nt a l f lo w in g f r o m t h e d ef a u l t
o f a t en an t wh o is judgm en t p ro of .. .
Am erica n a ut h orit ies , in ju ri sd ic ti o n s
having abolished the remedy of distress, have treated the security deposit as a
means of compensating landlords for the loss of the right to distrain.
This can
only be partially correct, for the reason that the usual security deposit against
d a m a ge c an n o t be em plo yed to m ake up a rrea rs of ren t wit h out th e t en a n t ' s
consent.
In a num ber of their sub m issions to us landlords stressed that the value of a
dam age d ep o sit lies n o t o n ly in p rov id in g a fun d against w hich the landlord can
proceed, but also in p rov iding real in centive to the tenant to keep the p rem ises
clean and undamaged.
The
a rg u m e n ts
in
fa v o u r
of
p erm ittin g
som e
fo r m
of
s e c u rity
d e p o s it
seem
to us to be persuasive, particularly in view of the fact that w e believe the
a r g u m e n t s a g a i n s t s e c u r i t y d e p o s i t s m a y b e m e t in la r g e m e a s u r e b y c o n t r o l l i n g t h e
c ir c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r w h ic h d e p o s it s m a y b e t a k e n .
It go es w ith o ut sayin g th at w e
d o n o t fav o u r leav in g lan d lo rd s an d ten an ts to th eir o w n arran gem e n ts co n c ern in g
d e p o s its .
T h e a b u s e s w h ic h w o u ld alm o s t ce rtain ly arise in th e lig h t o f th e u n e q u a l
bargaining positions of the p arties in tod ay's ho using situation m ake this an
unattractive alternative.
F.
Recommendations
We
have
co ncluded
that
the
m ost
convenient
m ethod
of
regulating
s e c u r i ty
d e p o s its is to ta k e th e m co m p le te ly o u t o f th e h a n d s o f la n d l o r d s a n d p l a c e th e m
in t h e c u s to d y o f an in d e p e n d e n t th ird p a rty w h o w o u ld h o ld th e f u n d s a s tr u s te e
fo r th e te n an t s u b je ct to a n y righ tfu l claim s b y th e lan d lo rd .
W e p ro p o se th at th e
rentalsm an sho uld p erform this fun ction.
This approach w ould solve a num ber
of pro blem s.
It w ould, in a realistic w ay, place th e substantive, as w ell as the legal,
bu rden on the landlord to d em on strate that his claim is a valid one.
It w ou ld also
av o id an y p ro blem s w h ich m igh t arise w h en a lan dlo rd sells h is in te re st in th e
property.
T h e righ t to claim again st th e d ep o s it w o u ld e n u re to th e b en efit o f
w h o e v e r th e la n d lo r d m ig h t b e at th e tim e th e cla im is m a d e .
It w o u ld a v o id a
com petition between the tenant and the creditors of the bankrupt landlord.
M o r e o v e r , t h e l e g a l n a t u r e o f th e d e p o s i t w o u l d b e p u t o n a w e l l d e f i n e d b a s i s .
For convenience w e shall refer to a security deposit paid to the rentalsm an in
accordance with this recommendation as a "statutory deposit."
Im plicit
authorized by
in
our
view s
concerning
statute sh o uld b e p erm itted
security
deposits
is
t o b e t a k e n a n d th a t
-1 0 8-
that
only
tho se
all o ther d ep o sits
s h o u ld b e s tric tly p r o h ib ite d , a s s h o u ld a ll o th e r p re m iu m s o r b o n u s es .24
In our
op inion , ho w ever, the definition of security depo sit in section 34 of the A ct
requires reexam ination.
O n th e fact o f it, th e d efin itio n is w ide an d the co urts
have
not
been
unimaginative
in
striking
down
arrangements
designed
to
circum vent it.
For exam ple, in Balfour v. Johnston 25 th ere existed a co ntract, collateral to
th e ten an cy agreem en t, req uirin g th e ten an t to p ay a sum fo r "early redeco ratio n "
should he vacate w ithin the first year o f the tenancy.
It w as held that the collateral
co n tract am o un ted to a security d ep osit.
Judge Levey of the Provincial Court
stated:26
I have come to the conclusion and hold that the document given by the
tenant is a security deposit given by the tenant, being a "right" given by the
tenant of a residential premises to a landlord as a security for the performance
of the tenant's obligation to reside in the premises for at least a year.
Additionally, the landlord's holding of the document of July 2, 1970, clearly renders any
c au se o f a ct io n he m a y a cq ui re a ga i n s t t h e t e n a n t , m o r e ea s il y p er fo r me d o r
more certain in the event of litigation.
Since the statute ma kes reference to
security deposits being [permissible] only by local option ... and since the City
o f V a n c o u v e r h as n o t ex p re ssly aut h or ized t h is t yp e of sec uri t y de p o si t , it is
clearly unlawful.
O th er d ev ices used by lan dlo rds in clude th e "n on -refun dab le dep osit" an d th e
"non-refundable cleaning deposit."
It is also possible that a lan dlord m ight require
the tenant to fin d a "guaran to r" to p ro vide th e security dep o sit.
It is n o t clear how
far such arran gem en ts am ou nt to a breach o f the A ct.
A no ther techn ique w hich
has been used in the past is to m ake the first m on th's rent sub stantially high er than
subsequent paym ents.
T h e sco p e fo r using this de vice w as substantially restricted
by the 1973 am endm ents to section 51 of th e A ct w hich confin ed the perm issible
f r e q u e n c y o f re n t in c r e a s e s t o t h e p r e m is e s r a th e r th a n th e te n a n c y .27
E lsew h ere
in th is R e p o rt w e reco m m en d th at th e freq uen cy o f ren tal in creases again b e
related to the tenancy.
The "balloon paym ent" device m ay, therefore, again
become available.
In
our
view ,
all
th ese
legislatio n can b e d efeated by
definition might read as follows:
attem p ts
at
circu m v en tin g
the
clear
in ten t
a w id en ed defin itio n of "secu rity d ep o sits."
of
th e
Such a
Security deposit means money or any property or legal right advanced or
deposited under a rental agreement by a tenant or anyone on his behalf, to a
landlord or his agent or anyone on his behalf to be held by or for the account
of the landlord, the primary function of which is to secure the performance of
any obligation under the tenancy agreement or the payment of a liability of the
tenant or to be returned to the tenant upon the happening of a condition and
without limiting the generality of the foregoing, t his definition shall include
24.
S ee
g en era lly
A ppendix
G.
An
e x a m p le
of
a
bonus
m oney” extracted by a landlord for the “privilege” of renting the prem ises.
25.
U nreported - V ancouver Provincial C ourt, N o. 6845/71.
26.
Ibid., at 3.
27.
S.B.C . 1973, c. 47, s. 6.
-1 0 9-
on
p r em iu m
w h ic h
w o u ld
be
p r o h ib ite d
as “key
advance payments of the last month's rent, deposits for damage for which the
tenant is responsible, deposits for failure to pay rent, collateral contracts giving
the landlord a right to demand consideration if the tenant quits early,
non-refundable deposits, and requiring a rental payment early in a tenancy
which is substantially larger than the others.
We
have
also
concluded
that
p erm issib le
claim s
by
lan d lo rd s
s ta tu to ry d e p o s it sh o u ld b e clea rly lim ited .
Statutory deposits should
to landlords only with respect to claims for:
(a)
arrears of rent;
(b)
all or part of
lawfully terminated;
(c)
reasonable loss of revenue by
termination of a tenancy by a tenant; and
(d)
losses
arising
out
of
the
t e n an t 's
f a i lu r e
to
d u t y im p o s e d o n h im b y s e c tio n 4 9 ( 2 ) o f t h e
cau sed by h is w ilfu l o r n egligen t co n du ct o r
were permitted on the premises by him.
the
final
instalment
a
of
rent
landlord
when
arising
a
out
against
the
be availab le
tenancy
of
the
has
been
unlawful
o b se rv e
the
s t atu to ry
A c t to r e p a ir d a m a g e
that of persons who
W hile in so m e jurisdiction s th e sec urity d ep o sit is "b lend ed" (in the sense that
th ere is a sin gle dep o sit again st w h ich all p erm issib le claim s m ay b e m ad e), w e
h a ve c o n clu d ed th a t it is u se fu l to m ain tain th e distin ctio n b etw een d ep o s its m ad e
w ith respect to the p aym ent of rent, and de p o sits securing the landlord against
dam age to the prem ises.
W e w o uld d esign ate th e fo rm er as a "statu to ry ren t
dep osit" and -the latter as a "statutory dam age deposit." The statutory dam age
deposit w ould be available only for claim s for dam age under heading (d) above
w h ile th e s tatuto ry ren t dep o sit w o u ld b e av ailab le fo r claim s u n d er h ea d ings (a),
(b), and (cl.
How
sh o uld
th e
options seem to be as follows:
m axim u m
p erm issib le
statu to ry
dep osit
(a)
as a percentage of the monthly rent as in Manitoba;
(b)
by specifying a dollar figure as in Vancouver Bylaw No. 4448;
(c)
by some combination of (a) and (b) as in Saskatchewan.28
be
defin ed?
The
W e h a v e c o n c lu d e d t h a t i t i s m o s t a p p r o p r ia t e to re la t e th e p e r m is s ib le a m o u n t o f
th e d ep o sit d irectly to th e ren t payab le.
In th is w ay, th e value of th e prem ises, th e
presence or ab sen ce o f furn iture an d appliances, and th e extent o f th e tenant's
monetary obligations will be most accurately reflected.
Recom m endations
m ade
elsew here
to th e p erio d ic ten an t.
U nder the
d i li g e n t l a n d l o r d w i ll b e a b l e to ta k e
in
this
R eport
extend
secu rity
of
tenure
term ination schem e which we envisage, the
proceedings to prevent the rent falling m ore
28.
See table supra.
29.
U nfurnished prem ises, $25; furnished prem ises, $50.
30.
E xcept to the extent that a deposit m ay need to be supplem ented because of an intervening
rental increase.
-1 1 0-
than one m onth into arrears.
In these circum stances it seem s equitable to perm it
th e la n d lo rd to re q u ire th e m a k in g o f a sta tu to ry re n t d e p o s it eq u a l to o n e m o n th 's
re n t an d , in th a t w a y , p ro te c t h im s e lf f u lly .
W e h a v e a ls o c o n c lu d e d th a t o n e - h a lf
o f o n e m o n th's ren t is an ap p ro p riate m axim u m w ith re sp ect to the statutory
dam age deposit.
W e have som e sym pathy w ith tho se landlords w ho have urged
th at th e cu rren t lim itatio n s un d er V an c o u v e r B y -la w N o . 4 4 4 8 are in ap p ro p riately
low.29
Thus,
under
our
scheme
the
m axim um
perm issible
statutory
deposit
w ould
b e an am o u n t e q u a l to o n e an d o n e -h a lf tim e s th e firs t m o n th 's ren t.
W h ile th is
m ay seem high w hen com pared w ith the lim its in other C anadian jurisdictions it
sh o uld be p o in ted ou t th at it is n o t to o m u ch g re ate r th an th e p erm issib le lim it o f
o n e m o n t h 's re n t p l u s s u c h o t h e r a m o u n t a s m a y b e p r o v i d e d b y m u n ic ip a l b y - la w
w h ic h p re se n tly p re vails in B ritish C o lu m b ia: It w ill also go so m e w ay to w ard s
m itigating the deterioration o f the landlord's position arising out of granting
security of tenure w hich does not exist, in the form w e propose, elsew here in
C anada.
M o re o v e r, th e g o o d ten an t sh o u ld n o t s u ff e r u n d u ly .
I f h e h a s fa ith fu lly
p erfo rm ed all his ob ligatio ns to th e lan d lo rd , th e statu to ry d ep o sit sh o uld be
av ailab le to b e a p p lie d to th e s e c u rity w h ic h m a y b e re q u ire d b y a n ew lan d lo rd if
the tenant moves.
C onsideration
m ust
also
be
given
to
w h eth er
th e
right
d e p o s it sh o u ld b e r e f e ra b le to th e d w e llin g u n it o r to e a c h
o f o n e re c e n t c as e w h e re th re e w o m e n liv ed in a un it an d
o n e m o n th 's ren t as secu rity.
In an o th er recen t situ atio n ,
lease for the rental of a house for them selves and six
r e q u ir e d a d a m a g e d e p o s it o f $ 2 5 fro m e a c h te n an t m a k in g
intention of the Legislature in the Landlord and Tenant Act and of
B y-law N o . 44 4 8 o n th is p o in t is n o t clear.
In our view ,
served by perm itting the m axim um
statutory deposit to
occupant and that possibility should be foreclosed.
to
require
a
statutory
te n a n t.
W e w e re to ld
ea c h w a s a s k e d to p a y
tw o stu d en ts sig n ed a
others.
The landlord
a to ta l o f $ 2 0 0 .
The
the City of Vancouver in
no leg itim ate p u rp o se is
be required of each
U nder
section
37(1) existing
rent deposits
"shall be
applied
in
paym ent of
the
r e n t f o r t h e l a s t r e n t p e r i o d u n d e r t h e t e n a n c y a g r e e m e n t. "
It is th erefo re th e
p ractice w h ere a ren t d ep o sit h as been tak en th at, w h en a te n an cy is law fu lly
term in ate d , n o fu rth er m o n ey ch an g es h an d s.30
T his is a convenience to both
lan d lo rd an d ten an t an d is a practice w hich w e w ould like to p reserv e to th e ex ten t
po ssible.
T here is, therefore, a n eed fo r so m e sim p le d ev ice w h ich w ill get the last
m o n th 's ren t o ut o f th e custo dy of th e ren talsm an an d in to th e h an d s o f th e
lan d lo rd qu ick ly an d efficien tly.
W e suggest that the proposed A ct contain a
s t a t u t o r y f o r m o f n o t i c e f o r u s e b y t h e t e n a n t w h e n a s t a t u t o r y r e n t d e p o s it h a s
been m ade.
T h is n o tic e c o u ld in c o rp o rate a d ire ctio n to th e re n talsm an th a t h e
p ay o ver th e statuto ry ren t dep osit to th e lan dlo rd , an d w o u ld b e ak in to a
statuto ry b ill o f exc h an ge.
It also seem s reaso n ab le tha t lan d lo rds' righ ts against
statutory
deposits
should
be
easily
transferable
among
landlords
where
the
re v e rs io n h a s b e e n s o ld o r w h e re th e te n a n t h a s m o v e d a n d w is h e s to tra n s f e r th e
31.
Provided, of course, the prior landlord has no adverse claim to the deposit.
32.
This would norm ally occur only w hen a landlord’s claim is substantially larger than the statutory
deposit.
-1 1 1-
benefit of the security deposit to his new landlord.31
In our opinion, the legal onus of asserting and proving his claim should
co n tin ue to rest o n th e lan d lo rd .
W h ere n o su ch claim is asserted w ith in so m e
specified period of tim e, say the existing 15 days from the term ination of the
t e n a n c y , t h e t e n a n t ' s e n t i t l e m e n t t o t h e s t a t u t o r y d e p o s i t s h o u l d b e a b s o lu t e .
The
landlord would be free to assert his claim in the following ways:
(a)
By
d eliv erin g
to
th e
re n talsm an
th e
te nan t's
w ritten
co n sen t
to
th e
p a y m e n t o f s o m e o r a l l o f e i t h e r t h e s t a t u to r y d a m a g e d e p o s i t , t h e
statutory rent deposit or both.
The prescribed form of notice
em b o dyin g th e te n an t's c o n se n t to p aym en t o f th e statu to ry ren t
deposit would fall into this category.
(b)
The
d eliv e ry
by
th e
la n d lo rd
to
th e
re n ta ls m a n
of
a
" n o tic e
of
c l a i m " s e t t i n g o u t t h e d e p o s i t a g a i n s t w h ic h h e i s c l a i m i n g a n d t h e
n a tu r e o f h is c la im .
I t w o u ld also b e d e si rab le if th e n o tic e stated
th e am o u n t; h o w ev er, w h e re sev ere d am age is in vo lv ed th e am o un t
m ay not alw ays b e ascertainab le w ithin the tim e lim its provided.
This clearly should not bar a landlord's claim.
(c)
A
d e liv e r y
to
th e
r e n t a ls m a n
by
th e
la n d lo r d
of
a
copy
of
a
sum m ons or writ issued by a court of appropriate jurisdiction
ind icating that the landlord had co m m enced an action on a breach
of obligation by the tenant, with respect to w hich a valid claim
w o uld o th e rw ise lie ag ain s t th e statu to ry d ep o s it.
I n su ch a case th e
ren talsm an w o u ld ho ld th e d ep o sit an d a w ait th e d eterm in atio n of
the court.
-1 1 2-
E x ce p t w h e re th e lan d lo rd ch o o s e s to p u rsu e h is re m e d y in c o u rt,32 w e h a ve
concluded that the rentalsm an is the proper party to adjudicate conflicting claim s
to a statutory deposit w hen a dispute arises.
W e w ould give him original
ju risd ictio n w ith resp ect to statu to ry dep osits an d his determ in atio n w o u ld no t b e
subject to appeal.
We
are
reluctant
to
make
ov erly
specific
procedural
reco m m en dation s
w ith
respect to such disputes.
In o ur view procedures sho uld b e flexible and inform al
an d d ev elo p ed by th e ren talsm an as exp erien ce d ictates.
W e envisage that the
ren talsm an w ill attem p t to determ in e, as qu ick ly an d in fo rm ally as p o ssib le th e
e x t e n t to w h i c h a d is p u t e a c t u a lly e x is t s a n d t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h th e p o s it io n s o f
th e p a rtie s a re irre c o n c ila b le .
H e m ig h t d o th is b y te le p h o n e .
I f th e d is a g re e m e n t
tu r n s o n t h e e x is tin g s ta te o f th e p re m is e s h e m ig h t in s p e c t th e m .
If th e p a rtie s
are ad idem as to the extent of dam age but not its value the rentalsman might first try
t o m e d i a t e t h e d is p u t e b e f o r e i n s p e c t i o n .
C ircu m stan ces m ay arise w h e re th e ten ant cannot be found.
In such cases a rentalsm an should be free to proceed ex parte
afte r su ch su b stitu tio n al se rv ice, if an y, as h e feels is ap p ro p ria te .
W e d o , h o w ev er,
f ee l tha t w h e r e t h e r e n ta ls m a n p r oc e e ds ex pa rte, it sh o uld b e o n th e b asis th at th e
t e n a n t h a s d i s p u t e d t h e l a n d l o r d 's c la im .
I n m o s t c a s e s th e r e n t a ls m a n w ill b e a t
th e m ercy o f th e lan d lo rd re gard in g th e te n an t's n e w a d d re ss (if av ailab le).
The
possibilities for abuse by the unscrupulous landlord are obvious.
W hen
a
contest over
the
disposition
of
a
dam age
deposit
arises,
it
frequently
h a p p e n s th a t th e f a c ts in d is p u te re la t e to t h e c o n d itio n o f th e p re m is e s w h e n th e
tenancy com m enced.
It has b een suggested to us that m any such disputes could
be reso lved if, before the ten an t takes p o ssessio n , lan d lo rd an d tenan t w ere to
su rv ey th e ap artm en t an d n o te an y d am ag e o n a s tatu to ry fo rm o f " ch eck list."
T ha t d o c u m e n t c o u ld b e sign e d b y b o th p artie s an d w o uld b e prim a facie ev id en ce o f
the condition
of the premises at the commencem ent of the tenancy.
We
un derstand that such a check list had b een d ev elo p ed in M an itob a and its use,
while not compulsory, is encouraged by the rentalsman.33
T he
check
lis t
s u g ge s t io n
has
co n side rab le
ap p e al;
h o w e ve r,
it
c an
be
argued
t h a t t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l d i s a d v a n t a g e s , a n d in p a r t ic u la r th a t it w o u l d t e n d to f a v o u r
the lan dlord over th e ten ant.
W h en a ten an t in itially in sp ects th e prem ises w ith
a v i e w t o r e n t i n g h e d o e s n o t a l w a y s t u r n h i s m i n d t o w a r d s t h e s p e c i f ic , m i n u t e
fe atu res a c h e c k lis t w o u ld re q u ire .
H e d o e s n o t a lw a y s c o u n t th e e x istin g ciga rette
burn s in the carp et or th e num ber of h o les w h ich h ave b een left in each w all
w here the form er tenant hung pictures.
H e m ak es a n o v erall a sse ssm e n t ask in g
him self wh ether the prem ises are "generally acceptable" and m akes his decision
to re n t o n th a t b a s is .
M o r e o v e r, a n in c o m in g te n a n t m ig h t n o t w i s h to s ta rt th e
re la tio n s h ip w ith h is lan d lo rd b y p erfo rm in g a m in u te an d tim e -c o n s u m in g in s p e c tio n in sis tin g th at ev ery fla w b e re c o rd ed .
H e m ig h t d ec id e th at so m e fla w is to o
triv ia l to re c o r d a n d th e n fin d th a t d e c is io n co m in g b a c k t o h a u n t h im a t a la te r
date.
T h e a r g u m e n t c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e t e n a n t w h o s i g n s s u c h a c h e c k l i st w o u ld
o n l y b e a c k n o w l e d g i n g th a t h e r e c e i v e d t h e p r e m i s e s i n a h a b i t a b l e a n d a c c e p t a b l e
c o n d iti o n ; a n d if th a t i s a l l t h a t i s r e a d i n t o t h e d o c u m e n t i t h a s l i t t l e v a l u e in
d ete rm in in g w h o s h o u ld b e a r th e co st o f th e cig a re tte b u rn in th e ca rp et w h ic h th e
land lord alleges to b e recen t; an d if m o re is re ad in to it, it w o uld be un fair to the
33.
A copy of the check list is reproduced in Professor Sinclair’s Survey of L andlord and T enant Law - W orking R eport 60
(Law R eform D ivision D epartm ent of Justice, N ew Brunsw ick).
-1 1 3-
tenant.
-1 1 4-
Some
of
th e
arg u m e n ts
ag a in s t
th e
use
of
check
lis t s
m ig h t
be
m et
by
d e f e rrin g its co m p le tio n to a tim e w h e n th e te n an t h as b ee n in p o ss e ss io n f o r , s ay ,
o n e m o n th .
T h at w o u ld g ive th e ten an t a full op p o rtun ity to ac q u ain t h im se lf w ith
th e co n ditio n of th e p rem ises an d m ake a reaso ned assessm en t of its co n ditio n .
H av in g se cu rity o f ten u re, he w o uld b e less w o rried ab o u t an n o yin g h is lan d lo rd
b y r e c o r d in g m in u te f la w s th a n w o u ld b e th e c a se if th e ch e ck lis t w e re c o m p le te d
before the com m encem ent of the tenancy.
O n the other hand, we can see
d isp utes arisin g b etw een lan d lo rd an d ten an t as to w h eth er an y sp ecific item o f
d a m a g e o c c u r r e d s in c e t h e t e n a n t m o v e d i n .
A t o u r h e arin g s, a re p re se n tativ e o f
a n a s s o c i a tio n o f r e s i d e n t m a n a g e r s w a s a s k e d a b o u t c h e c k lis ts .
H e r o p in i o n w a s
that the tim e required properly to com plete such a docum en t outw eighed its
advantages
and
few
people
would
use
them.
We
have
no
specific
recom m endation to m ake concerning check lists.
The rentalsm an m ight wish to
encourage their use on an experim ental basis.
Experience derived from their
limited use might then form the foundation of a more concrete policy.
G.
Rentalsman's Handling of Statutory Deposits
We
have
recom m ended
that
the
rentalsm an
hold
all
statutory
dep osits
as
trustee fo r th e ten an t.
It fo llo w s th at his h an dlin g of th e fun d s w ill b e s u b ject to
th e p r o v is io n s o f th e T rustee A ct. 34 I t is e x p e cte d th a t th e ren talsm an w o u ld retain a
p o rtio n o f th e fu n d s w h ic h h e re c e iv e s in ca s h b u t w o u ld in v es t th e large r p a rt in
perm itted securities.
Interest on those investm ents will be substantial.
Recent
c e n s u s fig u r e s 35 in d ic ate th a t alm o s t a q u a rte r o f a m illio n d w e llin g s in B ritis h
C olum bia are rented.
I f o n e w e r e t o a s s ig n t o t h o s e d w e l l i n g s a n a v e r a g e r e n t a l
rate of $150 per m o n th an d assum e th at, say, o n e-th ird o f th e lan d lo rds required
that a full statutory deposit be m ade, and assum ing further th at th e rentalsm an
w ere to inv est tho se funds at five per cent, the interest generated w ould exceed
o n e a n d o n e - q u a rte r m illio n d o lla rs p e r ye a r.
H o w s h o u ld th a t in t e re s t b e a p p l ie d ?
A
stro n g
argu m en t
can
be
m o un ted
th at,
in
p rin cip le,
th e
in terest
sh o uld
be
return ed to the ten ant.
T he on ly reaso nable altern ative to that seem s to b e to
a p p ly th e i n t e r e s t to t h e c o s t o f t h e r e n t a l s m a n 's o p e r a t i o n .
T h e C o m m is s io n h a s
ch o sen th e latter co urse.
O ur reasons are num erous.
F irst, th e calcu latio n an d
d isb ursem en t o f in terest to ten an ts at ap p ro p riate in te rv als w o uld th ro w o n th e
r e n ta ls m a n 's o f f ic e a s u b s t a n tia l b u r d e n w h ic h is d if f ic u lt to ju s t if y o n t h e b a s is o f
principle alone.
Seco n d, w e hav e gain ed th e im p ressio n du rin g th e co urse o f
considering subm issions m ade to us that tenants are less interested in obtaining
th e in terest o n th eir d ep o sits th an m ak in g su re th e lan d lo rd d o e s n o t h a ve th e
b e n e f it o f it .
W e s u s p e c t th a t la r g e n u m b e r s o f t e n a n t s w o u ld b e , if n o t h a p p y
w ith , at least in d ifferen t to , th e n o tio n th at in terest o n th eir fun ds w o u ld be
applied to support the rentalsm an's operation.
W e also see the necessity of
p ro vidin g the ren talsm an w ith a fu n d to effect rep airs im m ed iately in ap p ro p riate
cases.
Elsew here w e have recom m ended that the rentalsm an be em powered to
order that rental paym ents be m ade to him rather than the landlord for this
purpose.
C ircu m stan ces m ay, ho w ever, arise w h e re it w o u ld tak e sev eral m o n th s
o f s u c h p a y m e n t s to b u i ld u p a la rg e en o u g h f u n d to e f f e c t th e n e c e s s a ry re p a ir s .
T h a t m a y b e t o o lo n g .
A fund pro vided by interest on statutory deposits w ould
fill this gap.
M oreover,
w h ile
it
34.
R .S.B.C . 1960, c. 390.
35.
1971.
m ay
seed
in e q u i t a b l e
-1 1 5-
th at
th e
ren talsm an 's
o p e ratio n
be
f u n d e d w i t h i n t e r e s t o n t e n a n t 's m o n e y , tw o p o i n ts a r e w o r t h m a k i n g .
F irst; an y
attem pt to "tax" landlords w ith respect to the co st of the operation w ould
p r o b a b l y o n ly r e s u lt i n t h a t t a x b e i n g p a s s e d b a c k t o t h e te n a n t in t h e f o r m o f
increased rent.
S e c o n d ly , a la rg e p o rtio n o f th e re n ta ls m a n 's o p e ra tio n w ill b e
d e v o t e d to m a k i n g a v a i l a b l e t o t e n a n t s r e m e d ie s , s u c h a s t h e r e v ie w o f t e r m i n a t i o n
n o t ic e , w h i c h d o n o t n o w e x i s t .
I t d o e s n o t s e e m p a r t i c u l a r l y i n e q u i ta b l e t h a t a
large part of the financial burden of m aintaining the necessary adm inistrative
machinery should fall on the tenant.
Our final reasons for recommending that interest be applied to the cost of the
rentalsm an's operation are strictly pragm atic.
T h e o p eration, as w e conceive it, is
an am bitious undertak ing.
W e w o uld endow the rentalsm an an d his staff w ith
re s p o n s ib i lit ie s c a llin g f o r e x c e p t io n a l q u a lit ie s .
I t f o l lo w s t h a t w e w is h t o s e e th e
best possible persons retained to discharge the responsibilities w e have described.
It is o u r h o p e th at a re a d ily av ailab le so urce o f fu n din g w ill p re v en t an y te m p ta tio n
to "cu t co rn ers" w ith resp ect to eith er perso nn el or facilitie s in th e estab lish m e n t
of the rentalsman's office.
If
th e
rentalsm an
system
w hich
we
propose
w orks,
B ritish
C olum bia
w ill
finally
have
an
accessible
and
authoritative
source
of
information
and
an
appropriate forum
for the speedy resolution of landlord and tenant disputes
operating on a P ro vince-w ide scale.
E xam in ed in th is ligh t, the few dollars
rep resen ted by in te re st fo re go n e se em s a sm all p ric e to p a y.
T h e d isp o sitio n o f
interest in th e m an n er sugg ested is no t, h o w ev er, a m atter o f h igh p rincip le w ith
u s a n d o u r r e c o m m e n d a t io n s h o u l d n o t b e t a k e n a s a d e n ia l o f th e te n a n t 's m o r a l
rig h t to t h e in te re st.
R a th e r it r e p re se n ts a p ra c tic al s o lu tio n to w h a t w e co n c e iv e
to be a difficult administrative problem.
H.
For
con venience,
th e
recom m end ation s
made
in
this
Ch apter
are
sum m arized
below.
1.
The landlord be permitted to require, at the commencement of a tenancy, that a tenant pay to the rentalsman a statutory rent
deposit of an amount less than or equal to the first month's rent, or a statutory damage deposit of an amount less than or equal
to one-half of the first month's rent, or both.
2.
No more than one statutory rent deposit and one statutory damage deposit may be required with respect to any one dwelling unit
regardless of the number of occupants.
3.
Except for statutory deposits, all security deposits, premiums, and bonuses be prohibited.
4.
The term "security deposit" be defined in a manner comparable to the following:
... money or any property or legal right advanced or deposited under a rental agreement by a tenant or anyone on his
behalf, to a landlord or his agent or anyone on his behalf to be held by or for the account of the landlord, the primary
function of which is to secure the performance of any obligation under the tenancy agreement or the payment of a liability
of the tenant or to be returned to the tenant upon the happening of a condition and without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, this definition shall include advance payments of the last month's rent, deposits for damage for which the tenant
is responsible, deposits for failure to pay rent, collateral contracts giving the landlord a right to demand consideration if
the tenant quits early, and non-refundable deposits, and requiring a rental payment early in a tenancy which is
substantially larger than the others.
-1 1 6-
5.
The rentalsman hold all statutory deposits as trustee for the tenant, subject to any rightful claim by the landlord.
6.
The rentalsman invest all statutory deposits in securities permitted by the Trustee Act.
7.
Interest on statutory deposits be applied by the rentalsman to the costs of operation of his office.
8.
The statutory rent deposit be available to the landlord only with respect to claims for:
(a)
arrears of rent;
(b)
all or part of the final installment of rent when a tenancy has been lawfully terminated; and
(c)
reasonable loss of revenue by a landlord arising out of the unlawful termination of a tenancy by a tenant.
9.
Upon the delivery of a notice by a tenant lawfully terminating a tenancy, the tenant may, in writing in prescribed form consent to
immediate payment of the statutory rent deposit to the landlord and when such consent is delivered to the landlord he should be
deemed to have received the amount of the rent deposit toward the satisfaction of such rent as may be or become payable.
10.
Upon presentation by the landlord of the tenant's written consent given in accordance with the foregoing recommendations the
rentalsman should pay to the landlord the statutory rent deposit.
11.
The statutory damage deposit be available to the landlord only with respect to claims for losses arising out of the tenant's failure
to observe the statutory duty imposed on him by section 49(2) to repair damage caused by his wilful or negligent conduct or that
of persons who are permitted on the premises by him; and it shall not be available with respect to the cost of cleaning or the broach
of any covenant in the tenancy agreement relating to the use and maintenance of the premises which the rentalsman determines is
unreasonable.
12.
A landlord may assert a claim on a statutory deposit by delivering to the rentalsman
(a)
the tenant's written consent to the claim;
(b)
a notice of claim;
(c)
a copy of a summons or writ for a claim relating to the statutory deposit,
no later than 15 days from the termination or expiration of a tenancy.
13.
Except where the tenant has consented in writing to the landlord's claim, the rentalsman, upon receiving a landlord's notice of
claim shall, if possible, determine if the tenant disputes that claim.
14.
If the landlord's claim is disputed the rentalsman shall determine the dispute in accordance with the recommendations relating to
procedure and disburse the statutory deposit accordingly.
15.
If the tenant cannot be found, he should be deemed to have disputed and the rentalsman may proceed to determine the rights of the
landlord on that basis in the absence of the tenant.
16.
If, after 15 days have elapsed and no notice of claim has been delivered to the rentalsman by the landlord, the rentalsman shall,
upon being satisfied that the tenancy has in fact terminated or expired, pay to the tenant, upon his application, the statutory deposit
held.
17.
The rentalsman may, at any time, pay the statutory deposit to the tenant, upon receiving the written consent of the landlord.
18.
Rights against statutory deposits should be transferable
(a)
at the option of the tenant, from a previous landlord to an existing landlord when the tenant has moved and provided the
-1 1 7-
previous landlord has no adverse claims;
(b)
between landlords when the premised is sold.
-1 1 8-
CHAPTER VI
A.
CONTRACTUAL NATURE OF THE
TENANCY AGREEMENT
General
The introduction of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act represented a clear policy
ch oice o n the p art of the L egislature to p lace th e re latio n sh ip b etw een lan dlord
and tenant on a purely contractual basis, and m ove away from the notion that,
w ith respect to residential tenancies, the tenant has a leasehold estate conferring
an in te re st in lan d .
T h e m o s t s uc cin ct exp ressio n of th is p o licy is fo un d in sectio n
35 which provides:
For the
interest in land.
purposes
a nd a
t en anc y agreemen t do es no t c on fe r o n t h e t en ant an
T h at po licy is also ev ide n t in o th er p ro visions th ro ugh o ut Part II. T h e w o rd
"lease" has been discarded in favour of the term tenancy agreem ent."
Certain
co n tractu al co n ce p ts s u c h a s th e d o ctrin e o f fru stratio n , th e o b ligatio n to m itigate
dam ages and the interdependence of m aterial covenants h ave b een incorporated
into Part II.
M oreover, the do ctrine of interesse term ini, w hich is b ased on the prom ise
that the tenant's interest is one in land, has been abolished.
On
the
o th e r
hand,
le a s e h o ld
estate
c o n c e p ts
have
not
e n t i r e ly
d is a p p e a r e d .
Section
43
speaks
of
covenants
which
"run
with
the
land,"
a
clearly
no n-con tractual no tion , and also refers to the "dem ise." Th e rem edy of distress
rem ains, although only in narrow circum stances.
These features seem to have
b e e n i n h e r i t e d f r o m t h e O n t a r i o l e g i s l a t io n .
I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d th a t t h e O n t a r i o
Landlord and Tenant A ct has no provision com parable to our section 35.
O ntario took a
s e l e c t i v e a p p r o a c h t o t h e t r a n s it io n f r o m p r o p e r t y to c o n t r a c t 1 a n d t h i s a l l o w e d t h e
d r af ts m a n to r e fe r, in s e c tio n 9 0 o f th e O n tario A ct, to c o v en an ts "ru n n in g w ith th e
land",
without
creating
inconsistency
with
the
contractual
aspect
of
the
relationship.
It is
also
im portant to
realize
that, by
m aking
the
relationship
solely
one
of
co n tract, ev ery asp ect o f th e ru les o f co n tract ap p ly in clu din g th e co n cep t o f
p riv ity ,2 n o tio n s o f m istak e an d illeg ality, an d co n trac tu a l d a m a g e s p rin c ip le s . w h ile
w e ag re e th at th e re la tio n sh ip sh o u ld b e o n e o f co n tract, in o ur view a n u m b er o f
specific contractual rules require
closer exam ination.
The adoption
of the
com m on law rules, either directly, o r b y inco rpo ratio n thro ug h sectio n 35, m ay
lead to undesirable results in th e sp ecific context of residential tenancies, and in
th e ligh t o f th e re co m m e n d atio n s m ad e in th is R e p o rt.
W e are also o f th e o p in io n
th at w h ile, fo r th e p urp o ses o f th e re la tio n s h ip b e tw e en lan d lo rd an d ten an t, th e
l a s t t r a c e s o f t h e l e a s e h o l d e s t a t e c o n c e p t s c a n b e e l im i n a t e d , r i g h t s o f a l l p a r t i e s
1.
See M . R. G orsky, The L andlord and Tenant A m endment A ct, 1968-1969 - Some Problem s of Statutory Interpretation 479 (1970 Law Society
of U pper C anada L ectures).
2.
See Savien v. W oods (unreported - V ancouver Provincial Court, N o. 6047/71).
3.
R .S.B.C . 1960, c. 208.
-1 1 9-
under the Land R egistry
the tenancy agreem ent
B.
A ct 3
and
should be preserved.
These
its contractual nature w ill
and other problem s relating to
be exp lored in this C h ap ter.
The Interdependence of Material Covenants
The
O ntario
Law
Reform
Com m ission
common rules relating to the independence of lease covenants:4
com m ented
unfavourably
on
the
This study has emphasized the unhappy legal positions of tenants which
result from the lease being considered a conveyance of an estate in land.
Very
few covenants are implied in favour of the tenant an d e ven wh ere there are
covenants agreed upon in favour of the tenant.
An additional complication
e xi st s .
Th e us ua l r ul es of c on t ract law maki n g b i l at e ral co n tr ac tual p rov isions
mutually dependent will excuse one party from further performance upon a
substantial breach of a material covenant by the other party.
In the case of a
l e a s e , c o v e n a n t s a r e p r e s u m ed t o b e i n d ep e n d en t , t h e r e fo r e a b r ea c h o f t h e
l a n d l o r d ' s c o v e n a n t , fo r e x amp l e , t o h e at , do e s n o t r e l ie ve t h e t e n an t of his
obligations, including the obligation to pay rent.
The logic of the distinction is difficult to discern.
Historically the early
a g r i c u lt u r a l e c o n o m y , o u t o f w h i c h o u r l a n d l o r d a n d t e n a n t l a w gr e w , p l a c ed
principal importance on the conveyance of the leasehold interest.
The
s u p p o r t i n g c o n v e n a n t s b e i n g s e c o n d a r y , t h er e em e r g e d t h e c o n t i n u i n g d u t y t o
pay rent even though the building is destroyed.
Covenants may be broken by
the landlord without any effect on t he o bl iga ti on t o pay rent for his estate.
C o n c e p t s r o o t e d i n a n a g r i c u l t u r a l ec o n o m y o f a b y - go n e d a y p r o v i d e l i t t l e
logical relevancy for today's landlord and tenant realities.
The
O ntario
C om m issio n
as dependent each upon the others.
recom m ended
that
That
recom m endation
was
im p le m e n te d in B ritish C o lu m b ia
section provides:
ad opted
by
the
as se ctio n 4 2 o f
covenants
in
leases
be
treated
O ntario
L egislatu re
and
ultim ately
th e L a n d lord a n d T en a n t A ct.
T hat
Subject to this Part, the common law
breach of a material covenant by one party to
perform by the other party apply to tenancy agreements.
rules respecting the effect of the
a contract on the obligation to
T he result of th e ap p licatio n o f th e "co m m o n law rules referred to is that a
substantial breach by on e party of a m aterial con tractual und ertakin g w ill excuse
the other party from
further perform ance.
Three questions em erge from
a
consideration of the effect of section 42:
(1)
4.
In what circumstances do the "common law rules" take effect?
(2)
W hat
is
the
common law rules?
extent
(3)
Should
the
residential tenancies?
common
of
th e
law
-1 2 0-
relief
rules
av ailable
be
to
modified
a
party
with
under
respect
these
to
Each of these questions will be considered in turn.
It is only upon the breach of a material covenant that rights under section 42
a r is e .
T h e c o m m o n la w h a s n o t d e v e lo p e d a n y s p e c if ic te sts fo r d e te r m in i n g w h e n
a co v e n a n t is o r is n o t m a te r ia l.
R a th e r , th e c o u rts h a v e te n d e d to c o n s id e r e a ch
case on its particular facts in m aking this determ ination , and h ave defined
"material" in very general terms.
In its Report on Review of Part IV of The Landlord and Tenant Act the
Ontario
Law
Reform
Commission
considered
the
effect
of
the
comparable
Ontario provision:5
The provisions of section 89 by express terms assimilate the law of contract
into this area of landlord and tenant law.
Special reference is made to the Common
Law Rules respecting the effect of the breach of a material covenant by one party
to a contract on the obligation to perform by the other party.
It is well established by the
c o m m o n l a w t h a t n o t e v e r y d e p a r t u r e , n o m a t t e r h o w i ns ig ni fi ca n t, fr o m f u ll
performance of every covenant, no matter how unimportant to the total
transaction b etw een t he p ar ti es , w ill jus ti fy n on -p erf or ma nce on the other side.
The right to treat the contractual obligations as being at an end is subject to
rather confining rules.
E s s e n t i a l l y i t i s a f u n d a m en t a l b r e a c h o r s o m e t h i n g
going to the root of the contract which will excuse performance on the other
side.
In the final analysis it is the adjudication by the judge of what is a
substantial breach of a material covenant which will govern and not the caprice
or whim of one of the parties.
T he r e ha s n o t y e t b e e n tim e fo r th e de ve lo p m e n t o f a
which would provide guidance as to what covenants are and are not material.6
sub stan tial
b o dy
of
c ase
law
We
have
co n sid ered
th e
desirability
of
providing
a
statutory
d efin itio n
of
" m a te ria l" f o r th e p u rp o s es o f se c tio n 4 2 .
It h as b ee n su gg e s te d th at b e d o n e b y
supplem enting
the common
law
rules
with
a
num ber of specific covenants
design ated as "m aterial."
W e reject th is su ggestio n .
F irst, th e ap p ro ach o f th e
C o u rts h a s , in o u r v ie w , b e e n c o r re c t in d e c i d i n g e a c h c a s e o n its p a rtic u la r f a c ts .
A statutory definition m ight introduce an undesirable degree of rigidity.
For
ex a m p le , if th e lan d lo rd 's o b ligatio n to h ea t th e p rem ises to a ce rtain tem p era ture
w ere design ated as m aterial, a jud ge m igh t fin d h im self p reclu ded fro m reach in g
a s e n s i b l e d e c i s i o n w h e n t h e h e a t s u p p l i e d f e l l o n e d e g r e e s h o r t o f t h e m in i m u m .
S ec o n d , alternative rem ed ies are pro vided w ith resp ect to brea ch es o f th e m o re
im p o rtan t o b lig atio n s an d co n sid eratio n is giv en b elo w to n arro w in g th e effect o f
section 42 .
T h e reco m m en d atio n s w h ich w e m ake rend er less im po rtant the n eed
for a statutory definition.
The term "material" not be defined for the purposes of section 42.
W hat
covenant?
relief is available to a party when the
The recom m endations of the O ntario
other is in
C om m ission
5.
O ntario
L aw
R efo rm
C om m ission, R ep ort on
R eview
of
[hereafter referred to as O ntario R eview R eport] (em phasis in original text).
6.
T he tenant’s o bligation to pay rent has been held to be m aterial.
V a n co u v er P ro v in cia l C o u r t, N o . 12 88 / 70 ).
Lam ont suggests
or repair are also m aterial. See Lam ont, R esidential Tenancies 24 (2 nd ed., 1973).
7.
[1973] 3 O .R ., 188.
8.
Ibid., at 191.
-1 2 1-
Part
IV
of
The
See
that
breach of a
w ith respect
L andlord
and
T enant
material
to th e
A ct
22 (1972
Z abro H oldings v. Jam es (unreported the covenants to p rovide heat
interdep endence o f covenants seem clearly aim ed at relieving the tenant of an
o b ligatio n to p ay ren t in such circum stan ces.
D oes section 42 achieve that aim ?
T h e co m p arab le O n tario p ro v isio n w as co n stru ed in B rahm sgate Investm ents L td. v. F inn, a
decision of the Ontario County Court.7 Couture, Co. Ct. J. stated:8
Getting to the crux of the matter:
is the law such that when a landlord is
allegedly in breach of a contract, the law gives to the tenant the right to refuse
to pay rent and the right to withhold same?
In my opinion, it is not.
Had this
b e e n t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t he L e g i sl at ure I am c e rt ai n t h at t h e Ac t w o ul d have
s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d t h a t i n t h e ev e n t a l a n d l o r d w a s i n b r e a c h o f c e r t a i n
covenants he, the tenant, would have the tenant, would have the right to
withhold rent.
Counsel made allusion to a section of the Landlord and Tenant Act, R.S,O. 1960, c. 266
[now R.S.0, 1970, c. 236] relating to breaches in the part of the landlord.
He
referred to s. 88 [enacted 1968-69, c. 58, s. 3; now s. 891 of the Landlord and Tenant Act,
Part 4, which deals with interdependent convenants [sic] and states that:
88.
Subject
to
this
Part,
the
common law rules respecting the effect of
the breach of a material covenant by one party to a contract on the
obligation to perform by the other party apply to tenancy
agreements.
I would think that this in most instances would apply.
In other
words, if a landlord is in obvious breach of the covenants pertaining
to quiet enjoyment or to maintaining in repair, then I would assume
that it might normally mean that the tenant is no longer required to
perform his own covenants.
This would give the tenant the right to
terminate the agreement.
But I do not believe that it was intended
by the Legislature that it would give the right to the tenant to refuse
to pay rent and to remain on the premises without payment of such
rentals.
The landlord is entitled to payment of his rent.
The tenant is entitled to
compliance with the covenants.
If there is a breach on the part of the landlord,
t h en t h e t en a n t h a s t h e r ig h t to s u e h i m f o r s p ec if ic p er fo r ma n ce a n d f o r
damages arising as a result of the landlord's failure to conform with the terms
of the tenancy agreement.
T here appear to be no reported decisions of the Superior Co urts of B ritish
C o lum b ia w h ich arriv e a t a sim ilar o r a t an o p p o site co n clu sio n .
It do es , h o w ev er,
seem implicit in decisions of the Provincial Court such as Zabro Holdings v. James 9 that the
ten an t do es h av e a righ t to w ith h o ld rent w h en th e lan dlo rd is in breach of a
material covenant.
Apart
p laced on
from
th e
general
responsibility
for
rep airs
and
th e lan d lo rd by sectio n 49 (1 ) th e A c t is silen t
9.
N . 6 supra.
10.
In
V an co uver,
s.
49
(1)
m ay
inco rporate
V ancouver B y-law 4448, Sch. A , 10 & 12. See A ppendix.
-1 2 2-
by
refere n ce
the
d u ties
fitn ess
for
h ab itatio n
on th e pro visio n of
to
supply
services
set
out in
s e r v i c e s t o th e te n a n t . 1 0
S e c t io n 4 2
t o r e d u c e o r e l im i n a t e s e r v i c e s w h e r e
pay rent.
w o u l d , th e r e f o r e , s e e m t o p e r m i t
th e tenant is in b reach of his
the landlord
o b l ig a t i o n t o
W e m ust also
consider the circum stances in which
a breach
by one party
will
en title th e o ther to treat the agreem en t as being at an end.
T h e n o t io n t h a t a
covenant m ay or m ay not be m aterial is a contractual co ncept w hich w as only
i n t r o d u c e d in t o t h e l a w o f la n d l o r d a n d t e n a n t in 1 9 7 0 .
T he com m on law drew
a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e r e l a t i v e i m p o r t a n c e o f te r m s in a l e a s e ; a n d c h a r a c t e r i z e d
th e m o st im p o rtan t o f th o se term s as "co nditio ns." A b reach o f a co nd itio n by
one party perm itted the other to treat a lease as being at an end. 11
It is difficult to
ascertain whether or not the courts will continue to draw this distinction or
w h e th e r, w ith th e in tro d u c tio n o f s ec tio n 4 2 , th e te st h a s n o w b eco m e o n e o f
m a te ria lity .
I t m ig h t b e arg u e d th a t a b re a c h o f a m at e r ia l c o v e n a n t w ill a llo w a
party to treat the agreem ent, as at an end only if that covenant is also a term w hich
w o u ld h a v e b e en re g a rd e d a s a " c o n d itio n " at c o m m o n l a w . 1 2
O n th e o th e r h a n d ,
a tenancy agreem en t m ay co n tain a term , w h ich the p arties cho ose to ch aracterize
as a co n d itio n , b u t w h ich w o u ld n o t b e re g ard ed as m ate rial if th e c o n tractu al tests
w ere ap p lied .
It seem s d esirab le th at th e o p eratio n of sectio n 42 , its relatio n to th e
d istin ctio n b etw e en c o n d itio n s an d co v en an ts, an d th e circu m stan ces in w h ich a
p a rty is e n title d to tre a t th e te n a n c y ag re e m e n t as at an en d sh o u ld b e clarif ie d in
any remedial legislation.
Sectio n
42
has
also
in trod uced
m ore
gen eral
p r o b le m s
of
a
p o l ic y
n a tu r e .
P a r t I I w a s n o t d e s i g n e d t o e n c o u r a g e s e l f - h e l p r e m e d ie s a n d i n f a c t e l i m i n a t e d a
n u m b e r o f su ch re m e d ie s w h ic h ex iste d at co m m o n law .
N o n eth e le ss, se ctio n 4 2
d i r e c tly a llo w s s e lf- h e lp w h e re it w a s n o t p e r m it t e d a t c o m m o n la w .
T h i s p r o b le m
was referred to by Judge Levey in the Zabro H oldings case.
He warned that the parties
to a re s id e n tia l te n a n c y a g re e m e n t s h o u ld r ef ra in f r o m e x e r c is in g t h e ir rig h ts u n d e r
section 42. He stated:13
... both parties must make a conscientious effort to obey the law.
The Landlord
and Tenant Act makes a provision that if either a landlord or a tenant has suffered a
wrong, there is a remedy available by due process through the Courts.
The Act
has taken away the right of self-help by the landlord through the abolishing of
distress, and the right to lock out a tenant.
Matters such as have arisen in this
case must be dealt with by due process of the law.
It seem s in co n sisten t to set u p a m eth o d o f s elf-h e lp a n d
persons to use that means of enforcing obligations under a tenancy agreement.
th en
restrict
th e
righ t
of
E lsew here
in
th is
R ep o rt
th e
lan dlo rd's
duty
to
rep air
and
supply
services
is
co n sid ered an d reco m m en d atio n s are m ad e creatin g certain m ach in ery an d giv in g
th e r en t als m a n c e r t a in j u r i s d ic t io n i n c a s e s w h e r e th e la n d l o r d is in b re a c h o f th e s e
o b ligation s.
In particular, we recom m en d that the rentalsm an be em pow ered to
receive rents from the tenant and apply them so as to rem edy the landlord's
b reach .
W h ere such a statuto ry rem edy is pro v id ed it sh o u ld b e used , an d it seem s
11.
See Johnston v. G ivens [1941] O .R . 281 (O nt. C .A .).
See also (1843)
W illiam s, C anadian L aw of L andlord and Tenant 496 et seq. (4 th ed. R .W . Rhodes 1973).
12.
Q uaere the effect of Brahmsgate Investm ents L td. v. Finn, n. 7 supra.
13.
N . 6 supra.
-1 2 3-
11
M.
&
W.
5;
152
E.R .
693
(E xch.); and
u n d e s i r a b l e t h a t t h e t e n a n t s h o u l d r e t a i n a r i g h t to w i t h h o l d r e n t i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s
w h e re th e re n ta ls m an m ay in te rv e n e .
If th e rig h t to w ith h o ld ren t in th o se circ u m stan ces w e re ab o lish ed th e ran ge o f situ atio n s in w h ich th at rem ed y m igh t b e
av ailab le w o u ld be very n arro w .
It is difficult to po stulate a m aterial covenant
w h ich is o utsid e th e ren talsm an 's co m p eten ce, excep t a co ven an t w h ich is n o t
otherwise
m aterial
but which
the
parties,
in
the
tenancy
agreem ent,
have
s p e c if ic a lly m a d e m a te r ia l.
I n s u c h c a s e s , a rig h t o f ac tio n f o r d a m a g e s s e e m s a n
adequate rem edy.
W e th erefo re favo ur th e to tal elim in atio n o f th e rig h t o f th e
te n an t to w ith h o ld re n t p u rsu an t to se ctio n 4 2 a s , w h a t w e c o n c e iv e to b e a m u c h
more satisfactory statutory remedy has been recommended.
A ls o
in
th is
R e p o rt
a re
re c o m m e n d a tio n s
w h ic h
w o u ld
giv e
th e
ten an t
b asic
rights relating to his security of tenure.
These recom m endations have, as their
f o c a l p o i n t , t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a p e r io d ic t e n a n c y b y n o t ic e , g iv e n b y t h e la n d l o r d
an d th e ex p iratio n o f te n an c ie s fo r a te rm .
W h e re th ere h as b een a b reach o f
c o n d i ti o n ( o r p e r h a p s , o f a m a t e r i a l c o v e n a n t ) b y t h e t e n a n t , t h e t e n a n c y ( b e i t a
p e r io d i c t e n a n c y o r a t e n a n c y a g r e e m e n t f o r a t e r m ) w i l l t e r m i n a t e , n o t b y n o t i c e
o r exp iratio n , bu t in som e o th er w ay .
O ur recom m en dations w ith respect to
te n an t se cu rity w o u ld n o t ap p ly to te n an c ie s te rm in a te d in th a t w ay .
S ectio n 42 ,
i n i t s p r e s e n t f o r m , w o u l d o p e n t h e d o o r t o l a n d l o r d s i n s e r t in g , i n s t a n d a r d f o r m
ten an cy agreem en ts, co ven an ts, sp ecified to b e co n ditio n s, w h ich are lik ely to b e
b r o k e n , th u s circ u m v e n t in g th e te n a n t s e cu r ity p ro v isio n s .
For exam ple, a tenancy
agreement might provide:
It is a condition
of this agreement that the tenant shall mow
the lawn
each week.
B eh av iour by a ten an t w h ich co n traven ed th at p ro v isio n w o u ld
p e r s e , j u s t i f y n o ti c e , b u t u n d e r s e c t i o n 4 2 m i g h t p e r m i t t h e l a n d lo r d to t r e a t
ten an cy as havin g been term in ated auto m atically w ith o ut n o tice.
W e have
cluded
that
this
means
of
circumventing
the
general
policy
of
recommendations should be eliminated.
once
not,
th e
conour
The proposed Act contain a provision comparable to section 42 but with the following changes:
(a)
(b)
C.
The breach of a material covenant by a landlord should not permit the tenant to withhold rent.
A breach of a material covenant on a condition by one party should entitle the other party to treat the tenancy agreement
as being at an end, except where it is a breach by the tenant and is one which would not justify the termination of a
periodic tenancy by the landlord.
Freedom of Contract
Before the introduction of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act almost complete
freedo m of contract prevailed .
T h e law im p o sed very few lim itations and left
landlord and tenant to arrive at what ever bargain they felt circum stances
demanded.
A s w e pointed out in an earlier chapter freedom of contract, in
p ra c tic a l te rm s , h ad co m e to o p e ra te en tire ly to th e b en efit o f th e la n d lo rd an d th e
law w a s p ro d ucin g u n reaso n ab le an d u n fair resu lts.
E co n o m ic stren gth lay o n th e
sid e o f th e lan d lo rd an d th e co m p etitiv e fo rc es o f th e re n tal acco m m o d atio n
m ark et d id n o t o p e rate so as to p erm it th e ten an t to relie ve h im se lf o f th e o n ero u s
b u r d e n s p l a c e d o n h i m b y th e c o m m o n l a w o r to r e s i s t t h e l a n d l o r d w h o w i s h e d
to subject the tenant to strict and sometimes unconscionable contractual terms.
Part
II
altered
this
situation
dram atically.
-1 2 4-
It
set
out
certain
statutory
duties
w h i c h la n d l o r d a n d t e n a n t w e r e o b l i g e d t o o b s e r v e .
T he m ost im po rtant of these
d u ties are co n tain ed in sec tio n 4 9 w h ich se ts o u t th e lan d lo rd 's re sp o n sib ility to
re p air a n d th e ten an t's resp o n sib ility fo r o rd in ary clean lin ess.
T he sp ecific co n ten t
o f th a t p ro v is io n is th e su b je c t o f c o m m e n t e ls e w h e re in t h i s R e p o r t .
S e c tio n 3 4
(2 ) p ro v id es th at P art II ap p lies to all resid en tial ten an cies "n o tw ith stan d in g an y
agreem ent or w aiver to the contrary excep t as sp ecifically pro vided in this Part."
T h at p ro v isio n se e m s aim e d at p rev en tin g th e parties fro m co ntractin g o u t o f th e
duties an d o bligation s im po sed on them by the A ct.
It do es, ho w ever, raise a
larger question.
D o e s fre ed o m o f co n tract still o p erate to p erm it lan d lo rd an d
te n an t to reach an y bargain th ey ch oo se, su b ject to sp ecific req u ire m e n ts o f th e
A c t, or has th eir freedo m of co ntract co m p letely disap peared w ith th e excep tio n
o f th o se areas w h e re th e A ct sp ecifically o r b y n ecessary im p licatio n allo w s th e
parties to strike a bargain which would otherwise be prohibited?
That question may arise in two different ways.
First, one party to a tenancy
agreem en t m ay w ish to im p ose on th e oth er a high er duty th an th at set o ut in th e
A c t.
A la n d lo rd , fo r ex a m p le , m a y w a n t th e te n an cy ag re e m e n t to p ro v id e th at th e
ten an t is to sh am p o o th e carp ets on ce each w e ek .
That w ould seem to be
c o n tra c t in g n o t o u t o f o rd in a r y c le a n lin e s s b u t b e y o n d it .
W o u ld s u c h a p ro v is io n
be lawful? 14
The
"freedom
of
contract"
issu e
also
arises
w h e re
the
tenancy
agreem ent
pu rpo rts to d eal w ith aspects of the landlord and tenant relation ship up on w hich
th e A c t is to tally silen t.
T h is m ay take th e fo rm o f ru les d esign ed to regu late th e
u se o f f a c ilitie s o r a re a s s h a re d in c o m m o n , p ro h ib itio n s re la tin g to th e u s e o f th e
prem ises such as hanging pictures w ithout the consent or supervision of the
res ide n t m an ag er o r req u irin g th e te n a n t to u s e a s p e c ial ty p e o f p ic tu re h an g er.
T he le g a lity o f su c h a p r o v is io n do es n o t ap p e ar to h ave b e e n te ste d in th e cou rts.
W hat
degree
of
freedom
should
landlords
and
tenants
have
to
contract
b e y o n d th e p r o v is io n s o f th e A c t o r w i t h r e s p e c t t o m a t t e r s u p o n w h i c h t h e A c t
is s ile n t?
A s a m a tte r o f s o cia l p h ilo so p h y th is C o m m is s io n is n o t w e d d e d to th e
n o t io n t h a t s a n c t i t y o f c o n t r a c t m u s t n o t b e i n t e r f e r e d w i th .
Com m ents elsew here
in th is R e p o rt re fle ct o u r p o s itio n o n th is issu e.
It is n o t o ur v iew th at, in th e
nam e of "freedom of contract," the law should perm it one party to im po se
u nreaso n ab le o b ligatio n s o n th e o th er.
A lan d lo rd , fo r exam p le, sh o uld no t b e
p e r m it t e d to re q u ire h is te n an ts to s h a m p o o t h e r u g e v e r y w e e k .
N o r s h o u ld u n reasonable restrictions on the use of the premises be allowed.
The
e x a m p le
g iv e n
is
e x tre m e
but
does
illu s tra te
a
p o s s ib le
consequence
if
to tal fre ed o m o f co ntract applies.
M oreover, where an unreasonable term is
intro d uc ed in to a ten an cy ag reem en t, the p arty at w ho se insistence it is included
is n o rm a lly a w a r e th a t it w i ll n o t a lw a y s b e o b s e r v e d e v e n t h o u g h h e m ig h t h o p e
that it w ill.
Its purpose is som etim es to in d uc e a party to o bserve a higher
stan d ard o f perform an ce than m igh t otherw ise be fo rthco m ing.
F o r in stan ce, a
lan d lo rd m igh t in clu de in a ten an cy agreem en t fo r a h o use , a p ro v isio n th at th e
t e n a n t m o w t h e la w n t w ic e e a c h w e e k in t h e h o p e s th a t th e te n a n t m ig h t t h e re b y
be induced to m o w th e law n at least o n ce each w eek rather than a fortn ightly
in te r v a l w h ic h m ig h t p re v a il if th e te n a n c y a g r e e m e n t w e re s ile n t o n h o w o f t e n th e
law m us t b e m o w ed .
In o ther cases, an un reasonable term m igh t be introd uced
in a te n a n c y a g r e e m e n t to p ro v id e th e b a s is fo r te rm in a t io n o f a te n a n c y o r s o m e
o th e r a c t w h i c h th e la w w o u ld n o t n o rm a lly a llo w in th e ab se n ce o f a b re a c h o f
14.
For
a
rece n t
P ro v in c ia l
C o u rt
d e c isio n
d e n yin g
th e
rig h t
to
see Paul H eller L td. v. Irwin (unreported - V ancouver Provincial Court, N o. 4815/73).
-1 2 5-
c o n tr a c t
beyond
th e
te rm s
of
s.
4 9 (2 ),
the tenancy agreement.
On
th e
o th er
han d,
each
ren tal
situatio n
m ay
be
un iq ue.
The
n um b er
of
v ariab les an d th eir p erm u tatio n s an d c o m b in a tio n s are so great th at it w o u ld be
fo lly to atte m p t to d esig n a L a n d lord an d T en a n t A ct w h ich w ill sp ecifically co v er an y
situ atio n w h ic h m ig h t p o s sib ly em erge.
It m ay th erefo re b e argu ed th at freed o m
of con tract has a definite role to p lay and the parties them selves are the b est judges
o f w h a t t h e i n d iv id u a l s i t u a t i o n d e m a n d s .
F o r e x a m p le , if th e p r e m is e s c o n s is t o f
a h o u s e an d g ro u n d s it do es n o t se em un rea so n ab le th at th e p arties sh o u ld b e ab le
to p rov ide for the care of the grou nd s in the tena n cy ag reem en t.
Sim ilarly,
reason able rules relating to the use o f p arking, laun dry facilities or use of an
apartm ent house sw im m ing pool m ay be justified.
Again, the developm ent of
sp ecific ru les seem s b etter left to th e p arties rath er th an fo rm th e su bject o f
statutory regulation.
We
have,
th e r e f o re ,
conclud ed
that
f re e d o m
of
c o n t ra c t
s h o u ld
be
p e rm itte d
to o perate b ut th e A c t sh ould co ntain safeguards again st th e in tro d uctio n of
u n reaso n ab ly strin gen t ru les, co n d itio n s an d term s in to te n an c y ag re e m e n ts.
Some
useful guidance w ith respect to rules and restrictions in the M od el R esiden tial
Landlord and Tenant Code. It provides:15
(1)
(2)
15.
The
tenant
shall
obey
all
obligations
or
restrictions, whether
denom inated by the lan dlord as "rules" o r o th erw ise, co n cern ing his
use,
occupation,
and
maintenance
of
his
dwelling
unit,
appurtenances thereto , and the p roperty of w hich the dw elling unit
is a part if:
(a)
Such
o b lig a tio n s
be
re s tric tio n s
are
b ro u g h t
to
th e
atte n tio n o f
the ten an t at the tim e o f h is en try in to the agreem en t to
occupy the dwelling unit; or
(b)
Such
obligations
or
restrictions,
if not so know n by the tenant
at th e co m m en cem en t o f te n an c y, a re b ro u gh t to th e atten tio n
o f th e ten an t an d , if th ey w o rk a su b stan tial m o d ificatio n o f
his bargain, are consented to in writing by him.
No
such
tenant unless:
restriction
or obligation shhll be enforceable against the
(a)
It
is
for
the
p urp ose of pro m o tin g th e co n ven ien ce, safety, o r
w e l f a r e o f t h e t e n a n t s o f t h e p r o p e r t y , o r f o r th e p r e s e r v a t i o n
o f th e lan d lo rd 's p ro p erty fro m ab u sive u se, o r fo r th e fa ir
d istrib u tio n o f se rv ices an d facilities held o u t fo r the ten an ts
generally.
(b)
It
is
reasonably
promulgated.
(c)
It applies to all tenants of the property in a fair manner.
(d)
It
is
sufficiently explicit in its prohibition, direction, or
lim it a tio n o f th e t e n a n t’s c o n d u c t to f a ir ly in f o r m h i m o f w h a t
he must or must not do to comply.
related
A m erican Bar F oundation, M odel R esidential L andlord and Tenant C ode.
-1 2 6-
to
the
purpose
for
w hich
it is
T hat provision is aim ed at enabling the landlord to p rom ulgate reason able rules
w ith respect to the p rem ises and the tenancy w hile m aking un reason able rules
unenforceable again st th e ten an t.
I t ap p ears to assu m e, realistically in o ur view ,
that the residential tenant w ill seldom b e in a p osition to im pose unreasonable
term s on the landlord.
S im ilar legislatio n m igh t b e usefu l in defin in g th e exten t
of freedom of contract with respect to areas where the Landlord and Tenant Act is silent.
A le g is la tiv e statem en t o f th is kin d is b ro ad en o u gh to co ver co n tra c tin g b ey o n d
the p rov is io n s o f th e A c t.
It m ig h t also b e n o te d th at th e p ro visio n in th e M odel
C o d e c o n t e m p l a te s th a t th e r u le s m ig h t b e p o s t e d .
W e w o u ld p r e f e r t o s e e s u c h
rules contained in a written tenancy agreement before they are enforceable.
1.
The proposed Act provide that a written tenancy agreement may contain, and that the tenant shall obey, all reasonable obligations
or restrictions, which are not inconsistent with the Act, whether denominated by the landlord as "rules" or otherwise, concerning
the tenant's use, occupation, and maintenance of his dwelling unit, appurtenances thereto, and the property of which the dwelling
unit is a part.
-1 2 7-
2.
For the purposes of the foregoing recommendation a restriction or obligation is reasonable only if:
(a)
it is for the purpose of promoting the convenience, safety or welfare of the tenants of the property or the preservation of the
landlord's property from abusive use, for the fair distribution of services and facilities generally;
(b)
it is reasonably related to the purposes for which it is promulgated;
(c)
it applies to all tenants of the property in a fair manner; and
(d)
it is sufficiently explicit in its prohibition, direction or limitation of the tenant's conduct to fairly inform him of what he
must or must not do to comply.
H aving
m ade
reco m m en d atio n s
relating
to
the
rights
of
the
parties
to
contract
"beyon d" the A ct o r in areas n o t co ve red b y the A ct, w e m ust con sider w hat
re m e d ie s s h o u ld b e a v a ila b le t o t h e p a r tie s f o r b r e a c h e s o f s u c h a g re e m e n t s .
S in c e
w e v ie w th e j u r is d ic tio n o f th e r e n t a ls m a n a s b e in g s tric tly c o n f in e d , in m o s t c a s e s
s u c h r e lie f w ill b e s o u g h t in t h e c o u rt.16
W e have considered w hether, in such
cases, th e rem ed ies o f an a gg rie ve d p arty sh o uld be co n fin ed to an actio n fo r
damages.
The
a rg u m e n t
fo r
re s tric tin g
r elie f
S e c t io n 6 0 B o f th e L a n d lo rd a n d T e n a n t
r e m e d i e s a n a l o g o u s t o t h o s e o f s p e c if ic
for example:
(a)
p ro h ib it
a
lan dlo rd
or
the tenancy agreement; and
(b)
to
d am ag es
in
su ch
case s
is
as
fo llo w s .
A c t m a k e s a v a i la b le , in S m a ll C la im s C o u r t ,
perform ance and injun ction .
A judge m ay,
a
ten an t
order
a
lan d lo rd
or
terms of a tenancy agreement.
ten an t
fro m
to
co n trav en in g
p erfo rm
...
and
th e
term s
carry
of
out ... th e
W h ile th ese rem ed ies m ay be app rop riate, in som e circum stance s w ith resp ec t to
m a t t e r s c o v e r e d b y t h e A c t , i t m ay b e ar g u e d t h at t h e i r av ai l ab i li ty w i th re s p e c t to
breaches of provisions of tenancy agreem ents relating to m atters beyond or
ou tside the A ct is question able.
T hey op en the do or to co n tractual term s w hich
m ight have the effect of defeating our recom m endations with respect to tenant
security. For example, to insert a provision in a tenancy agreement saying:
“The tenant agrees not
breach of any provision of this agreement.”
to
use
or
water
the
lawn
occupy
the
property
so
long
as
he
is
in
along with a reasonable term such as:
“The
tenant
agrees
to
no
less
than
once
each
week
during
the
summer.
m igh t, if th e ten an t is in b reach , fo rm th e basis of an in jun ctio n b arrin g th e ten an t
fro m the p rem ises in circum stan ces w here the lan dlord w ould n ot be en titled to
give no tice term in atin g th e ten an cy .
A n alo go us exam p les m igh t be advan ced w ith
respect to specific performance.
16.
See C hapter IV .
-1 2 8-
We
reject
th at
argu m en t.
Th e
in
personam
rem edies
are
discretionary
an d
are
unlikely to be sought in cases where an award of dam ages is appropriate.
Moreover,
the
"reasonableness"
requirements
should
prevent
then
use
in
situ ations w h e re it w o u ld lead to results co n trary to th e p o licy o f th e Ac t.
So long
a s t e n a n t s e c u r ity is n o t d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d b y p e r m it t in g a g r e e m e n ts o u t s id e o r b e y o n d
the Act we see no point in restricting the landlord's remedies.
Subject to recommendations made elsewhere, the remedies available for breach of a tenancy
to damages.
D.
agreement not be restricted
The Lord's Day Act
Section 4 of the Lord's Day Act provides:17
It is not lawful for any person on the
or in any provincial Act or law in force on or
sell or offer for sale or purchase any goods,
or any real estate, or to carry on or transact
or in connection with such calling, or for
person to do, on that day, any work, business, or labour.
T h e lan g u ag e of th at pro visio n seem s, and
encompass tenancy agreements entered into on a Sunday.18
has
Lord's Day, except as provided herein,
alter the 1st day of March 1907, to
chattels, or other personal property,
any business of his ordinary calling,
gain to do, or employ any other
been
held,
to
be
w ide
enough
to
T he
wo rd s
"excep t
as
p ro vided
...
in
an y
p ro vin cial
Ac t"
use d
in
section
4
s e e m to p e r m it a p ro v in c ia l o p tio n w i t h re s p e c t t o i t s o p e r a t i o n .
I n o u r o p in io n
there is m uch to be gain for m aking a specific exception from the L ord's D ay A ct in
resp ect o f ten an cy agreem en ts.
S u n d a y is o n e d a y w h e n b o t h la n d lo r d a n d t e n a n t
a re u s u ally fre e to n eg o t ia te te n a n c y a g re e m e n ts , a n d it s ee m s p o in t le s s th a t s u c h
agreem e n ts sh o u ld b e v itiate d b y w h at m an y re gard as an an a ch ro n istic p ro v isio n .
The proposed Act provide that the validity of tenancy agreements for residential premises shall not be affected by the Lord's
Day Act.
17.
R .S.C. 1970, c. L-13.
18.
S ee
C onroy
v.
Shapiro
Investm ents
L td.
(un rep o rted
V an co u ver
P rov in cial
C o u rt,
N o.
26 54 / 73 ).
T h ere also
appears to be a Sunday O bservance A ct in force in this P rovince, see R .S.B.C . 1948, c. 318.
T hat A ct is no m ore
t h a n a r e c i ta l o f t h e p r o v is io n s o f a n u m b e r o f o l d e r E n g l is h A c t s a n d a d e c l a r a tio n t h a t t h e y a r e i n
force.
T he Sunday O bservance A ct w as n o t carr ied fo rw ard into the 1 960 revision , b u t it do es n o t ap p ear to
have even been specifically repealed.
19.
See M egarry & W ade, T he L aw of R eal Property 726 (3 rd ed ., 1966).
T here are tw o exceptions to this general rule,
n a m e ly , (a ) th e b e n e fit o f c o v e n a n ts a re a ss ig n ab le in lim ite d c ir c u m s ta n ce s , (b ) th e b e n e fit a n d
burden of restrictive covenants are assignable under the doctrine of Tulk v. M oxhay.
See R egent O il C o. v. J. A .
G regory (H atch E nd) L td. [1966] 1 C h. 402 (C .A .).
20.
E .g .,
a
covenant
destruction by fire.
21.
Spencer’s C ase (1583), 5 C o. R ep. 16a; 77 E .R . 72 (K .B.).
to
build
a
wall
on
th e
leased
-1 2 9-
p ro perty
or
a
co ven an t
to
reb uild
p rem ises
in
case o f
E.
Privity and Rights on Assignment
The
co m m o n
ru les
w h ich
regu lated
th e
righ ts
of
p arties
when
a
lan dlo rd
or
a ten an t h ad assig n ed h is in terest, o r th e ten an t su b let, w e re m a n y an d c o m p le x.
F o r ex am p le, o n an a ss ig n m e n t b y th e te n an t, a s a g en eral ru le th e b en efit an d
b u rd e n o f all n e g a tiv e c o v en a n ts w h ic h to u c h an d c o n ce rn th e lan d , an d p o s itiv e
covenants by agreem ent betw een the landlord and tenant, w ill run w ith the land.
M o r e o v e r , a l l n e g a t i v e c o v e n a n t s , w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e y t o u c h a n d c o n c e r n t h e la n d ,
w ill r u n if th e a s s ig n e e h a s n o tic e o f th em .
I f th e re v e rs io n is as s ig n e d b y th e
l e s s o r , th e b u r d e n a n d b e n e f i t o f c o v e n a n t s w i l l g e n e r a l l y p a s s o n l y i f t h e y t o u c h
a n d c o n c e r n t h e la n d a n d th e a s s ig n m e n t is b y d e e d .
W h e n th e t e n a n t s u b l e a s e s
h is in terest un d er a ten an cy agreem en t th ere is n eith er a p riv ity o f co n tract n o r
privity of estate betw een the landlord and sublessee and the general com m on law
rule is that no covenants were enforceable.19
M oreover,
in
r e la tio n
to
covenants
ru n n i n g
w it h
the
land,
when
th e r e
has
been an assignm ent o f an interest un der a tenancy agreem ent, a distinction w as
draw n, at com m on law , betw een covenants con cerning things in b eing (in esse) an d
things n ot in being (in posse). 20
Covenants relating to things not in existence where the
assign s w e re n o t sp ecifically n am ed did no t ru n w ith th e lan d. 21
A n in essi co ven an t
ran without the assignees being nam ed.
This anachronism was corrected by
section 43 which provides:
Covenants concerning things related to the
land whether or not the things are in existence at the time of the demise.
rented
premises
run
with
the
W h en
dealin g
w ith
the
effect
of
co ven an ts,
th e
co m m o n
law
w as
carefu l
to
p ro v id e th a t th e o n ly c o v e n a n ts w h ic h w o u ld affe ct su cc esso rs in title o f lan d lo rd s
and tenants were those w hich ran w ith the land.
T he traditional test for
determ ining this question was to consider w hether the covenant "touches or
c o n c e rn s " th e lan d . 22
A lo n g lin e o f c a s e la w s e ts o u t th o s e co v e n a n ts w h ic h d id
o r d id n o t m e et th is te st.23
I n s e ctio n 4 3 , th e L eg islatu re h a s u se d th e w o rd s
" r e l a t i n g t o t h e r e n t e d p r e m i s e s " r a t h e r t h a n " t o u c h e s o r c o n c e r n s t h e l a n d ," a n d
th e questio n im m ed iately arises as to th e sign ificance of the ch an ge.
W as it
intended that the category of covenants which run with the land be widened?
T here
appears
to
be
no
c as e
l aw
on
this
point
an d
one
m u st
t h ere fo re
sp ecu la te w h e th e r th e co m m o n la w ru le th at an o p tio n to p urch ase th e rev ersio n
d id n o t ru n w ith th e lan d , an d thus did n ot bind assignees o f the lan dlord, 24 is still
goo d law .
F u r th e r m o r e , i t i s u n c e r t a i n w h e t h e r it is s t ill th e l a w th a t a d a m a g e
22.
See Spencer’s C ase, ibid.
23.
For a good sum m ary of the cases, see M egarry and W ade, n. 19 supra, 729.
24.
W oodall v. C lifton [1905] 2 C h. 257 (C .A .).
25.
R e D ollar Land C orporation and Solom on (1963), 39 D .L.R . (2d) 221 (O nt. H .C .).
26.
A ltho u gh
the
inten tion
m ay
h ave
b een
m erely
to
For a further discussion of this topic, see Lam ont, n. 6 supra, 28-29.
-1 3 0-
sim p lify
th e
lang u age
of
th e
A ct
fo r
the
lay read er.
d eposit d oes n o t ru n w ith th e lan d so as to b in d an assig n ee o f th e lan dlo rd. 25
w ords used in section 43 have opened this question and left in doubt
applicability of many of the common law decisions.26
The
the
In
our
view , the
com m on
law
rules
relating
to
the
enforceability
of
covenants
a r e u n d u ly n a rr o w .
T h e e lim in a tio n o f t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n c o v e n a n t s i n
posse
an d co v en an ts in esse is a u se fu l first strip to w a rd b ro ad en in g th e se rig h ts b u t
furth er reform seem s desirable.
In our opinion, co venants w hich w ere enfo rceable
at co m m o n la w s h o u ld c o n tin u e to b e en fo rceab le, b ut th e co m m o n law p o sitio n
sh o uld be su pp le m e n te d b y a m o re gen eral p ro visio n allo w in g b o th lan d lo rd s an d
their assigns and tenants; or any person law fully in p ossession of residential
prem ises as an assignee or subtenan t, to enforce all co ndition s an d coven an ts
relatin g to th e prem ises.
T h e m ateriality of th e coven an t sho uld no t affect its
enforceability.
In our view, section 43 should be replaced by the provision
comparable to the following:
W ith out
dero gatin g
fro m
th e
righ ts
of
an y
perso n
to
en fo rce
a
co v en an t
or
c o n d itio n at co m m o n law o r o th erw is e u n d er th is A c t, all co v e n an ts (m a te ria l o r
otherw ise) and con dition s relating to residential prem ises or the land o n w hich
prem ises is situated shall be enforceable as betw een any person law fully in
possession o f residential prem ises and any person o w ning an interest in a
reversion of the premises.
Such
a
p ro visio n
w o u ld
have
the
effect
of
allo w in g
the
enforcem ent
of
coven ants relatin g to the residential prem ises as betw een all person s having a
"te n an t-like " in tere st an d th o se h av in g a "lan d lo rd-like " in terest.
N either th e fo rm
of the assignm ent nor the presence or absence of a clause stating that assignees
w e r e b o u n d w o u ld af f e c t th e q u e s tio n o f en fo rc e a b ility .
I n e a c h c a s e it w o u ld b e
fo r th e p e rs o n a tte m p t in g to e n f o r c e to p r o v e h is rig h t to s u e b y b e in g in la w fu l
p o ssessio n un d er an assign m en t o r su b -lease, o r b y h o ld in g a v alid in terest in a
re v e rs io n .
T h e rig h t o f th e p a rtie s to s u e o n th e c o n tra c t w o u ld n o t b e a ffe cte d .
In essen ce, su ch a p ro v isio n w o u ld destro y th e need fo r privity of co ntract o r
estate un der assign m ents or sub-leases as a prerequisite to enforcing co ven an ts
u n d e r t h e o r i g i n a l t e n a n c y a g r e e m e n t; b u t th e rig h ts o f p a r tie s t o s u e w h e r e p r i v i t y
does exist would not be affected.
F.
1.
The proposed Act contain, in place of section 43 a provision incorporating the following principles: All covenants, material or
otherwise, and conditions relating to residential premises should be enforceable ae between any person lawfully in possession of the
premises and any person having an interest in a reversion of the premises.
2.
The foregoing recommendation should not derogate from the rights of parties where, at common law, there exists privity of contract
or privity of estate.
Formalities and Land Registration
Some
consideration
must
be
given
-1 3 1-
to
the
relation ship
betw een
residen tial
tenancies, the Land Registry Act,27 the Statute of Frauds28 and section 35 of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
For convenience we again set out the text of that provision:
For the
interest in land.
purposes
a nd a
t en anc y agr ee me nt do es no t co nfer on th e t en a nt an
B e c a u s e th e e f fe c t o f s e c tio n 3 5 is c o n f in e d to P art II o n ly , it w o u ld a p p e a r th a t
t h e c o m m o n la w r u l e t h a t t h e t e n a n t a c q u ir e s a n in t e r e s t in l a n d u n d e r a te n a n c y
agreement is preserved for the purposes of the Land Registry Act and the Statute of Frauds.
Po tential
c o n f li c t s
em erge
w ith
respect
to
N othing in Part II requires that a tenancy
enforceable for the purposes of that Part. Section 36 provides:
(1)
(2)
the
form
agreement
of
be
tenancy
agreem ents.
in writing to be
W here
a
tenancy
agreem ent
in
w ritin g
is
execu ted b y a ten an t
a f t e r th i s P a r t c o m e s in t o f o r c e , t h e l a n d l o r d s h a l l e n s u r e t h a t
a
fully
executed
duplicate
original
copy
of
the
tenancy
agreem ent is delivered to the tenant w ithin tw enty-on e days
after its execution and delivery by the tenant.
W here
the
copy
of
a
tenancy
agreement
is
not
accordance
with
subsection
(1), the
ob ligatio ns
of
thereunder cease until such copy is delivered to him.
T h e w o rds "w h ere a ten an cy agreem en t in w riting" in su b section (1)
c o n te m p la t e th a t t e n a n c y a g r e e m e n t s m a y b e e n t e r e d in t o o r a l l y .
S e c t io n
Statute of Frauds provides:
No
agreem ent
concerning
an
interest
a c tio n u n l e s s e v id e n c e d in w ritin g , s ig n e d
or by his agent.
(2)
No
creation,
assignm ent,
or
surrender
of
an
interest
in
land is
en fo rceab le b y actio n un less ev iden ced in w ritin g, sign ed b y th e
party creating, assigning, or surrendering the same or by his agent.
(3)
This
section
does
term of three years or less.
apply
to
any
lease
land
is
th e p a rty
appear to
2 o f th e
(1)
not
in
by
delivered in
the
tenant
enforceable by
to b e c h a rg e d
o f an interest in lan d fo r a
W ha t is th e statu s o f an o ral te n an c y ag re em e n t fo r a te rm lo n g e r th an th r e e years?
M ay a tenant enforce such an agreem ent? O ne m ight argue that the Statute of Frauds is
in a p p lica b le to re s id e n tial ten a n c ie s b e c a u se it is c o n c e rn e d o n ly w ith in te re s ts in
lan d an d , b y d efin itio n , th e te n an t's in terest is n o t o n e in lan d fo r th e p urp o ses o f
Part II.
On the other hand, it might be argued that the Statute of Frauds is clear and
d ire c t in its te rm s relating to th e u n e n fo rc e ab ility o f s u c h ag re e m e n ts an d sh o u ld
prevail because the right to enter into oral tenancy agreem ents for a term
exceeding three years arises only by implication under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
27.
R .S.B.C . 1960, c. 208.
28.
R .S.B.C . 1960, c. 369.
-1 3 2-
T his
con flict
relating
Registry Act which provides:
(1)
to
form
is
com po un ded
by
section
38(l)(d)
of
the
L and
E v e ry
c e rtific a te
of
in d e f e a s ib l e
tit le
is s u ed
u n d er
th is
Act
s h a ll b e
r e c e iv e d in e v id e n c e i n a ll C o u r t s o f ju s t ic e in th e P ro v in c e w it h o u t
p ro o f o f th e seal o r sig n atu re th ereo n , an d , so lo n g as it rem ain s in
fo rce an d uncancelled, shall be conclusive evidence at law an d in
eq uity, as again st H er M ajesty an d all perso ns w h o m so ev er, th at th e
p erso n n am ed in th e certificate is seised of an estate in fee sim p le in
the land therein described against the whole world, subject to
(d)
any
le a s e ,
or
agreem ent
fo r
le a s e ,
for
three years, where there is actual occupation under the same;
a
p e r i o d n o t e x c e e d in g
T he effect o f th at sectio n is to sterilize th e righ ts o f a ten an t w h o h as en tered into,
but failed to register, a tenancy agreem ent fo r a term exceeding three years.
A
m ore precise consideration of the effects of a failure to register is beyond the
scope of this Report.
As
a
m atter
of
policy,
the
C o m m ission
has
con cluded
that
a
tenancy
agreem en t fo r a term exceeding three years is a m ajor und ertaking, and w e see
considerable virtue in rules 28a w hich require that such agreem ents be reduced to
w ritin g.29
M oreover, a long term tenancy in an encum brance of considerable
m agn itud e.
I t is a n e n c u m b r a n c e o f w h ic h , in o u r o p in io n , a p o t en t ia l a ss ig n e d
o f th e rev ers ion sh o uld rece ive n o tice in th e c o u rs e o f a n o rm al lan d reg istry
s e a rc h .
I t d o e s n o t s e e m u n r e a s o n a b le th a t th e te n a n t w h o ac q u ire s rig h ts o f th is
d im e n s io n s h o u ld b e re q u ire d in c o m p l y w ith t h e L a n d R e g i st r y A c t t o p r o t e c t th o s e
rights.
1.
Any conflict between the Statute of Frauds and the proposed Act to be resolved in favour of the Statute of
Frauds.
2.
Any conflict between the Land Registry Act and the proposed Act to be resolved in favour of the Land
Registry Act.
One
further
prob lem
relating
to
form alities
deserves
con sideration .
Under
section 36, where a written tenancy agreem ent is executed by the tenant, the
la n d lo rd is re q u ire d to d e liv e r a f u lly e x e c u te d d u p l ic a t e o r ig in a l c o p y to th e te n a n t
w ithin tw enty-one days after its execution.
W here a copy is not delivered in
acco rd an ce w ith th at ru le, "th e o b ligations of the ten an t thereunder cease until
su ch co p y is d eliv ered to h im ."
W h at is th e n ature of th e ten an t's o b ligatio n
b e tw e en th e tw e n ty -f irs t d a y a n d th e d ay th e co p y is f in a lly d e liv e r e d ?
S e c tio n 3 6
may be interpreted in two different ways:
(1)
The tenant is under no obligation
premises during that period of time; or
(2)
The landlord's right
is deferred
until
extinguished.
29.
to
pay
rent
to
dem and
rent w ith
respect
a oopy of the
agreement
Subject to the possible application of the doctrine of part perform ance.
-1 3 3-
for
to
is
his
occupancy
of
that period
of
delivered, but
the
tim e
not
There appear to be no reported cases which provide guidance.
The policy
of section
36
is to
encourage
the
landlord
to
deliver prom ptly to
th e te n an t an ex ec ute d c o p y o f th e te n a n c y a g re e m e n t.
That po licy seem s best
served by the first interpretation w hich provides the stronger in ducem ent.
We
w o uld th ere fo re fav o ur the clarifica tio n o f sec tio n 36 in a m an n er co n sisten t w ith
the first interpretation.
Section 36(2) be clarified so as to indicate that the liability of the tenant to pay rent for his occupancy ceases until an executed copy of the
tenancy agreement is delivered to him.
G.
Implied Terms
W h en
a
lan d lo rd
an d
te n an t
e n te r
in to
a
te n an c y
a greem en t,
be
it
o ral
or
written,
the
parties
do
not
always
turn
their
minds
toward
a
complete
c o n sid eratio n o f th eir p o te n tial rig h ts an d liab ilities.
To cover cases where the
le ase d id n o t co ver all asp ects of th e ten an cy, th e co m m o n law d ev elo p e d a
n u m b e r o f i m p l i e d c o v e n a n t s d e e m e d t o b e p ar t o f t e rm s o f e v e ry le a se e x c e p t to
the extent that the parties expressly or be necessary im plication excluded their
app lication .
T h e y m ig h t b e r eg ard e d as th e le ase h o ld co u n te rp a rt o f th e im p lie d
terms and conditions which, by the Sale of Goods A ct, 30 are deem ed to be part of every
co n tract fo r the sale o f goods unless excluded.
A m o n g the lan d lord 's co ven an ts
which were implied by law were:
(a)
that he would deliver possession to the tenant;
(b)
that
the
tenant
wo uld
have
quiet
enjoym ent
with
no
ph ysical
interference w ith the land b y the landlord or tho se ho lding un der
him;
(c)
that
the
la n d l o r d
w ould
not
dero gate
r e f r a in f r o m a c t s w h i c h a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t
the lease is granted;
(d)
th a t,
in
th e
ca se
fit for human habitation;
of
fu rn ish e d
p re m is e s ,
fro m
w ith
th e
his
the
gran t
and
purpose for
p re m is e s
w o uld
w h ich
ar e re a s o n a b ly
Among tenant's covenants which were implied by law were:
(a)
that he would keep the premises in repair;
(b)
that he would pay rent.
The fo regoing should n ot b e regarded as an exhaustive list
im plied by law .
I n s p e c if i c c a s e s t h e c o u r t m i g h t a ls o i m p l y
flowing by necessary implication from the specific terms of the lease.
of the covenants
other covenants as
In
som e
cases
th e s e
im p l ie d
c o v e n a n ts
have
been
added
to
or
a lte re d
by
s t a t u te .
T h e d u t y to re p a ir , f o r e x a m p le , h a s b e e n s h if t e d , b y s e c t i o n 4 9 o f th e
L andlord and Tenant A ct to the landlord and the tenant's responsibility defined as ordinary
cleanliness.
Section 4 6 o f th e A ct, relatin g to p riva cy, m igh t be regarded as
30.
R .S.B.C . 1960, c. 344.
-1 3 4-
supplementing the implied covenant for quiet enjoyment.
A
m odern
residential
tenancy,
particularly
one
in
an
ap artm ent
block,
w ill
bring to the tenant a range of services not con tem plated by the com m on law
during the developm ent of the im plied covenants.
F or exam p le; an ap artm en t
d w eller m ay en jo y h eat, ligh t, sew er s erv ic es, w ate r, h o t w ater, garb age disp o sal,
laund ry facilities, sau n a, p arkin g, sw im m in g p o o l, jan itorial services, and the use
of elevators.
In som e cases the tenancy agreem ent m ay provide for all these
s e rv ic e s b u t in m a n y ca s e s it w ill n o t.
W h ere th e te n an cy ag re e m e n t is s ile n t o n
the p rovision o f su ch services, it is n o t at all clear in w h at circu m stan ces th e co urts
w ould be prepared to im ply a covenant that the landlord w ill provide these
services.
E ls e w h e r e in th is R e p o rt c o n s id e r atio n is g iv e n to th e e x te n t t o w h ic h
a w ith d raw al o f serv ices sh o uld am o un t to a ren tal in crease fo r th e p urp o ses o f
provisions which restrict the frequency of such increases.
It seem s a condition
p re c e d e n t to th a t q u es tio n , th a t th ere b e so m e d u ty o n th e la n d lo rd to p ro v id e th e
services w hich are withdrawn.
The source of that duty m ust be the tenancy
a g r e e m e n t.
I n o u r v ie w , w h e re a te n a n t h a s e n jo ye d ce rta in s e r v ic e s in a s s o c ia t io n
w it h t h e t e n a n c y , t h e l a n d l o r d s h o u l d b e u n d e r a le g a l d u t y t o c o n t i n u e t o s u p p ly
those services.
It be made an implied term of every tenancy agreement that, where services have been supplied by the landlord which have not been provided
for in the tenancy agreement, the landlord shall continue to supply those services.
A t com m on law the im plied covenants could be excluded by specific
provision in the lease.
W e have seriou s reservations as to w hether landlords
sh o uld b e p erm itted to co n tract o ut o f duties estab lish ed b y th e fo rego in g reco m m endation.
A lan dlo rd m igh t, fo r exam p le, in clud e in a ten an cy ag ree m en t a
provision such as the following:
It
la n d lo r d
time.31
is
is
understood
th at
th e
p ro visio n
and
m aintenance
of
elev ato rs
by
g r a t u it o u s a n d t h e la n d lo r d is f r e e to w i t h d r a w e l e v a t o r s e r v i c e s a t
That would leave the tenant no remedy if the landlord chose to
elevators.
In a tw enty-storey apartm ent building the effect w ou ld
In our opinion the potential use of such a provision should be foreclosed.
th e
any
shut down the
b e devastating.
Landlords should not be permitted to contract out of the duties imposed under the foregoing
H.
recommendation.
Interesse Termini
A t com m on
law
there
is
an
im plied
condition
in
an
agreem ent
to
lease
that
the land lo rd w ill give p o ssession o f th e p rem ises to the ten an t o n th e p rom ised
d a t e .32
I f t h e l a n d l o r d b r e a c h e s t h is o b lig a t io n , th e te n a n t is e n t it le d t o r e p u d i a t e
31.
Such a provision m ight, how ever, fail to m eet the "reasonableness" requirem ent to the extent
that it m ay be applicable.
32.
Jinks v. E dw ards (1856); 11 E xch. 775; 156 E.R . 1045.
33.
R eaum e v. L alonde, [1939] O .W .N .
v. Fothergill (1874), L.R . 7 H .L. 158.
167.
The
m easure
-1 3 5-
of
dam ages
is
severely
restricted
by
the
rule
in
Bain
th e a g re e m e n t a n d s u e fo r d am a g e s .33
W ith out, ho w e ver, an actu al en try b y th e
ten an t, n o "estate" vests in him an d co n sequen tly h e h as so m ew h at few er righ ts
b e f o r e e n t r y th a n a f t e r .
B e f o r e e n t ry th e te n a n t h a d w h a t w a s c a lle d a n " in t e r e s t
in the term" or interesse termini.
The extent of the difference between interesse termini and a full
e s ta te p e rf e c te d b y e n t ry h a s n o t b e e n c o m p le te ly d e lin e a t e d b y t h e c a s e s .
It has,
how e ver, been h eld th at a ten an t h avin g an interesse term ini o n ly, co uld n o t m aintain an
a c ti o n f o r b r e a c h o f t h e c o v e n a n t f o r q u i e t e n j o y m e n t o r a n a c ti o n f o r t r e s p a s s . 3 4
O n th e o th er h an d , it h as b ee n h eld th a t th e te n a n t h a v in g an in teresse term in i m a y
m ain tain an e je ctm e n t a ga in st a th ird p arty o r a p erso n in p o ssessio n un d er th e
lesso r. 35
It has been suggested that the principle of interesse term ini dep rived th e ten an t
of the right to maintain an action for specific performance. Lamont states:36
The archaic principle of interesse termini has been abolished: Section 87(1).
The
application of the principle was to deprive a tenant, who had not been able to
o b t a i n p o s s e s s i o n , o f t h e r ig h t t o s u e t h e la n d l o r d f o r s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e .
The tenant might have signed a lease or agreement to lease, and before he had
gone into possessiony the landlord decided to refuse him possession.
The
tenant had no legal right arising from his interesse termini (interest in a term) to require
the landlord to honour the lease and let him into possession.
We
question
the
correctness
of
tho se
observations.
It
has
been
pointed
out
t h a t : " s p e c i fi c p e r f o r m a n c e i s i n a p p l i c a b l e s a v e t o an ag r e e m e n t f o r a l e a s e , b u t in
su ch case th e relief w o u ld b e th e ex ecu tio n of th e lease h en ce th e p o sitio n [to gain
p o s s e s s i o n ] is n o t a d v a n c e d ." 3 7
T h e n o t io n t h a t in t e r e s s e t e r m in i p re v e n te d th e te n a n t
from getting possession seem s founded on speculation that; "the person who
n ev er h ad po ssessio n co uld no t claim to reco ver it w h e n h e h ad no estate o n
w h ic h to f o u n d h is c la im ." 3 8
T h a t s p e c u la t io n d o e s n o t s e e m to b e s u p p o rt e d b y
a u th o r ity a lth o u g h th e re h a v e b e e n s u b s ta n tia l d ic ta to th e ef f e ct th a t a te n a n t d o e s
34.
See W illiam s n. 11 supra.
35.
See C oe v. C lay (1829), 5 Bing. 440; 130 E .R. 1131 (C .P.); C leveland v. Boyce (1861), 21 U .C .R . 609.
36.
Lam ont, n. 6 supra, 34.
37.
Laskin, C ases and N otes on Land L aw 189 (rev. ed. 1964), as set out in A ppendix F to the O ntario
Interim R eport.
38.
Ibid.
39.
See cases cited, ibid.
40.
See Lam ont, n. 6 supra, 53 and E nglish, The L andlord and T enant A ct Part II: First impressions.
41.
M atthey v. C urling [1922] 2 A .C . 180.
42.
D o u b ts
as
to
th e
c o rre c tn e ss
of
th is
com m on
la w
r u le
w e re
e x p re sse d
by
Lord
W r ig h t
in C r ick le w o o d
Property & Investm ent Trust L td. v. L eighton’s Investm ent Trust L td. [1945] c. 221; how ever, the w eight of judicial authority
is that the doctrine of frustration does not apply to leases.
See M erkur v. H .
Shoom & C o. [1954] 1 D .L.R . 85
(O nt. C .A .).
43.
See, e.g., M acartney v. Q ueen-Y onge Investm ents [1961] O .R. 41, 49, per Ferguson, J.
-1 3 6-
obtain an enforceable right to possession.39
The
provides:
doctrine
of
interesse
termini
was
expressly
abolished
by
Part
II.
Section
40
(1)
The doctrine of interesse termini is hereby abolished.
(2)
A ll t en a nc y ag re emen t s ar e cap ab le o f t aki n g e f f ec t at l aw o r i n equity
fro m th e d at e f i xed f o r c o mme n c e me n t o f t he t erm, wi th o ut actual
entry.
(3)
This
section
applies
to tenancy agreements entered into or renewed
after this section comes into force.
T h e effect o f th is ch an ge is to giv e th e ten an t th e righ t to m ain tain an actio n fo r
t re s p a s s a n d b r e a c h o f t h e c o v e n a n t f o r q u i e t e n jo y m e n t.
T o th e e x t e n t th a t th e
co m m o n law p reven ted th e ten an t fro m m ain tain in g an actio n fo r p o ssessio n
against the landlord, that disability has also been corrected.
It has been doubted whether the abolition of interesse termini will change landlord
a n d te n a n t re la tio n s m a te ria lly , a s te n a n t s m a y b e u n w illin g to re s o rt to le g a l a c tio n
in th e m ajo r ity o f c a s e s .40 N e v e rth e le s s , s e c tio n 4 0 d o e s p ro v id e te n a n ts w ith s o m e
new rem edies an d indicates a tendency to m ove aw ay from property notions in
lan d lo rd an d ten an t relatio n s.
W e see no good reason to recom m end any
alteration to the provision abolishing the doctrine of interesse termini.
I.
Frustration of Contract
At
common
law ,
a
rule
was
developed
that
in
the
absence
of
express
agreem en t to the con trary, the liability of the tenant to p ay rent rem ains, even
th o u g h th e lea s e d p re m is e s c a n n o lo n g e r b e u s e d f o r t h e in te n d e d p u r p o s e , o r is
d e s tro y e d b y f ir e . 4 1
A te n a n t m u st c o n tin u e to p ay re n t d es p ite th e o c c u rre n c e o f
som e unforseen event w hich renders the obligation unconscionable.
He may not
take advantage of the doctrine of frustration applicable to o ther con tractual
o b lig atio n s.42 T h is ru le has been criticised as un fair to te n an ts in a n u m b er o f
case s,43 a n d th e O n tario L aw R e fo rm C o m m issio n reco m m en d ed th at th e d octrin e
of frustration should be made applicable to residential tenancies.44
Part II effected this change in British Columbia.
Section 41 expressly states
that the doctrine of frustration of contract applies to tenancy agreem ents.
It is
d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r it w a s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e l e g i s l a t i o n t o p r o v i d e t h i s , o n c e i t h a d
b een sta te d in s e ctio n 35 th at th e relatio n sh ip o f lan d lo rd an d ten an t is o n e o f
44.
45.
For a further discussion of this point, see O ntario Interim R eport 54.
46.
(1973)
34
D .L .R .
(3d)
640
(O n t.
Co.
C t.).
frustration is 88 of The L andlord and Tenant A ct, R .S.O . 1970. C . 236.
47.
Law
Reform
Com m ission
of
British
C olum bia,
R eport
-1 3 7-
on
the
The
O n ta rio
N eed
for
p ro v isio n
Frustrated
C ontracts
rela tin g
L egislation
to
in
the
British
a b o litio n o f
C olum bia (1971).
co n tract o n ly, as th is sectio n presu m ab ly in tro duced th e do ctrin e o f fru stratio n
in to th e a r e a o f r e s id e n tia l te n an cie s , as w e ll as re m o v in g th e m a in ju s t if ic a t io n f o r
t h e c o m m o n la w r u l e t o th e c o n t r a r y ( i.e . , th a t t h e t e n a n c y c r e a t e d a n i n t e r e s t i n
lan d ).45
A p p are n tly , h o w e v er, it w a s fe lt th at th e ap p lic atio n o f th e d o c trin e o f
f r u s t r a t i o n s h o u l d b e e m p h a s i s e d in c l e a r a n d e x p re s s t e r m s .
S e c t i o n 4 1 , in eff ec t,
p ro vid es a n ew rem ed y fo r ten an ts an d its a vailab ility, in circu m stan ces w h e re th e
p urp o se o f the lease w as frustrated, w as con firm ed in O n tario b y th e case o f C aithness
Caledonia Ltd. v. Goss.46
This
Co m m issio n
has,
in
an
earlier
R ep o rt,47
considered
th e
doctrine
of
frustration and recom m ended legislation to "provide redress to a party who
performed
obligations
before
the
contract was
frustrated
and
who
received
in s u ff ic ie n t c o n s id e ra tio n in return to co m p en sa te h im fo r w h at h e h a s d o n e ."48
In th at R e p o rt49 w e m ad e a reco m m en d atio n th at fru strated co n tracts leg islatio n
be made expressly applicable to frustrated leases.
48.
Ibid., at 5.
49.
The
proposed
“Frustrated
C ontracts
A ct”
G
to o u r R ep o rt w a s, in 1 97 3, a d o p ted
Legislation in C anada as their M odel A ct.
-1 3 8-
drafted
by the
by
this
C om m ission
and
included
as A ppendix
C onference of C om m issioners on U niform ity of
CHAPTER VII
A.
STATUTORY DUTIES AND PROHIBITIONS
Introduction
As
has been
m entioned
betw een landlord and tenant
b e t w e e n th e p a r t ie s to e a c h
Commission said.1
elsewhere
in
this
w e re, at co m m o n
tenancy agreem ent.
Report, the nature of the obligations
la w , l a r g e l y a m a t t e r f o r n e g o t i a t i o n
In 1968 the O ntario Law Reform
For
th o se
who
w ere
in stilled
w ith
th e
im p o rtan ce
of
m ain tain in g
freed o m
of
contrast and of enforcing contracts legally entered into, there is a natural
reluctance to interfere in leasing arrangem ents.
Canadian courts have steadfastly
a d h ere d to fre e d o m o f co n tract co n cep ts in d ealin g w ith th e lan dlo rd an d te n an t
relationship.
th e
This is not to
say
law w o u ld n o t im p ly
that if a tenancy agreement were silent on
certain
matters
ce rtain term s in to th e c o n tract.
W illiam s p o in ts o u t th at: 2
At common law if there is no express covenant br agreement, there is
implied in every lease a covenant by the lessor for quiet enjoyment, and in the
case of a furn ish ed ho use a warran ty of fi tn ess at t he c ommen ce me nt of the
tenancy.
There is also implied a covenant by the lessee to treat the premises in
a tenant-like manner ...
In
ex a m in in g
th e
s u b s ta n c e
of
th e s e
im p lied
co v e n a n ts ,
h o w e v e r,
th e
O n ta rio
C o m m is s io n c o n c lu d e d th a t th e la w w a s w e ig h t ed in f a v o u r o f lan d lo r d s a n d th a t
the principles of freedom of contract did not effect a pro per b alance of interests
between landlord and tenant. The Commission said: 3
The landlord and tenant relationship is not, if indeed it ever was, one where
ten ants have a real freedom to contract.
Traditional statements which maintain
that a tenant need not agree to the leasing covenants but can seek agreement on
more suitable terms elsewhere are not borne out by what happens in the real
world of landlords and tenants.
If protection is necessary for tenants and if a
balancing of the interests of the landlords and tenants is to be undertaken, then
inevitably, some long standing concepts must suffer.
... [Elven the most objective assessment of the landlord and tenant
relationship discloses an impressive disparity between the rights and duties of
the landlord and tenant ...
T his
as s essm e n t
of
th e
led th e O n tario C o m m issio n
that Province which
took,
state
of
affairs
b e tw e en
lan dlo rd
an d
te n an t
in
1968
to re co m m e n d a n u m b e r o f ch an ges in th e law o f
in
effect, the
form
of
recom m endations
to
the
1.
2.
W illiam s, C anadian L aw of L andlord and Tenant (4 th ed. F.W . R hodes 1973).
3.
N . 1 supra.
-1 3 9-
L egislatu re th at it im p ly in every resid en tial ten an cy agreem en t certain ru les o f
c o n d u c t f o r la n d l o r d s a n d t e n a n t s , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e t e r m s o f t h e c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n
a n in d iv id u a l la n d lo r d an d an in d iv id u a l te n a n t .
T h e O n tario L egislature accepted
t h e s e r e c o m m e n d a t io n s in la r g e p a r t ,4 a n d in 1 9 7 0 th e B r itis h C o lu m b ia L e g i s l a t u r e
a ls o m a n if e s t e d a p o li c y o f s e t t i n g o u t i n s t a t u to r y f o r m a n u m b e r o f d u t i e s a n d
p ro h ib itio n s w h ich w e re to ap p ly b etw ee n a la n d lo rd an d a ten an t irresp ectiv e o f
the terms of the contract between them.5
In
this
prohibitions.
B.
Chapter
we
exam ine
the
nature
of
som e
of
these
statutory
duties
and
Landlord's Responsibility to Repair
In
the
m atter
of
repair
ob ligatio n s
the
common
law
favoured
landlords.
W here unfurnished prem ises were let the landlord (in the absence of express
stipulation to the contrary) w arranted neither that the prem ises were fit for any
p articu lar p u rp o se,6 no r th at he w o uld put th em in rep air at th e co m m en cem en t
o f o r d u r in g t h e t e r m o f th e t e n a n c y . 7
F u r th e r m o r e , it w a s n o r m a l to i m p o s e a
su b stan tial rep air o b ligatio n o n te n an ts.8
In the case of furn ished prem ises there
w a s a n im p lie d co n d itio n th a t th e p re m is e s b e f it f o r h u m a n h a b it a t io n , 9 b u t th e
lan dlo rd w as un der no o bligatio n to m ain tain th em in th at co n ditio n after th e
commencement of the tenancy.
In
the
face
of
these
rules
the
Ontario
Law
Reform
Commission
recom m ended substantial ch anges in the law ,10 w h ich w ere clo sely fo llo w ed in
British C olum bia.
S ection 49(1) of the Landlord and Tenant A ct 11 places an obligation to
repair squarely on the landlord by providing that:
A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining the residential
premises in a good state of repair and fit for habitation during the tenancy and
for complying with health and safety standards, including any housing standards
required by law, and notwithstanding that any state of non-repair existed to the
knowledge of the tenant before the tenancy agreement was entered into.
The
section
reverses
the
com m on
law
and
4.
See T he L andlord and Tenant A ct, R .S.O . 1970, c. 236, Part IV .
5.
L andlord and Tenant A m endm ent A ct, S.B.C . 1970, c. 18, Part II.
6.
H art v. W indsor (1844) 12 M . & W . 68; 154 E.R . 1114.
7.
V ictor v. L ynch [1944] 3 D .L.R . 94 (N .S.C .A .).
8.
E . g., Short Form of L eases A ct, R .S.B.C . 1960, c. 357, 2 nd Sch., cl. 3.
9.
Sm ith v. M arrable (1843) 11 M . & W . 5; 154 E.R . 693.
10.
See T he L andlord and Tenant A ct, R .S.O . 1970, c. 236, s. 96.
11.
N . 5 supra.
12.
N . 5 supra, s. 34 (2).
-1 4 0-
im poses
on
a
landlord
the
duty
to
p r o v id e a n d m a in ta in p re m is e s th a t a r e f it f o r h a b it a t io n , to k e e p th e m in a g o o d
state o f rep air an d to co m p ly w ith an y h o u sin g stan d ard s set b y law .
T h e lan d lo rd
m a y n o t a v o id th is o b lig a t io n b y a r g u i n g t h a t t h e t e n a n t w a s a w a r e o f d e f e c t s o r
n o n - r e p a ir w h e n t h e a g r e e m e n t w a s e n t e r e d in t o , a n d m a y n o t c o n t r a c t o u t o f t h e
obligation.12
W hat
is
th e
n atu re
of
th e
lan dlo rd's
o b ligatio n ?
For
an
elab o ratio n
of
the
s tan d a rd to b e m e t, o n e m ig h t usefu lly tu rn to th e co m m o n law .
T h e co u rts h a v e
frequently be en called u p o n to in terp ret the m ean in g of ph rases in a tenancy
a g re e m e n t s u c h a s "g o o d a n d s u b s ta n tia l r ep a ir," an d it ap p e ars th a t th e ad je c tiv e s
often associated w ith the w ord "repair" do not increase the nature of th e oblig a tio n .
O n e o f th e m o re c o m m o n d efin itio n s o f th e n a tu re o f th e o b lig a tio n is as
follows:13
After m aking
due
allow ance
for
the
locality,
at th e tim e of th e lease h e m u st keep them in
be kept by a reasonably minded owner.
T h ere
is
a
co m p arable
p rov isio n
in
th e
character and
th e co n d itio n
V an co uv er
B y-law
age
of the
prem ises
in w h ic h th e y w o u ld
w h ich
th at: 14
states
Every landlord shall maintain all premises owned by him or under his
control in such a state of decoration and repair as, having regard to the age,
c h a r a ct e r a n d l o c a l i t y o f t h e p r e m is e s wo ul d ma k e i t r e a s o n a b l y f i t f o r t h e
occupation of a reasonably minded Tenant of the class who would be likely to
rent it.
It
has
not
been
suggested
to
us
e ith e r
by
la n d lo rd s
or
te n a n ts
th a t
th e
o b ligatio n im p osed by section 49(1) is unreasonab le o r un satisfacto ry, an d w e
m ak e no reco m m en datio n fo r alterin g its su b stan ce.
On the other hand, we
believe that section 49(1) w ould be m ade m ore com prehensible if a form ula
similar to that set out in Proudfoot v. Hart 15 or the Vancouver by-law 16 were adopted.
The Commission therefore recommends that:
The proposed Act contain a definition of the landlord's obligation to repair in the following terms:
A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining the residential premises in such a state of decoration and repair as, having regard
to the age, character, and locality of the premises, would make it reasonably fit for the occupation of a reasonably minded tenant who would
be likely to rent it, and for complying with health and safety standards, including any housing standards required by law, and
13.
Proudfoot v. H art (1890) 25 Q .B.D . 25. See also D avey v. Christoff (1916) 28 D .L.R . 447 (A pp. D iv. O nt.).
14.
B y-law
4448,
V an co uver
R en tal
A cc o m m o d atio n
by-law has been questioned elsew here in this R eport (C h. X II).
15.
N . 13 supra.
16.
N . 14 supra.
-1 4 1-
G rievan ce
B o ard
B y-law .
The
statu s
at
la w
o f th is
notwithstanding that any state of non-repair existed to the knowledge of the tenant before the tenancy agreement was entered into.
C.
Tenant's Responsibility for Cleanliness
The tenant's obligations
49(2) of the Act. It provides that:
in
respect
of
cleaning
and
repair
are
set
out
in
section
The tenant is responsible for the ordinary cleanliness of the residential
premises and for the repair of damage caused by his wilful or negligent conduct
or that of persons who are permitted on the premises by him, and for
maintaining ordinary health, cleanliness, and sanitary standards throughout the
premises.
The
s e c t io n
e m b o d ie s
the
com m on
la w
ru le
on
th is
su b je c t,
w h ic h
r eq u ire d
t h e t e n a n t to u s e t h e p r o m i s e s " i n a t e n a n t - li k e m a n n e r ." 1 7
Presum ably a duty to
m aintain o rdinary cleanliness m eans that the tenant m ust keep the w alls, floo rs,
and app urtenances in a state o f reaso n ab le clean lin ess an d sh o uld n o t allo w them
to d eteriorate through m isuse.
T h e o b l ig a t io n d o e s , in f a c t , a p p e a r t o c o m e v e r y
close to requiring the tenant to observe good housekeeping practices.18
A g ain
th e
Co m m issio n
has
received
no
co m p lain t
49(2) is unreasonab le, altho ugh naturally there appear
any given time over whether the standard has or has not been met.
th at
th e
p rin cip le
of
sectio n
to b e num erou s disputes at
The proposed Act contain a provision which continues to impose on tenants an obligation, of the kind now imposed by section 49(2) of
the present Act, to maintain ordinary standards of cleanliness.
D.
The Tenant's Right to Privacy
At
co m m o n
la w
it
was
h e ld
th a t
th e
r e la t io n s h ip
of
la n d lo r d
and
ten an t
au to m atically im p lied a co v en an t o f q u iet en jo ym en t b y th e lan d lo rd in fav o u r o f
th e te n an t. 19
T h u s th e te n an t h ad th e righ t to b e p u t in to th e p o ss e s s io n o f th e
w h o le o f th e re n ted p rem ise s .20
Furtherm ore, the covenant required the landlord
o r a n y p e r s o n c l a i m i n g t h r o u g h h i m t o r e f r a i n f r o m i n te r f e r i n g p h y s i c a l l y w i t h t h e
ten an t's e n jo ym en t o f th e lan d .21
This obligation does not involve "quiet"
en jo ym en t in th e aco ustic se n se.
If the tenant is inconvenienced by noise his
17.
W arren v. Keen, [1954] 1 Q .B. 15 (C .A .).
18.
For a further discussion of this topic see Lam ont, R esidential Tenancies 43 (2 nd ed. 1973).
19.
M arkham v. Paget, [1908] 1 Ch. 697.
20.
M iller v. E ncer P roducts L td., [1956] Ch. 304 (C .A .).
21.
Kenny v. Preen, [1963] 1 Q .B. 499 (C .A .); Franco v. L echm an, (1962) 36 D .L.R . (2d) 357 (A ltd. C .A .).
22.
For a detailed
R hodes 1973).
analysis
of
the
covenant
see
W illiam s,
-1 4 2-
C anadian
L aw
of
L andlord
and
Tenant
346
et
seq.
(4 th
ed.
F.W .
re m e d y w ill lie in to r t.
T h e c om m o n law c o ve n an t o f qu ie t e n jo y m e n t is in effect
a n a s su r an c e a g ain s t tw o t h i n g s .
F irs t, it p r o t e c t s th e t e n a n t f ro m th e c o n s e q u e n c e
o f a lan dlo rd 's defectiv e title to th e prem ises, an d se c o n d ly , assu re s ag ain st an y
substantial interference by the
landlord
with
the tenant's enjoym ent of the
premises for all usual purposes.22
An
im p o rtan t
feature
of
the
covenant
for
q u ie t
enjoym ent
was
that
there
could b e no breach o f the co ve n an t u n less th e ten an t su ffered so m e ph ysical
interference w ith the en joym ent of the rented prem ises.
T hu s in the E nglish
decision of Browne v. Flower 23 it w as held that no action lay w here the landlord erected
an extern al staircase w h ich p assed th e te n an t's b e d ro o m , n o tw ith stan d in g th at th e
tenant's
privacy
had
been
seriously
affected.
Anything
less
than
physical
interference was insufficient to constitute a breach of the covenant.
To
a
lim ited
ex ten t
th e
co m m o n
law
h as
b een
ex p an ded 24
in
th e
ca s e
of
re s id en tia l te n an cie s b y se c tio n .
T h u s th e te n a n t h a d th e rig h t to b e p u t in to th e
possession 46 of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
This section virtually guarantees the form erly
im plied com m on law covenant of quiet possession an d goes som ew hat further in
preventing any entry to rented prem ises which is not in accordance with the
section.
S ection
46 (1 )
regu lates
th e
the tenancy agreem en t,25 w h ile
notice of termination has been given.26
1.
righ t
to
en ter
th e
prem ises
durin g
th e
curren cy
of
sec tio n 46(2) relates to the situation arising o nce
During the Tenancy Agreement
Section 46(1) provides that:
Except
(a)
in cases of emergency; or
(b)
with the consent of the tenant given at the time of entry; or
(c)
where the tenant abandons the premises;
the landlord shall not exercise a right to enter the rented premises unless he has
first given written notice to the tenant at least twenty-four hours before the time
of entry, and the time of entry shall be between the hours of eight in the
23.
[1911] 1 Ch. 219.
24.
A lthough it is not suggested that the result in Browne v. Flower w ould necessarily be different.
25.
This subsection w as introduced in the L andlord and Tenant A m endm ent A ct, S.B.C . 1970, C . 18; s. 2.
26.
Introduced in 1970 in the L andlord and Tenant A m endm ent A ct, supra and am ended in the L andlord and Tenant A m endm ent A ct,
S.B.C . 1973, c. 47, s. 3.
27.
A dual breach w as held to have taken place in R e M acIsaac and B eretanos (1971) 25 D .L.R . (3d) 610.
-1 4 3-
forenoon and nine o'clock in the afternoon as specified in the notice.
This
subsection
is
largely
coextensive
with
the
com m on
interference w ith the tenant's enjoym ent of the prem ises
breach of the common law and a breach of the landlord's statutory duty.27
It has not been
suggested
to
us that the substance
46(1) has caused difficulty,28 and we make no recommendation for change.
2.
law, so
that a physical
m ay co n s titu te b o th a
of
the
term s
of
section
On Notice of Termination
Section 46(2) of the Act, which regulates the
prem ises to purchasers or tenants once notice
provides that:
right of a landlord
of term ination has
to show the
been given,
Where the landlord has the right to show the premises to prospective
pu rch as ers o r t en an ts af ter n ot ice of t erm in at io n has been given, no landlord,
or his servant or agent, shall exercise the right unless he has first notified the
tenant at least eight hours before the time of entry, unless some shorter period
is agreed upon, and the time of entry shall, unless otherwise agreed upon, be
between eight in the forenoon and nine o'clock in the afternoon as specified in
the notice.
W hen
th is
su bsectio n
was
first
in tro duced
in
1970 29 its
term s
did
no t
extend
to servants o r agents of the landlord, a situation w hich w as cured b y the 1973
le g is la tio n . 3 0
W e h a v e n o te d th at th e effe c ts o f se c tio n 4 6 (2 ) m a y b e elim in ate d b y
ag ree m en t b etw ee n th e lan d lo rd an d th e ten an t at an y tim e.31
A la n d lo rd co u ld
p r o v i d e in a n e w r e n t a l a g r e e m e n t f o r a ri g h t to e n t e r an d sh o w t h e p re m i ses to
p r o s p e c t i v e p u r c h a s e r s o r t e n a n t s u p o n 6 0 s e c o n d s o r a l n o ti c e a t a n y t i m e o f t h e
day or night.
W hile we do not wish to destroy the flexibility which freedom
to contract out
o f t h e t e r m s o f s e c t i o n 4 6 ( 2 ) g iv e s , w e th i n k it p o s s ib l e t h a t s it u a t i o n s w i l l a r i s e
w h e r e a t e n a n t e n t e r s in t o s u c h a n a g r e e m e n t a t th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f a t e n a n c y ,
la te r to b e co n fro n ted , o n th e giv in g o f n o tice, w ith d em an ds to w h ich h e h ad n o t
g iv e n th o u g h t at th e tim e o f th e a g re e m e n t .
W e th i n k it m o r e re a l is t ic , th e r e f o re ,
w h i le r e t a i n i n g t h e f r e e d o m t o c o n t r a c t o u t o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 4 6 ( 2 ) , t o
lim it th e tim e a t w h i c h s u c h c o n tra c tin g o u t m a y ta k e p la c e to t h e tim e a t w h i c h
notice of termination is given.
There is one situation in which we think a landlord should have the right to
en ter p rem ises re ga rd le ss o f w h e th e r h e h a s c o n tracted fo r it o r n o t.
T h is situ atio n
28.
E xcept
in
the
s i tu a t io n
w here
th e
la n d l o rd
does
not
know
w h e th e r
abandoned. This m atter is the subject of a recom m endation elsew here in this R eport (C h. IX ).
29.
N . 26 supra.
30.
Ibid.
31.
S ee
E.
E.
B o w es,
“ D isc u ssio n s
in C anada (A nnual E d. 1973/74).
of
th e
A m en d m en ts
-1 4 4-
to
th e
L a n d lo rd
or
and
not
th e
T en a n t
p r e m is es
A c t”
in
have
been
R ec e n t L a w s
a ris e s w h e r e th e la n d lo r d , h a v in g g iv e n n o t ic e o f te rm in a tio n o f a te n a n c y , w is h e s
to in s p e c t th e p re m is e s in o rd er to ass es s th e am o u n t o f h is c la im fo r d a m a g e , if
an y.
T h e l a n d l o r d s h o u l d n o t , h o w e v e r, b e e n t it l e d t o e x e r c i se t h i s r ig h t o n m o re
than on e occasion outside of con tract, an d sho uld exercise it speedily after no tice
of termination and at a reasonable time.
The
C o m m issio n
p r o p o se s ,
th e r e f o re ,
th a t
th e
p rin cip le
of
sectio n
4 6 (2 )
of
the existing L an dlord an d T enant A ct sh o uld b e m o dified to the fo llow ing lim ited ex ten t.
W ithin 48 h o u r s o f th e giv in g o f n o tic e o f te rm in atio n o f a te n an c y , a lan dlo rd has
th e rig h t to se rv e n o tic e o n th e ten an t th at h e w ish es to en ter th e p rem ises w ith in
the succeeding three days for the purpose of assessing d am age to the p rem ises.
T h e l a n d l o r d s h a ll n o t e x e rc is e t h e r ig h t u n le s s h e h a s f irs t n o tif ie d t h e t e n a n t a t
le as t e ig h t h o u rs b e fo re th e tim e o f e n try , u n le ss so m e sh o rter tim e is agreed up o n ,
a n d th e tim e o f e n try s h a ll, u n le s s o th e rw is e a g re e d up o n , b e b e tw e e n e ig h t in th e
fo ren o o n an d n in e o 'clo ck in th e aftern o o n .
U n less o th erw ise agreed up o n th e
lan d lo rd sh all en ter o n th e p re m ise s o n o n ly o n e o cc asio n fo r th e p urp o se o f
assessing damage.
E.
1.
The proposed Act contain a provision which is similar to section 46(2) of the present Act, but which limits the time at which a
shorter period of notice may be agreed upon to the time at which notice of termination of the tenancy is given, whether by the
landlord or the tenant.
2.
The proposed Act contain a provision which permits a landlord, within 48 hours of the giving of notice of termination of a tenancy,
to enter upon the premises within three days after he has indicated his intention to exercise such right, for the purpose of inspecting
the premises for damage, provided that:
(a)
the landlord shall not exercise the right unless he has first notified the tenant at least eight hours before the time of entry,
unless some shorter period is agreed upon; and
(b)
the time of entry shall, unless otherwise agreed upon, be between eight in the forenoon and nine o'clock in the afternoon as
specified in the notice.
Locks
W ith the evident aim
of preventing resort to self-help as a means of regaining
possession
of
rented
premises,
the
Ontario
Law
Reform
Commission
re co m m en d ed in 1 96 8 th at a lan d lo rd o r ten an t w h o u n law fu lly c h an g e d th e lo c k s
o n do ors giv in g access to th e p rem ises sh o uld be su bject to p ro secu tio n an d b e
l i a b l e t o b e f in e d u p o n c o n v i c ti o n . 3 2
The O ntario legislation of 1970 contained a
p ro visio n33 fo rb id din g th e a lte ratio n o f lo ck s o r lo ck in g system s d urin g th e
currency of any tenancy agreem ent.
T he B ritish C olum bia Legislature introd uced
32.
N . 1 supra, 79.
33.
N . 4 supra, s. 95.
34.
N . 5 supra.
-1 4 5-
a s im ila r p ro v is io n 3 4
48 now provides:
in
1970,
which
was
am e n d e d 35
s lig h tly
in
1973
so
th a t
s e c t io n
No landlord or his servant or agent shall, during the occupancy of the rented
premised by the tenant, alter or cause to be altered the locking system on any
door giving entry to the rented premises, except by mutual consent.
W hile
th e
C om m ission
does
not
retreat
from
the
principle
em bodied
in
s e c t i o n 4 8 , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e s e c t i o n d o e s w o r k a h a r d s h ip o n
landlords in certain circum stances.
If th e lo ck in g system in a large ap artm en t
b lo ck b re ak s d o w n a n d n e ed s to b e re p lac ed u rg en tly fo r secu rity p urp o ses, th e
la n d lo rd m a y fin d h im s e lf in b re a c h o f se c tio n 4 8 u n le ss h e ca n se c u re th e co n se n t
of all te nan ts.
T h is is n o t a lw ay s p o ssib le in , f o r ex am p le , a larg e ap artm e n t block.
I t s e e m s t o u s , th e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e r e s h o u l d b e a n e x e m p t i o n f r o m t h e o p e r a t i o n
o f sectio n 48 in cases of ge n u in e em erg en cy w h ere th ere is a th re a t to th e se c u rity
of the building.
We
re m a in
concerned,
h o w e v e r,
th a t
th e
e x e m p t io n
may
g iv e
ris e
to
abuse
i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d w e a r e n o t p r e p a r e d to g o s o f a r a s t o e x t e n d t h e
e xe m p tio n to all lo ck s.
N eith er a lan d lo rd n o r a ten a n t sh o u ld b e p e rm itte d ,
w itho ut m utual co nsen t, to alter lo cks on do ors giving direct access to rented
p re m ise s ev en w h ere an em ergen cy is th o ugh t to exist.
It follows that our
recommendation
for the
m odification
of
section
48
would
extend
only
to
s i t u a t io n s w h e r e t h e r e a r e t w o o r m o r e s e t s o f p r e m i s e s u n d e r t h e o n e r o o f a n d
w h e r e th e r e is a c o m m o n d o o r w h i c h d o e s n o t g iv e e n tr a n c e d ir e c t ly to e it h e r o r
any of the rented premises.
The proposed Act contain a provision similar to section 48 in the existing Landlord and Tenant Act, with an
exemption for a landlord or tenant who changes a lock in a case of emergency where there is a threat to security, this exemption not
extending to locks on doors giving direct access to rented premises.
F.
Entry by Canvassers
In
respect
of
p o litical
Section 47 of the Act provides that:
can vassers
lan dlo rds
m ust
perm it
free
access
to
tenants.
No landlord, his servant, or agent shall impose any special restrictions on
a cc es s t o t h e r en t e d p r emi se s b y can di date s, or th ei r aut h or ized re pr esen tatives,
for election to the House of Commons, the Legislative Assembly, any office in
a mu ni ci pa l go ve rn m en t o r a s c h o o l b o a r d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f ca n va s si ng o r
distributing election material.
The Commission recommends no modification of this provision.
It was suggested in one brief submitted to us that:
These
those
35.
Section 47 allows canvassing of tenants by candidates for political office.
provisions should be broadened t o include all visitors for tenants except
who are unsolicited.
The landlord would only be entitled to bar
N . 26 supra.
-1 4 6-
unsolicited visitors to the building.
The exact meaning of this submission is not entirely clear to us.
If it is based
on
the prem ise that section
47, by directing a landlord to adm it political
c a n v a s se rs , h a s th e im p lie d e ff ec t o f p e rm ittin g a lan d lo rd to ex clu d e all o th e r
visitors at his option, we can only say that we do not agree that section 47 has this
m ean ing.
T h is in terp retatio n o f sectio n 47 w as n o t ad v an ce d in an y o th er brief,
and w e are not aw are of any decision of a court which w ould support it. 36
W e do
not, how ever, endorse the view that a landlord should be given the freedom to
exclude solicited
visitors from
rented premises, and assuming that there is
substantial do ub t abou t the m atter, w e are prepared to reco m m en d that it be set
o u t in t h e p r o p o s e d A c t t h a t t h i s f r e e d o m i s n o t i m p l i e d b y t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a
provision of the nature of section 47.
It may be
in the O ntario
practice which
m ultiple unit
co m m o d ities as
the view that
stated that:
that the suggestion made to us refers obliquely to a problem raised
L a w R e fo r m C o m m is s io n R e p o rt37 in 1 9 6 8 .
T h is co n cern ed th e
is evidently co m m on in O ntario of lan d lo rd s restrictin g w ith in
dw ellings the vendors w ith w hom
tenants may deal for such
b read , m ilk , an d clean in g serv ic es.
T h e O n tario C o m m issio n to o k
su ch restrictio n s o n trad in g w e re im p osed fo r valid reaso n s an d
As far as the supply of such items as bread, milk and dry cleaning service is
concerned the lan dlords' position is that an unrestricted adm ission of tradespeople
c a u s e s to o m a n y p e o p le to b e o n th e p re m ise s d u rin g th e co u rs e o f a d a y .
T h is
ca u se s ad d ition al m ain ten an ce an d rep air ex p en se s, in co n v en ien ce in elev ato r services at peak periods of use and an increase in the risk of theft and break-ins.
In no brief subm itted to us was this matter mentioned, leading us to suppose
that in this Province restrictions in m ultiple unit dw ellings on trading w ith
m erch an ts w ho are solicited by tenan ts are no t co m m o n .
W e recognize that a
recom m end ation that landlords not be perm itted to restrict the entry of solicited
v isito rs o n ren ted prem ises w o u ld g o s o m e w ay to w ard s s trik in g d ow n restrictio n s
on trading if they exist, but since no evidence w as presented to us that they do, w e
do not think it necessary to modify the recommendation.
The Commission recommends:
The proposed Act, in addition to containing a provision comparable to section 47 of the existing Landlord and Tenant
Act, make it, clear that a landlord does not have the right to restrict the access to rented premises of persons whose visits are solicited by
tenants of those premises.
G.
Penalties
In
th e
co ntext
of
a
discussion
of
statutory
duties
convenient to discuss the question of penalties under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
36.
T h is
is
not
to
sa y
th at
a
lan d lo rd
m ay
not
at
so m e
This is possible, although no such instance has been brought to our attention.
37.
N . 1 supra, 48.
38.
N . 5 supra, s. 62 (1).
-1 4 7-
tim e
h av e
an d
pro hibitions
e n d e a v o u re d
to
m ake
it
is
th e arg u m en t.
In
the
1970
legislation 38 certain
acts
by
landlords
b y th e L e gislatu re as b ein g p un ish ab le o n su m m ary
of a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars. These were, briefly stated:
(1)
requiring
and
(2)
the nonpayment of interest on security deposits;
(3)
requiring post-dated rent cheques;
(4)
preventing entry by political canvassers;
(5)
altering locks in unlawful circumstances;
(6)
increasing rent unlawfully;
(7)
the
unlaw ful
In
19 73
th e
62 now provides that:39
p en al
retaining
t a k in g
asp ect
of
security
of
deposits
p o s s e ss io n
th e
Act
and
tenants
w ere
singled
out
co n victio n by th e im p o sitio n
was
of
in
re n te d
su bstan tially
un law ful
circum stances;
p r e m is e s
by
exten d ed ,
la n d l o r d s .
an d
sectio n
(1)
Any person who contravenes any provision of this Act or fails to obey an
order made under this Part is guilty of an offence and is liable, on summary
conviction; to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.
(2)
Where a landlord is convicted of an offence of contravening section 37 or
38, the judge making the conviction may order the landlord to pay to the
tenant the security deposit and interest or any part thereof which is unpaid.
[emphasis added]
Thus it would appear that not only are the acts and om issions outlined above
of f enc e s u n d e r th e A c t , b u t a ls o e v e ry o th e r ac t o r o m issio n to w h ic h th e A c t has
reference.
It w ou ld n ow seem to b e an o ffence for a landlord, am on g other
th in g s , to f a il to d e liv er to a te n an t a w r itte n te n a n c y a g re e m e n t w h e r e o n e e x is ts , 4 0
an d ; on term in atio n of th e ten an cy by th e lan dlo rd , to fail to giv e n o tice o f
term in atio n in w ritin g . 41
S im ilarly , it w o u ld s ee m to b e a n o ffen ce fo r a ten an t, o n
te rm ina t io n o f th e t e n a n c y b y h im , t o f ail t o g i ve n o t ic e o f te rm in atio n in w riting. 42
of
It
th e
m ay be
a cts an d
thought by som e that the visiting
of penal
o m issio n s o u tlin ed ab o v e m ay b e to o se v ere .
39.
40.
L andlord and Tenant A m endm ent A ct, S.B.C . 1970, c. 13, s. 36 (1).
41.
Ibid., s. 53 (1).
42.
Ibid.
-1 4 8-
consequences on
som e
It w as n o t, h o w ev er,
r e p re s e n te d t o u s i n b r i e f s a n d s u b m i s s io n s m a d e t o u s d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f o u r
study that this w as a grou nd for w id esp read co m plaint and w e are no t prepared
t o g o s o f a r a s to re c o m m e n d it s m o d if ic a t io n , e x c e p t in tw o in s t a n c e s w h i c h w e
later m ention.
It seem s, h o w e v er, th a t th e re m ay b e so m e d ou bt w h e th er th e
e l e m e n t o f m e n s r e a m u s t b e p r e s e n t b e f o r e t h e r e c a n b e a s u c c e s s f u l p r o s e c u ti o n
u n d e r t h e A c t.
W h e r e p e n a l c o n s e q u e n c e s m a y f o l lo w f r o m a s e r ie s o f a c t s s u c h
as tho se ou tlined abo ve w h ich are n ot tradition ally tho ugh t of as being o ffences,
it is o u r v iew th at it is co n sisten t w ith estab lish ed co n cep ts o f justice th at th e
element of mens rea ought to be present before the act or omission is punishable.
It be made clear in the proposed Act, that the element of mens rea must be present before an
offence is committed under
the Act.
H.
Breach of Statutory Duty
The
question
of dam ages for breaches
of
duties im posed
by
new
landlord
tenant legislation has arisen both in British Colum bia and O ntario since
introduction of that legislation in 1970 in both Provinces.
and
the
In Re M aclsaac and Beretanos,43 a decision of Judge Levey in the Provincial Court, a
tenant sued fo r d am ages fo r b reach of h er landlord 's duty not to enter unlaw fu lly
o n th e re n te d p re m ise s un d e r se ctio n 4 6 (1 ) o f th e L an dlord an d T ena n t A ct o f B ritish
Colu m bia.
It w a s h eld th at as th e duty w as im p osed on th e lan dlo rd by statute, the
L egislatu re m u st h av e in te n d ed th a t d a m ag es m ig h t b e re co v e re d fo r b reach o f th e
statutory coven ant for quiet enjoym ent, o r for the tort of invasion of privacy
created by section 46(1). In the result, damages were awarded in tort.
In Cunningham v.
Moore44 a tenant sued his landlord for injuries sustained on the
r e n te d p r e m is e s , alle g in g th a t th e in ju rie s w e re c a u s e d b y a b re a c h o f th e lan d lo r d 's
duty to repair the premises under section 95(1) of The Landlord and Tenant Act of Ontario.45
A fter an extensive analysis of the term s of th e statute an d a rev iew o f th e case law
on breach of statutory duty, it w as held that the O ntario L egislature m ust have
in ten d ed a re m e d y in to rt to lie ev en th o u g h it h a d also p ro vid ed a m ean s o f
e n f o r c in g t h e s t a t u t o r y c o v e n a n t t o r e p a i r b y a p r o c e d u r e s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 9 5 ( 3 )
of the statute.
Im p o rtan t
differen ces
b etw een
the
tw o
cases
w ill
im m ediately
be
eviden t.
In
R e M acIsaa c an d B eretan os th e te n a n t h a d n o t b e e n p h y s ic a lly in ju re d b y th e la n d lo rd 's
breach, while in Cunningham v. Moore there had been physical injury.
In Re MacIsaac it was
im p lie d t h a t d a m a g e s c o u ld h a v e b e e n re c o v e re d e ith e r in c o n tra c t o r in to rt, w h ile
in C unning ham v . M oore o n ly d am ages in to rt w ere so ugh t.
T h e statu to ry p ro v isio n in
questio n in th e fo rm er case w as o n e w h ich em b o d ied co m m on law principle (a
43.
(1971) 25 D .L.R . (3d) 610.
44.
[1972] 3 O .R . 369, Scott, C o. C t. J., affirm ed in the H igh Court [1973] 1. O .R . 357.
45.
N . 4 supra.
46.
Flem ing, The L aw of T orts 426 (4 th ed. 1971).
47.
N o. 5254/73, V ancouver P rovincial C ourt, unreported.
-1 4 9-
co v en an t fo r q u ie t e n jo y m e n t
latter case was new to the law.
im plied
at
common
law ),
w hile
the
p ro visio n
in
th e
As
the
o bligation
to
repair
and
clean,
and
the
o bligatio n
to
give
quiet
e n j o y m e n t a r e b y n o m e a n s t h e o n l y o b l i g a t io n s im p o s e d o n l a n d l o r d s a n d t e n a n t s
by the Act, it would seem that Re MacIsaac and Beretanos has raised the question whether a
num ber of new statutory causes of action in tort have arisen as a result of the 1970
and 1973 amendm ents to the Landlord and Tenant Act, even though awards of dam ages for
b reach o f statu to ry d uty h av e b een trad itio n a lly co n f in e d to in s tan c es w h e re th e
plaintiff has suffered physical injury.46
W here
th e
ren talsm an
do es
not
h ave
jurisdictio n
in
th is
area
of
lan dlo rd
and
tenant relation s, w e see no reason to d epart fro m established division s betw een
t h e l a w o f to r t a n d t h e l a w o f c o n t ra c t d i v i s io n s w h i c h w e b e l ie v e to h a v e b e e n
confused in Re MacIsaac and Beretanos.
We do not, however, think it necessary to make a
sp ecific reco m m en d atio n to th is effec t, p a rtic ularly in view o f a later d ecisio n of
Ju d g e O 'D o n n e ll in th e P ro v in c ia l C o u rt o f B ritis h C o lu m b ia .
In th is d ec isio n , B ott
and Fraser v. E sto H oldings Ltd., 47 it w as held that the landlord's breach of the statutory
covenant to maintain habitable premises gave rise to an action in contract.
An added complication for the principle of damages for a breach of a duty or
c o v e n a n t u n d e r th e A c t in B r it is h C o lu m b ia h a s a r is e n b y th e ex p an sio n o f s e c t io n
62 in 1973 to make punishable by fine all contraventions of the Act.
In Bott and Foster
v. E sto H oldings Ltd. 48 there w as a discussion w hether the im position of a penalty for a
landlord's failure to m aintain hab itable prem ises altered th e p rin cip le th at dam ages
m ight be aw arded for breach of statutory covenant.
Damages were awarded,
section 62 n otw ithstanding, but som e doubt exists in our m inds whether the
lan dlo rd's ob ligatio n to rep air an d to m ain tain h ab itab le prem ises, or th e ten an t's
o b l i g a t i o n t o c l e a n , i s s u b j e c t t o p e n a l t y in t h e c a s e o f n o n p e r f o r m a n c e .
Sectio n
4 9 d o es n o t p ro v id e th a t th e lan d lo rd shall rep air o r th at th e ten an t shall cle an , b u t
instead sets out the fact that the one is responsible for repair and the other responsible for
cleanliness.
T h e s e t t i n g o u t o f o b l i g a t i o n s i n t e r m s o f " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " r a t h e r th a n
the
use
of
words
w hich
are
directory
raises
a
presum ption
at least that
enfo rcem ent should be by civil rem edy rather than by statutory penalty.
T h is, in
o u r v ie w , is a s it s h o u ld b e as w e b e liev e it to b e in a p p ro p ria te f o r a la n d lo rd 's
f ailu r e to r e p a ir a n d to m a in t ain h a b ita b le p re m ise s, o r a te n an t's ca u s in g d a m a g e
o r failure to clean , to b e visited b y p en al co n sequen ce s unless m un icipal health
standards are violated.
The proposed Act, in the re-enactment of a provision comparable to section 49(1) and (2) of the present Act, also contain a provision which
exempts failure to discharge the obligations imposed by section 49(1) and (2) from penal consequences.
48.
Ibid.
-1 5 0-
CHAPTER VIII
A.
RENTAL RATES
Frequency of Rental Increases
The
p ric es
w h ic h
te n an ts
are
re qu ire d
to
pay
fo r
re n tal
ac co m m o d a tio n
have
n o t b e e n i m m u n e t o t h e in f l a t i o n a r y tr e n d s w h i c h a r e e v i d e n t i n o t h e r s e c t o r s o f
the econom y.
V arious levels of governm ent, in various jurisdictions, have
exp ressed co n cern o ver ren tal rates, b ut legislative reaction has varied.
In som e
ju risd ic tio n s su ch as E n g lan d an d N ew Y o rk C ity qu ite so p h isticated sch em es o f
rent control have been introduced with mixed results.
The
q u e s t io n
of
c o n t r o llin g
re n t
in c r e a s e s
was
g iv e n
som e
co n sid eratio n
by
the O ntario Law R eform C om m ission.1
Recom m endations were m ade favouring
a re n t re v ie w s ys te m o n a lo c a l o p tio n b asis in th o s e are as w h e re th e m a rk e t
con dition s dem anded it.
Lo cal rent review bo ards, ho w ever, w ou ld n ot have b een
g iv e n t h e p o w e r to r e v e r s e r e n t a l i n c r e a s e s .
R a t h e r , t h o s e b o a r d s w o u ld h a v e b e e n
g iv e n a n o m b u d s m an -lik e fu n c tio n w ith th e u ltim a te p o w e r b e in g th a t o f p u b lic ity .
T h e reco m m en d atio ns of th e O n tario C om m issio n did no t fin d su pp o rt w ith th e
O ntario Legislature and Part IV of The Landlord and Tenant A ct of O ntario contains neither
sp ecial p ro visio n s aim ed at lim itin g th e n um b er o r size o f ren t in creases n o r th e
local option scheme for rent review.
In passing Part II of the
L egislatu re to o k a b o ld er step
then provided:
Landlord and Tenant Act in
an d in cluded sectio n 51 .
1970
The
the British Columbia
relev an t su bsectio n s
(1)
N o la n d lo r d s h a l l i n c r e ase t h e r e n t f o r a r e si de n ti al p remises and no
t en a nc y a gr ee me nt sh a ll p r ov id e fo r a n i nc re as e in r en t f or a r es id en t ia l
premises during the first year of a tenancy agreement, or, where the
tenancy agreement is for a term of less than one year during the term of
the tenancy agreement and any renewals thereof upon to one year from the
date of the original tenancy agreement.
(2)
No
landlord
shall
increase
the
rent for a residential premises after the
period of one year referred to in subsection (1) without first having
notified the tenant in writing, in the manner provided in this Part, at least
three months prior to the date of the increase.
(3)
An increase in
and unenforceable.
(4)
If
a
tenant,
on
the
date
stipulated
in a notice under subsection (2) for
commencement of the increase in rent, refuses to pay to the landlord the
amount of the increase set out in the notice, the landlord may, on or after
that date, serve on the tenant, in the manner provided in this Part, a notice
of termination of the tenancy agreement at the end of fifteen days from the
date of service of the notice, and section 56 does not apply to 4 notice
under this section.
rent
by
a
landlord
contrary
to subsection (1) or (2) is void
E s s e n tia lly , n o la n d lo r d w a s p e r m i t t e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e r e n t d u r i n g th e f ir s t y e a r o f
a ten an cy an d th en o n ly on th ree m o n th s' n o tice to th e ten an t.
N otice could
therefore b e given in the ninth m onth of the first year o f the tenancy to take effect
on the e x p iry o f th e t w e lfth m o n th .
T h e re w as so m e que stio n as to th e f re quency
1.
See O ntario Interim R eport 63-72.
-1 5 1-
w ith w hich rental increases cou ld b e im p o sed after the first year of the tenancy.
T h e w ord ing o f 51(1) suggested that ren tal increases could be effected ev ery
month
thereafter provided
that
proper three
m onths' notice
preceded
each
s e p a ra te in c re a s e . 2
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e a r g u m e n t c a n b e m a d e th a t w h e n re n t
w as increased a new tenancy agreem ent cam e in to b eing an d the lan dlord w ould
have been prevented from claiming any further rental increase for another year.
It
m igh t
also
be
n o te d
th a t
th e
o rig in a l
w o rd in g
p r e v e n t a lan d lo r d fro m la w f u lly te rm in a tin g a te n a n c y
tenancy at a higher rental rate with the sam e tenant.
In
to refer to the relevant paragraph in Schedule "A "
governing rent increases. Paragraph 5 provides:3
of
s ec tio n
5 1 (1 )
d id
no t
and then creating a new
this context it is interesting
of the V ancou ver by-law
No Landlord shall alter the rent payable by a Tenant with respect to any
premises, or a lter any other terms or conditions under which the premises are
occupied by the Tenant, either by amending or renewing an existing lease, or by
determining an existing tenancy and creating a new one, except upon three clear
months' notice in writing to the Tenant.
W hile that provision did not restrict the frequency of rental increases it did
attem pt to
prevent circum vention
of
notice
requirement by
ruling
out the
possibility o f a lan d lo rd "d eterm in in g an existing tenancy an d creating a n ew one."
In
1973
s e c t io n
that section now read:
(1)
51
was
s u b sta n tia lly
am e n d e d .
The
re le v a n t
p ro v is io n s
of
Where a person at any time after the section comes into force, or within
t h e t we lv e m o nt h s i mme di at e l y p re c edi n g , e st ab l i sh e s or in creases th e rent
for residential premises, then, notwithstanding
(a)
any tenancy agreement
comes into force; or
(b)
a change of tenant or landlord,
entered
n o in cr ea s e s h a l l b e c o l l e c t e d
establishment of the rent or its last increase.
until
into
twelve
before
or
months
after
h av e
this
subsection
ex p ir ed
fo ll ow in g
(2)
No landlord shall increase the rent for a
having notified the tenant in writing, in the
at least three months prior to the date of the increase.
(3)
An increase in
and unenforceable.
(4)
If
a
tenant,
on
the
date
stipulated
in a notice under subsection (2) for
commencement of the increase in rent, refuses to pay to the landlord the
amount of the increase set out in the notice, the landlord may, oh or after
that date, serve on the tenant, in the manner provided in this Part, a notice
of termination of the tenancy agreement at the end of ten days from the
date of service of the notice, and section 56 does hot apply to a notice
under this section.
2.
See E. E. Bowes,
(A nnual ed. 1973/74).
3.
By-law 4448.
rent
“D iscussions
of
by
a
landlord
Am en dm en ts
-1 5 2-
to
th e
residential premises without first
manner provided in this Part,
contrary
L an dlo rd
and
to subs ect io n (1) or (2) is void
T en a n t
A ct”
in
R ecent
L aws
in C anada
-1 5 3-
T he im po rtant chan ge in trod uced is that
in c r e a s e s in n o w a t t a c h e d to th e p re m is e s
t h a t a m e n d m e n t i s n o t e n t i r e ly c l e a r .
It
it w a s a resp o n se to th e p o ssib ility th at
fo rm er sectio n 51 in th e m an n er o utlin ed
letting to new tenants at a higher rate.
the tw elfth-m on th restriction on rental
ra th er th an th e te n a n t.
T h e reaso n fo r
h a s b e e n s u g g e s te d t o u s , h o w e v e r , th a t
la n d l o r d s w e r e e v a d i n g th e p r o v i s i o n s o f
above or by term inating tenancies and
The present section 51 has lead to a number of difficulties.
From the tenant's
p o i n t o f v i e w , i t is a r g u e d t h a t t h e t e n a n t is g i v e n l e s s s e c u r i ty w i th r e s p e c t to
r e n t a l r a t e s th a n h e h a d in 1 9 7 0 .
F orm erly, th e ren t w o u ld rem ain un ch aged fo r
a year irrespective of w hen the ten an t m o ved.
N o w , i f t h e t e n a n t m o v e s i n s ix
m o n th s a fte r th e a n n iv e rs a ry d a te o f th e last in c re ase h e h a s o n ly six m o n th s re n ta l
security.
D ifficulties also
emerge with
respect to
the
enforcem ent of the
p ro v isio n .
T h ere is n o m ea n s b y w h ich th e n ew ten an t can , u n less h e hap p en s to
k n o w th e p re v io u s te n an t, v erify th e d ate o f th e last ren tal in c re as e o r th e p re v io u s
rental rate.
A num ber of pro p o sals h av e b een m ad e to co p e w ith th is pro b lem .
I t h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d 4 t h a t s o m e f o r m o f c e n t r a l r e g is t r y is c a ll e d f o r .
A no ther
s o lu tio n m ig h t b e to m a k e it a sta tu to ry d u ty o f th e la n d l o r d to p r o v id e in c o m in g
te n an ts w ith th e date of th e last w ritten in crease to geth er w ith th e n am e (an d ,
w h e r e p o s s ib le , th e a d d r e s s ) o f th e p r e v i o u s t e n a n t.
O thers h ave su ggested that
a ll r e n ta l ra te s an d an n iv e rs a ry d a te s b e p o ste d in s o m e c o m m o n a r e a o f a p a r t m e n t
b u ild in gs .
E a c h o f th e s e p ro p o se d so lu tio n s s e e m s to c re a te d if f ic u ltie s o f its o w n .
T he registry schem e w ould require th e creation of a substan tial bureaucracy to
curb w hat m ight prove to be a very sm all num ber of abuses.
The "posting"
s c h em e se e m s to le a d to a n u n d es ira b le v io la tio n o f a te n an t's p riv a c y.
T h is m ig h t
b e p articu larly acu te w h e re a s ta b le r lo n g -te rk te n an t w h o m a k e s f e w d e m an d s o n
th e lan d lo rd , p ays ren t at a su b sta n tially lo w e r rate th an o th er o ccu p an ts o f th e
b uilding.
Pub licity o f that fact co uld b e a source of em barrassm ent to bo th
landlord and tenant.
From
the
landlord's
point
of
view
the
1973
am endm ents
lead
to
other
difficulties.
T he con scientiou s landlord find s it distasteful, at th e o utset o f a
t e n a n c y , t o a d v i s e a p r o s p e c t iv e t e n a n t th a t th e re n t w ill b e r a i s e d a t s o m e f u t u r e
d ate les s th an a y ear a w ay.
T he th ree m onth notice requirem ent would seem to
p u t t h e l a n d l o r d i n a n i m p o s s ib l e p o s it io n if th e an n iv e rs a ry d a te c o m e s v e ry e arly .
F o r ex am p le, if a new ten an t m o ves in ten m o n th s after th e last ren tal in crease th e
lan d lo rd w o u ld b e a llo w ed to raise th e re n t in tw o m o n th s.
The A ct, how ever,
requires th at th e ten an t be given th ree m on th s’ no tice.
W e un derstan d th at so m e
la n d l o r d s h a v e a d o p t e d th e p o s itio n , an d in c re as e d re n ts o n th e b a sis , th a t a n o t ic e
prop erly d elive red to an earlier ten an t is effective to p erm it the landlord to raise
th e re n t o f a la te r te n a n t w h e n th e p re m is e s h a v e c h a n g e d h a n d s b e tw e e n th e tim e
notice is served and the anniversary date.
I n p l a c in g t h a t c o n s t r u c t io n o n s e c t io n
51, tho s e la n d lo r d s m a y b e r u n n in g a sub st an t ial risk , h av in g r e g ard t o t h e f ac t that
an unlawful rental increase might subject them to a fine of up to $1,000.
The
ex is tin g
la w
m ay
c re a te
a n o m a lo u s
re n ta l
situ a tio n s .
For
ex a m p le ,
tw o
id en tical v acan t ap artm en t u n its m igh t sit sid e b y sid e b ut th e lan d lo rd w o u ld b e
req uired to ren t th e m a t d iffe ren t rates b ecau se th e last ren tal in creases w e re o n
d ifferen t d ates.
It h a s b e en u rg ed u p o n u s th at relatin g ren tal in creases to th e
prem ises w orks a h ardsh ip o n lan d lo rds w h ere the p reviou s rental rate w as fixed
a t a 1 o w e r l e v e l th a n th e p r e m i s e s m i g h t o t h e r w i s e c o m m a n d .
T his m ight occur,
f o r e x a m p l e , w h e r e p r e m i s e s w e r e l e t t o a s t a b l e t e n a n t k n o w n to b e u n l i k e l y t o
m ak e an y great d em an d s o n th e o w n er, w h e re p re m ise s w e re le t to a re lativ e o f th e
4.
See Bow es, n. 2 supra.
-1 5 4-
ow ner, where prem ises
suitable for occupancy by
s itu a tio n s a n e w te n a n c y
were let during the "off season," or w here prem ises
a num ber of people w ere let to a single tenant.
In tho se
m ig h t o rd in a rily ju s tif y a s u b s ta n tia l in c re a s e in re n t.
It
has
also
been
suggested
to
us
that
the
present
law
discourages
a
landlord
from im proving the prem ises.
The logical tim e to redecorate and renovate is
b e t w e e n t e n a n c i e s , a n d w e a r e t o l d t h a t b e f o re 1 9 7 3 , if a l an d l o rd k n e w h e c o u ld
re n t t o a n e w t e n a n t a t a h ig h e r r a t e h e m ig h t b e p r o m p te d to in v e s t tim e a n d
f u n d s in im p r o v in g th e p re m is e s .
W h e r e h e is " lo c k e d in " f o r s e v e r a l m o n th s h e
is said to be less inclined to do so.
The
C o m m issio n
fin ds
th ese
argum en ts
persuasive.
The
1973
amendment
s e em s to h av e d o n e a d is fa v o u r to a ll co n ce rn ed e x c e p t to th e ex te n t it m a y h a v e
p r e v e n te d th e te rm in a tio n o f te n a n c i e s t o o b t a in a h ig h e r r ate o f re n t f ro m a n e w
tenant, and p revented frequent increases in the seco n d an d follow ing years of an
estab lish ed ten an cy .
I n o u r o p in io n th ese b en efits can b e retain ed w h ile av oid in g
the com plication s in trod uc ed b y relatin g ren tal in creases to the p rem ises rather
than the tenant.
E lsew h ere in th is R ep o rt, reco m m en d atio n s are m ad e w h ich , if
im plem ented, w ould
introduce a
greater m easure
of security to
the m onthto-m onth
tenant than
th e p resen t law
allows and which would prevent the
te rm in a tio n o f a te n a n c y b y a la n d lo r d f o r th e p u r p o s e o f o b ta in in g a h ig h e r re n ta l
rate.
W e h av e co n clud ed that the b est so lution is to am en d section 51(1) so as to
resto re th e legal p o s itio n w h ic h p re vaile d b efo re 19 73 b ut p rev en t m o re freq uen t
increases in the second and following years of an established tenancy.
1.
B.
The proposed Act contain a provision comparable to section 51 (1) as it was enacted in 1970, but amended to provide that in
the second and following years of a tenancy rent shall not be increased more often than once every year.
Definition of Rental Increases
It seem s
app rop riate
at this
point
to
consider
the
m anner
in
w hich
a
rental
in c r ea s e s h o u ld b e d e fin e d .
O u r a tte n tio n h a s b e e n d r a w n t o w h a t m ig h t b e c a lle d
"hidden rental increases." It is not uncom m on to find, particularly where an
apartm ent block is involved, that a substantial num ber of services are offered to
th e n ew ten an t as p art o f th e "p ack age." A t so m e la te r tim e th e la n d lo rd m a y fin d
h i s c o s t s o f o p e r a t i o n in c r e a s i n g .
T h e a l t e r n a t i v e s o p e n t o a la n d l o r d i n s u c h a
situation would seem to be the following:
(a)
Do nothing and accept a lower rate of return on his investment;
(b)
Cut operating costs in areas which
m igh t b e d on e b y th e lan dlo rd
responsibility of a caretaker or resident manager;
(c)
Cut operating costs in areas which do affect the tenant.
This might
b e d o n e, fo r exam p le b y m ain tain in g th e ap artm en t sw im m in g p o ol
at 7 0 0 F . rath er th an 75 0 F . so as to effect a fu el sav in g, w a sh in g th e
o u t s i d e w i n d o w s o n ly o n c e a y e a r ra t h e r t h a n t w i c e , o r p u t t i n g t h e
residen t caretak er o n a p art-tim e b asis so th at h e is n o lon ger readily
available to answer the call of a tenant who requires his services.
(d)
Add
a
enjoyed
surcharge
"free of
for
"fringe
charge." Th is
-1 5 5-
do
not affect the
undertaking duties
tenant.
form erly
This
the
b en efits"
w h ich
the
tenant
form erly
often takes the form of putting a
c o in b o x o n la u n d ry f ac ilitie s in a n a p a rtm e n t b u t m a y a ls o m a n ife s t
its e lf in a fo r m o f a ch arg e fo r cab le visio n o r p arkin g w ith respect
to which no specific charge had previously been made;
(e)
Raise the rent directly.
U n less th ere is a h ap p y co in cid en ce o f a n n iv ers ary d ates th e fifth alte rn ativ e w ill
not be available to the landlord because section 51(1) lim its, and under our
previous
recommendation
would
continue
to
limit, the
frequency
of
rental
in c re a s e s .
T h u s , la n d lo rd s o fte n tu rn to th e th ird an d fo urth a lte rn a tiv e s .
F o r th e
p u r p o s e s o f s e c t i o n 5 1 s h o u l d th e s e s t e p s c o n s t i t u t e a r e n t a l i n c r e a s e ?
F r o m th e
la n d lo r d 's p o in t o f v ie w it is v e ry im p o rtan t to kn o w w h e th e r o r n o t th e y d o .
It
is e n tire ly p o s s ib le f o r a la n d lo r d to in s ta ll c o in b o x e s o n w a s h in g fa c ilitie s w ith o u t
tu rn in g h is m in d to w ard s ec tio n 5 1 .
If th at am o un ts to a ren tal in crease, un d er th e
p resen t A c t th e lan d lo rd m ig h t fin d h im self f a c in g p ro s ec u tio n u n d e r th e A c t an d
a p o ss ib le f in e o f $ 1 ,0 0 0 .
H e m ig h t a ls o f in d h i m s e lf p r o h ib ite d fro m ra is in g th e
rent on an y suite in the ap artm ent for a perio d of one year from the tim e the coin
b o x e s w e re in sta lle d .
T h at is a d ra s tic re s u lt.
O n th e o th er h an d , a te n an t w h o
w as attracted to, and w ho m ov ed into, the prem ises w hen th e "frin ge b en efits"
w e re "fre e" w o u ld s e e m to h a v e a le g itim ate c o m p lain t w h e n h e su d d en ly fin d s
h im self facin g surch arges fo r parkin g an d cab le-v isio n , an d a co in b o x o n th e
washing machine.
It has
been
suggested
that
rental increases
be
defined
so
as
to
include
such
su rch arg es sp ecifically.
That would certainly give the landlord guidance but it
m ight also am ou nt to a com plete p roh ib itio n in large b uildings.
In those cases
th ere w o u ld be a great div ersity of dates up on w h ich a ren tal in crease w o u ld b e
p e r m i tt e d a n d , f o r e x a m p l e , i n s t a l l i n g c o i n b o x e s a t a n y p a r t i c u l a r t im e i s l ik e l y t o
offend the Act with respect to a majority of tenants.
The withdrawal of services is a more subtle problem.
In some cases the effect
o n th e te n a n t m a y b e so s lig h t a s to b e n e g lig ib le w h ile in o th e rs th e w i th d r a w a l
o f serv ices m ay sub stan tially im p air th e ten an t's en jo ym en t o f th e p rem ises.
The
sam e act m ay also affect different tenants in different w ays.
The difference
b e t w e e n a s w im m in g p o o l m a in t a in e d a t 7 5 0 F . a n d o n e m a in t a in e d a t 7 0 0 F . m a y g o
u n n o tic e d b y a m a j o r i t y o f t e n a n t s b u t i t m a y , in e f f e c t , d e p r iv e s o m e te n a n ts o f
th e co m p le te u s e o f th e p o o l.
O n th e o th er h an d , a ch an g e fro m 7 5 0 F . to 6 0 0 F .
might deprive a majority of tenants of the use of the pool.
How
c an
all
co m p etin g
in terests
be
balan ced
equitab ly
in
th ese
cases?
The
n o tice p ro visio n co n tain ed in the V an co uver C ity B y-law , quoted earlier in th is
Chapter, extends to altering "any other term s or conditions under which the
prem ises are occupied by the tenant."
Presum ably, both a surcharge and a
w ithdraw al of services are encom passed by the provision.
This form ula seem s
unnecessarily rigid.
In
our
o p in io n
th is
p ro b lem
req u ires
a
co n sid erab le
degree
of
fle x ib ility
an d
i s o n e i n w h i c h t h e s e r v i c e s o f t h e r e n t a l s m a n m a y b e u s e f u l ly e m p l o y e d .
W here
the landlord w ishes to im pose a surcharge w ith respect to facilities enjoyed in
c o m m o n w ith o th er te n an ts h e s h o u ld b e a b le , w i t h th e c o n s e n t o f th e r e n ta ls m a n ,
to do that.
T he rentalsm an, on the other hand, should be able to m ake his consent
co n d ition al u p o n ap p rop riate reb ates b ein g m ad e to ap p rop riate tenants, or other
reaso n ab le term s.
If th e ren talsm an 's co n sen t is o b tain ed , th e su rc h arg e sh o u ld
no t am ou nt to a rental increase for the p urposes of sectio n 5 1.
A ny surcharge
im po sed w ith resp ect to facilities w hich are not enjoyed in com m on w ith other
-1 5 6-
tenants should fall within the definition of rental increase.
S im ilarly,
a
withdraw al
of
serv ices
w h ich
adversely
affects
a
m ajo rity
of
tenants in rented prem ises so that th eir en jo ym en t o f the p rem ises and associated
facilities is substantially im paired, should constitute a rent increase, unless done
w ith the con sen t o f th e rentalsm an, w ho again sh ou ld h ave the p ow er to im po se
appropriate terms and conditions.
A
w ithdraw al of
services
directed
at an
individual tenant and
not w ith
respect
to fac ilities e n joye d in co m m o n w ith o ther ten an ts an d w h ich su b stan tially im p airs
t h a t t e n a n t 's e n j o y m e n t o f t h e p r e m i s e s s h o u l d f a l l w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f r e n t a l
increase.
A w ithdraw al of services w hich does not substantially im pair the
interests of a tenant or group of tenants should not amount to a rent increase.
O nce
an
app lication
to
the
rentalsm an
is
m ade
by
a
landlord
it
is
expected
that
the
rentalsm an
would
consult
with
the
tenants
affected
as
fully
as
circum stances dictate.
W e are reluctant to recom m end any specific procedural
req uirem en ts as flex ib ility sh o uld be a key feature of th e ren talsm an 's o p eratio n s
in this area.
We
wish
to
em phasize
in
the
strongest
possible
terms
that
our
recom m endations relating to w hat should or should not constitute a "rental
in cre ase " are m ad e on ly fo r th e p u rp o se o f d efin in g an d lim itin g th e effe c t o f
section 51. Their only effect will be to assist in determining:
(a)
when
a
l a n d lo r d
is
liable
to
imposing an unlawful increase in rent; and
(b)
when
a
increase.
landlord
is
precluded
be
p r o s e c u te d
from
claim ing
under
a
th e
further
Act
for
rental
In
alm ost every base w here services are withdraw n by a landlord
he will,
te c h n ic ally , b e in b re ach o f th e ten an cy agreem e n t.
It is n o t o ur in ten tio n , b y
recom m ending that certain w ithdraw als of services be exem pted from section 51,
that the tenants' right to sue for breach of contract be in any way affected.
To the
e xte n t th a t, p u r su a n t to te rm s im p o s ed b y th e re n talsm an , th e lan d lo rd h as m ad e
a rebate to the agriev ed tenan t, that rebate sho uld b e set-off against any dam ages
he might otherwise be awarded.
1.
2.
The proposed Act include, for the purposes of the section comparable to section 51,
a statutory definition
of "rental increase" so
as to include within
that term:
(a)
any additional charge levied by a landlord with respect to facilities previously enjoyed by a tenant at a lesser or no charge;
and
(b)
a withdrawal of services which results in the substantial impairment of the tenant's use and enjoyment of the rented
premises and associated services and facilities except where the added charge or withdrawal of services has been consented
to by the rentalsman in accordance with the following recommendations.
Where a landlord wishes to impose an added charge with respect to facilities enjoyed in common by a number of tenants and which
had previously been enjoyed at a lesser or no charge; or when the landlord wishes to effect a withdrawal of services previously
-1 5 7-
available to a number of tenants in common and that withdrawal of services would substantially impair the use and enjoyment
of the premises and associated services and facilities, the landlord may apply to the rentalsman who may consent to the added charge
or withdrawal of services subject to such terms and conditions as it may seem just to impose.
3.
C.
The definition of rent increase should not prejudice the right of a tenant to bring in action against the landlord for breach of
contract.
Increased Occupancy
O ne
f u rth e r
p ro b le m
w ith
re sp e ct
to
th e
re s tric tio n s
on
re n ta l
in c r ea s es
has
been draw n to o u r a tte n tio n in the co urse o f th is study.
W e are to ld th at o ne of
th e eco n o m ic facto rs to b e co n sid ered in settin g ren tal rates is th e n um b er o f
persons who w ill occupy the prem ises.
Additional occupants mean additional
c o s ts to th e lan d lo rd .
In so m e ca se s th e ad d itio n a l co s ts m a y b e n e g lig ib le b u t in
o th er cases, partic u larly w h en th e la n d lo rd is re s p o n s ib le fo r p ro v id in g utilities , it
m ay be significant.
For exam ple, doubling the num ber of occupants of an
apartm ent w ill no rm ally double the con sum ption of w ater.
Increased occupancy
will also result in an increased level of general wear and tear to the premises.
W e have som e sym pathy w ith
the landlord
w ho
finds
that rented
prem ises
are
b e in g o c c u p ie d b y a g r e a t e r n u m b e r o f t e n a n t s t h a n h e b a r g a i n e d f o r w h i c h r e s u l ts
i n i n c r e a s e d o p e ra t in g c o s t s b u t f a lls s h o r t o f o b j e c t i o n a b l e o v e r c r o w d i n g .
W e are,
h o w ev er, reluctant to reco m m en d that th e lan d lord b e g ive n a b lan k et righ t to
in c re a s e th e re n t in su c h circ u m s ta n c e s .
T h a t m ig h t lead to un d esirab le ab u se.
We
feel th e an sw er to th e lan d lo rd 's p ro b lem lies in p erm ittin g h im to co n tract w ith
th e ten an t, at th e co m m en cem en t o f th e ten an cy o r at th e tim e a law fu l ren t
increase is im po sed, that if the n um ber of perm anent occup ants of the p rem ises
in creases th e lan d lo rd sh all b e en titled to raise th e ren tal rate b y a fixed am o un t fo r
each ad ditional occup an t.
A ren t in crease pursuant to such an agreem ent should
n o t co n stitu te a ren tal in crease fo r th e purp o ses o f th e p ro v isio n lim itin g th e
frequency of rental increases.5
T he
C o m m issio n
fo resee s
one
are a
of
disp ute
e m e rg in g .
L an dlo rd
an d
tenant
m ay not alw ays be ad idem as to whether an additional occupant is merely a visitor or
transient guest, or w hether he is an add ition al perm anent occup ant in w hich case
a rental increase, if contracted for, would be justified.
W e feel that the
determination of such a dispute should be left to the rentalsman.
D.
1.
Nothing in the provision limiting the frequency of rent increases should restrict the right of landlord and tenant to agree, at the
commencement of a tenancy or at the time a rental increase is lawfully made, that if the number of permanent occupants of rented
premises increases the rent may be raised by an agreed amount for each additional occupant; and a rental increase made pursuant
to such an agreement should not constitute a rental increase for the purposes of that provision.
2.
The rentalsman should be given jurisdiction to resolve any dispute between landlord and tenant as to whether or not an additional
occupant is "permanent" for the purposes of the foregoing recommendation.
Acceleration of Rent
5.
Such a rent raise m ay in fact be law ful under the existing A ct.
6.
-1 5 8-
A c c e le r a t io n
c la u s e s
are
a
comm on
f e a t u re
of
a g r e e m e n ts
which
in v o lv e
th e
p erio d ic p aym en t o f su m s o f m o ney.
S uch clauses no rm ally pro vid e th at if th e
p erso n un d er the ob ligation to m ak e th e p aym en ts is in defau lt, all p aym en ts to
have been m ade in th e future becom e due im m ediately.
O ften tenancy agreem ents
for a specified term contained acceleration clauses.
The
O ntario
Law
Reform
C om m ission
considered
what
they
characterized
as the "basic unfairness o f acceleration p rov isions"6 an d recom m en ded that they
should be subject to certain controls.
The O ntario Legislature responded by
enacting section 97(1) of The Landlord and Tenant Act which relieves tenants of the obligation
to p ay accelerated ren t if th e ten an t p ays th e arrears o r p erfo rm s outstan din g
obligations and pays any expenses incurred by the landlord.7
The
reaction
of
the
British
C o lu m b ia
L egislature
in
1970
to
acceleration
clauses was stronger.
In tenancy agreem ents relating to residen tial tenancies,
accleration
clau ses are p ro h ib ited an d an y such clause is deem ed
void
and
unenforceable. The relevant provision reads:
50.
N otwithstanding
any
Act
or
law,
or a term or provision of a
tenancy agreem ent to the contrary, any term of a tenancy
agreem en t th at p ro v id es th at, b e reaso n o f defau lt in p aym en t
o f r e n t d u e , o r in o b s e r v a n c e o f a n y o b lig a t io n o f t h e t e n a n t
under a tenancy agreem ent, the whole or any part of the
re m ain in g re n t fo r th e term o f th e te n an cy b ec o m e s d ue an d
payable, is void and unenforceable.
T here
is
no
eviden ce
that
the
existing
p roh ibition
against
accelerated
rent
has
visited a hardship on landlords.
N ot one of the num erous briefs w hich w e
received
contained
any
reference
to
this
prohibition
and
no
change
seems
warranted.
The existing prohibition against acceleration clauses in tenancy agreements set out in section 50 be retained in the proposed Act.
7.
For a detailed discussion of these provisions, see Lam ont, R esidential Tenancies 76-77 (2 nd ed., 1973).
-1 5 9-
CHAPTER IX
A.
ABANDONMENT
Definition
A ban do nm ent
of
prem ises
by
a
ten ant
gives
the
landlord
variou s
rights
und er
Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Since, however, abandonment is not defined in the
A c t , t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h g i v e r i s e t o t h e s e r i g h ts a r e u n c e r t a i n .
Abandonm ent
is mentioned in four sections in Part II:
39.
(1)
Except
where
a
ten an t abandons the prem ises, no lan dlord sh all
d is t r a in f o r d e f a u lt in th e p a y m e n t o f r e n t w h e th e r a r ig h t o f
d is tre ss h a s h e re to f o re ex is te d b y statu te, th e co m m o n law , o r
contract.
45.
W here
a
tenant
abandons
the premises in breach of the tenancy
agreem ent, the landlord's right to dam ages is subject to the
sam e o b ligation to m itigate h is d am ages as ap p lies gen erally
under the rule of law relating to breaches of contract.
46.
(1) Except ...
©
61.
w here
the
ten an t
abandons
the
premises, the
landlord
shall not
e x e rc is e a rig h t to en te r th e re n te d p r e m is e s u n le s s h e h a s
f irs t g iv e n w ritte n n o tic e to th e te n a n t a t le as t tw e n ty -f o u r
h o urs b efo re the tim e of en try, an d the tim e of en try sh all
b e b etw een th e h o u rs o f eig h t o 'clo ck in th e fo ren o o n
an d n in e o 'clo ck in th e aftern o o n an d sp ecified in th e
notice.
(1 )
U n le s s a ten an t h as v ac ated o r abando n ed rented pre m i se l, t h e l an d lo rd
s h a ll n o t r e g a i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r e m i s e s o n t h e g r o u n d s h e
is entitled to possession; except under the authority of an
order obtained under section 60.1 [emphasis added].
S ectio n 39 p erm its th e lan d lo rd to d istrain fo r arrears o f ren t, b ut o n ly w h e n a
ten an t ab an d on s th e p rem ises.
S e c t i o n 4 5 r e la t e s to t h e q u e s t io n o f m i t i g a t i o n o f
dam ages upon abandonm ent.
S e ctio n 6 1 re gu late s th e re gain in g o f p o ssessio n of
the p rem ises b y a landlord, w ithout a co urt order, w here the prem ises h ave been
vacated or abandoned.
Section 46(1) exem pts the landlord from the statutory
p ro h ib itio n a g ain s t e n te rin g th e p re m ise s " w h e re th e ten an t ab an d on s."
F ro m th e
landlord's view po int, it is im po rtant to kn ow w hen these rights and duties arise.
This point was stressed in one brief which we received:
... clarification, by statutory definition is required in order to define
abandonment.
It is a difficult thing to establish in law, as it now stands, because
the tenant whom the landlord suspects has abandoned is seldom available to be
questioned.
The prudent landlord seeking to mitigate his damage is fearful of
e n t e r i n g th e pr em is ed u nt il h e is a b so lu t e l y s u r e t h a t a b a n d o n m e n t h a s t a k e n
place.
1.
E m phasis added in each section.
-1 6 0-
W e agree that
definition m ight
in a statute.
The
b rie f
a workable definition o f abandonm ent
be either developed through case law
qu oted
ab o v e
offered
a
s t a t u to r y
is
or,
d e f in it io n
desirable.
preferably,
fo r
our
Such a
embodied
c o n s id e r a t io n :
The rented premises shall be deemed to be abandoned where:
(a)
the
rented
premises
are
apparently
vacated without
prior written
notice to the landlord, and where there is no written denial delivered
by the tenant to the landlord within 48 hours of the placing of a
notice declaring abandonment as stipulated in section 54(2)(b);
(b)
the rental is seven (7) days in arrears and where there is no written
denial delivered by the tenant to the landlord within 96 hours of the
p l a c i n g o f a n o t i ce de c l a r i n g ab an do n m e n t a s s t i p u l a t e d i n s e ct i o n
54(2)(b).
T h e p rin c ip le s e m b o d ied in th e fo rego in g are n o t, h o w ev er, co n sisten t w ith th e
w a y in w h i c h th e t e r m " a b a n d o n m e n t " h a s b e e n u s e d i n r e l a t i o n t o l e a s e s a n d i n
other field s o f law .
A sh ort an alysis w ill clarify th is an d offer so me guidan ce in the
preparation of statutory definition.
(a)
United States - Am erican
cases clearly state that abandonm ent, as applied
leases, in v o lv es an ab so lu ter vo lu ntary an d in ten tio n al relin qu ish m en t
t h e p r e m i s e s b y a te n a n t.
T h ere m u st b e, in o th er w o rd s, an act
abandonment accompanied by an intention to abandon.2
(b)
Canada
(i)
Abandonment
of
Goods:
T his
ta k e
p la c e
when
is relinquished without an intention to transfer them to another. 3
p o s s e s s io n
to
of
of
of goods
2.
See, Pure O il Co. v. Sturm , 182 N .E . 875, 882; 43 O hio A pp. 105 (1930).
A bandonm ent is the voluntary,
in ten tio n a l relin q u ish m en t o f a kn ow n righ t.
T h ere m u st b e a co n cu rrin g in ten tio n to a b an d o n a n d
a n ac tu a l re lin q u ish m e n t o f th e p ro p e rty .
In S chn itzer v . L a n z a r, 1 1 3 N .J.L . 3 3 2 , 1 8 0 ; 1 8 0 A . 2 3 4 (1 9 3 5 ),
a b u tc h e r c lo se d u p h is sh op an d rem o ved a ll p e rish a b le m e rc h a n d ise w ith th e in te n tio n o f g iv in g
up the b usiness.
A lthough he retained the key an d d id n o t n o tify the landlord of the inten tion to
v aca te, th is w a s h eld to b e a n act a n d an in ten tio n su fficien t to co n stitu te a n a b a n d o n m en t o f th e
lease.
In M oore v. N orthwest F abricators Inc., 314 2d 941, 942; 51 W ash. 2d 26 (1957), the appellant indicated by
w o r d s , a c t s , a n d c o n d u c t [r e n t n o t p a i d , l a n d n o t f a r m e d ] t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t o r w o u l d n o t p e r f o r m
their ob ligation s un der the lease of farm lan d.
T h e S u p rem e C ourt of W ashington held that there
w a s an in ten tio n to ab an do n th e lea se a n d to relin q u ish co n tro l o f th e p rem ises.
In B a ld w in v . Jacobs, 1 16
N .W . 2 7 1 , 2 7 2 ; 1 8 2 I o w a 7 8 9 (1 9 1 8 ), th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f I o w a h e l d t h a t t h e fa c t th a t a le ss ee
m oves to an other place a few
w eek s b efore the term ination of his term
is not, in itself, an
abandonm ent of the lease.
In B lack w ell O il & G as C o. v. W hited, P . 6 88 , 6 92 ; 81 O kl.,45 it w as held that
a b a n d o n m e n t r es ts u p o n th e in t en t io n o f th e le ss ee to r e lin q u is h th e p r e m is e s a n d i s , t h e r e f o r e a
question of fact fo r the jury.
See also, Black’s Law D ictionary 12 (4 th ed., 1968): To constitute an ‘abandonm ent
o f lea sed p rem ises, th ere m u st b e a n ab so lu te relin q u ish m en t o f p rem ises b y t en a n t c o n s is tin g o f
act and intention.”
3.
See Peterson L ake Silver V obalt M ining C o. v. D om inion R eduction C o. (1917), 41 O .L.R . 182, aff’d 44 O .L.R . 177; 46 D .L.R . 724,
aff’d 59 S.C .R . 649; 50 D .L.R . 52 (S.C .C .).
4.
See H andel v. O ’Kelly (1912), 3 W .W .R . 367; 8 D .L.R . 44 (M an. C .A .)
The
abandon th e contract m ay be inferred from long-contin ued default o n th e
v. C on ib ea r [1 9 4 5 ] 1 W .W .R . 3 3 ; 1 D .L .R . 2 3 0 (A lta . S .C .)
(A pu rchaser
agreem ent and did not m ake paym ents; held not to be an abandonm ent.)
-1 6 1-
intention
of
a
p urch aser to
m o nth ly paym ents); Y an ik
ca re le ss ly m is re a d a n e w
(ii)
(iii)
been defined as:
Abandonm ent
of
Contract:
Canadian
cases
on
abandonm ent
of a
co n tract fo r the sale o f lan d state th e n eed fo r an in ten tio n to
abandon.4
A n act of abandonm ent is often difficult to ascertain
here and the intention is considered to be the primary element.
Abandonment
...
of
a
H om estead:
removal
from
Abandonment
the
premises
elsewhere a
(iv)
©
Abandonm ent
is ab an d o n ed
not to return.6
of
R e s id e n c e :
w h e n th ere is
an
For
act
of
a
ho m estead
has
with the intention of acquiring
residence
which
is not merely
o f a t e m po ra r y ch ar a c t e r , a n d
which is taken for purposes
not inconsistent with the
retention
of
the original
premises as his home.
The
character of the new residence
acquired
[are]
important
factors
in
determining
whether or not the debtor has
abandoned
the
premises
claimed as exempt as his
actual place of residence ...
where a new residence is
acquired, it must only be a
temporary one for a definite
purpose, with a constant and
a b id in g i n t en t io n t o r e t ur n a s
soon
as
that
purpose
is
accomplished.5
inco m e
se v erin g
tax
purposes,
a r e s id e n c e
all tie s an d a n in te n tio n
Conflict of Laws - The question of abandonment of domicile in the conflict of
law s arises w hen the C ou rts m ust decide the do m icile of a party as a
basis for choosing w hich of tw o or m ore com peting law s apply.
A
dom icile is considered abandoned w hen both the residence and the
5.
Re
H ethrington
(1910), 14
W .L.R . 529, 533, 534 .
In
this
case, land
w as seized
by
the
Sheriff un der an
execu tio n o rd er, an d th e execu tion deb tor claim ed exem ption for the land as his hom estead.
H e left
th e la n d in 1 9 0 7 a n d m o v e d t o a r e n t e d f a r m u n t il M a r c h 1 9 1 0 , w h e n h e h e a r d t h a t “ h i s h o m e s te a d ”
w a s f o r s a le a n d r e t u r n e d .
T h e d e b t o r s a id th a t th e “ h o m e s t e a d ” w a s a lw a y s h i s r e a l h o m e a n d h e
o n ly lef t b ec au se h e d id n o t h a v e t h e m e a n s to w o rk it .
T h e C o u rt p u t th e o n u s o n th e p ar t y t o
sh o w th a t h e h a d n o t a b an d o n e d it.
T o d o t h is , h e m u s t s h o w t h a t t h e p la ce is still h is a ctu a l a n d
b o n a fid e re sid e n c e , an d th a t h is ab se n c e th e re fro m h as b ee n o n ly te m p o r ar y.
T h is ca se w a s a p p l ie d
in R e M cE achern E state [1933] 2 W .W .R . 177, 183 K .B.
See also H art v. R ye (1914); 16 D .L.R . 1; 5 W .W .R . 128
(A lta .).
T h is w a s a c as e u n d e r th e A lb e r ta E x ecu tion O rd in a n ce re latin g to h o m es tea d s:
“ A b a n d o n m e n t in
s u c h c a se s is re m o v a l fr o m th e p r e m is es w ith t h e in t en t io n o f a c q u ir in g e l se w h e r e a r e s id e n c e w h ic h
is n o t m e re ly o f a te m p o r ar y c h a r a cte r a n d w h ic h i s t ak e n fo r p u rp o ses n o t co n sisten t w ith th e
reten tio n o f th e o rig in a l p rem ises a s h is h o m e.
T h e c h a r a c t e r o f th e n e w r e s i d e n c e a c q u i r e d a n d t h e
purposes
for
which
it
was
acquired
are
im portant
factors
in
determ ining
the
questions
of
a b a n d o n m e n t ... B u t w h e r e a n e w r e s i d e n c e i s a c q u i r e d , i t m u s t o n ly b e a t e m p o r a r y o n e f o r a
definite purpose, and w ith a constant and abiding intention to return as soon as possible.”
6.
See Schujahn v. M .N .R . [1962] E x. C.R. 328; Thom pson v. M .N .R . [1946] S.C .R . 209.
-1 6 2-
intentio n w h ich m ust
merely
by
giving
intention." 8
All
th e
above
an act and an intention.
exist for
up
the
illu s t r a t io n s
of
up . 7
by
its acquisition are given
residence
nor merely
" a b a n d o n m e n t"
have
th e
It is
giving
com m on
not
up
e le m e n ts
lost
the
of
A
statutory
definition
of
abandonment
should
th erefo re
incorporate
the
p r i n c i p l e th a t a la n d l o r d i s e n t i t l e d t o t r e a t r e n t e d p r e m i s e s a s a b a n d o n e d b y t h e
tenant
when
there
has
been
an
absolute
relinquishm ent
of
the
premises
a c c o m p a n i e d b y a n in t e n t i o n n o t to r e t u r n .
T o a s s i s t t h e l a n d lo r d in d e t e r m i n i n g
the ten an t's in tention som e guidelines should be provided.
It would be helpful to
s t a t e t h a t a n i n t e n t io n t o a b a n d o n m a y b e m a n i f e s t e d e i t h e r e x p r e s s l y ( w h e r e t h e r e
is o ral o r w ritten n o tice fro m th e ten an t to th e lan d lo rd ) o r im p lied ly fro m th e
facts an d circu m stan ces su rro u n d in g th e relin quish m en t o f th e p rem ises.9
It m igh t
also be useful to outline circum stances in w hich abandonm ent m ay be presum ed.
Fo r exam ple, a failure to o ccu p y o r rem ain in p ossession of residen tial prem ises,
com bined w ith a failure to p ay ren t, fo r a p erio d o f o n e m o n th m igh t raise a
presum ption of aban do nm ent.
W e w ish to em phasize, how ever, that so lon g as
t h e r e n ta l p a y m e n ts a r e in g o o d s t a n d i n g , a p r e s u m p t i o n s h o u l d b e r a is e d th a t th e
tenant has not abandoned the premises.
Because a definition of the kind offered would require proof of an act and an
in t e n t io n , s o m e c o n s id e r a tio n m u s t b e g i v e n t o w h e r e t h e o n u s o f p r o o f lie s .
In
Re Hetherington and Hart v. Rye,10 the Court put the onus of proof on the party claiming that
h e h a d n o t a b a n d o n ed th e h o m e s te a d , as it w a s to h is a d v a n ta g e to s h o w th a t h e
w as w ithin
the term s of an
exem ption
from
execution
set out in
Alberta
legislatio n.
I n t h e la n d l o r d a n d te n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p , w e a r e o f t h e v i e w t h a t t h e
onus o f pro o f o f ab an donm en t should b e o n the lan dlord in situations w here
ab an d o n m en t lead s to an in crease in th e lan d lo rd 's righ ts.
Under the present
le gis la tio n th e la n d lo rd 's rig h ts are in creased u n d er sectio n s 39 (1 ), 4 6 (1 ), an d 6 1 (1 )
when abandonm ent occurs.
A b an d on m en t perm its th e lan dlo rd to ign o re th e
w a itin g p e r io d im p o s e d b y th e o n e m o n th 's n o tic e re q u ire m e n t a n d to e n te r th e
prem ises im m ediately.
H e also ob tains certain righ ts against th e ten an t's go od s.
In th ese circum stan ces it do es no t seem un fair th at th e o n us o f p ro o f o f
abandonment should lie on the landlord.
For
th e
p u rp o s e s
of
s e c tio n
45 ,
w h ich
req u ires
a
la n d lo rd
to
m itig a te
h is
d a m a g e s w h e re a te n an t ab an d o n s th e p ro m is e s , th ere is le s s r e a s o n f o r p la c in g th e
o n u s of pro o f on th e lan d lo rd , alth o ugh it w o u ld b e u n lik ely th a t th e issu e o f o n u s
of p ro of w ould arise in a p ractical situation, since the event of abandonm ent is
m erely the starting p o in t o f a d uty to re-ren t v estin g in th e land lord.
It m ay
h ap p en , h o w ev er, th at a d efau ltin g ten an t w o u ld claim th at th ere h ad been a
b re a c h o f th e d u ty to re - re n t, in w h ic h c a s e it se e m s re a s o n a b le th a t th e o n u s o f
7.
D icey & M orris, T he C onflict of L aw s 105 (8 th ed., 1967).
450: Flem ing v. H ornim an (1928), 44 T.L.R. 315; Bradfield v. Swanton [1931] I.R . 446.
8.
D icey & M orris, n. 7 supra, 106.
8.
D icey & M orris, n. 7 supra, 106.
9.
Intention could be im plied from the conduct, acts, or w ords of the tenant.
10.
N . 5 supra.
-1 6 3-
U dny
v.
U dny
(1869),
L.R .
1,
Sc.
A pp. 441,
proving abandonment should rest on the tenant.
W ith
a
s tatu to ry
d efin itio n
of
a b an d o n m en t,
th e
lan d lo rd
w o u ld
h av e
a
b asis
for deciding w hen certain rights arise and w ould have a defense for the exercise
o f th ese righ ts if th e m atter w e re d isp uted .
A d efin itio n w ou ld also h elp th e ten an t
to dec ide if h is righ ts h ad b ee n violated .
F i n a l l y , it w o u l d b e o f a s s i s t a n c e t o
whatever body is charged with the resolution of disputes on abandonment.
1.
The Act contain a definition of "abandonment" incorporating the following principles:
2.
B.
(a)
A landlord is entitled to treat rented premises as abandoned by the tenant when there has been absolute relinquishment
of the premises accompanied by an intention not to return;
(b)
Evidence of an intention not to return may be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the relinquishment
of the premises or from express, oral or written notice from tenant to Landlord.
(c)
A failure to occupy or remain in possession of residential premises, combined with a failure to pay rent, for a period of
one month shall raise a presumption of abandonment;
(d)
So long as rental payments are in good standing, a presumption shall be raised that the tenant has not abandoned the
premises.
The onus of proof of abandonment should rest on the Landlord, except where the tenant claims the landlord is in breach of a duty
to re-rent following abandonment.
Abandonment of Goods
A
distinction
m ust
be
draw n
b etw een
an
abandonm ent
of
the
prem ises
by
t e n a n t a n d t h e a b a n d o n m e n t o f g o o d s b y th e te n an t.
A te n a n t m a y a b a n d o n
p re m is e s y e t ta k e h is g o o d s w ith h im .
A ten an t m a y lea v e th e p re m is e s af te r
te n an c y h a s b een law fu lly te rm in a te d b y n o tic e o r th e ex p ira tio n o f a le as e
leav e go o d s b e h in d .
A th ird p o s sib ility is th a t a te n an t m ay ab an d on b oth
p rem ises an d so m e o r all o f h is go o d s.
It is th e th ird situa tio n w h ic h ap p e a rs
give rise to the landlord's right to distrain.
a
th e
h is
but
th e
to
At
com m on
law
a
landlord
has
the
right to
seize, without legal process, the
g o o d s a n d c h a tt e ls o f a te n a n t w h o is in d e f a u lt in t h e p a y m e n t o f re n t .
That
pro cess is know n as distress.
A s w e p o in ted o ut in C h ap ter I, th e righ t to distrain
w as exten d ed b y statu te to situ atio n s w h ere it w a s n o t p erm itted at co m m o n law .
O n th e o th e r h a n d , sta t u te s w e re e n a c t e d w h ic h re s t r ic t e d th e e x e r c is e o f th e r ig h t
to distrain.
The present Distress Act11 is an example of such a statute.
Section 3 of that
Act provides:
(1)
11.
The
following
goods
distress for rent or penalty:
and
chattels
are
not
liable
to
(a)
The
beds;
bedding,
and
bedsteads
(including
perambulators) in ordinary use by the debtor and his family:
(b)
The
n ecessary
an d
o rd in ary
R .S.B.C . 1960, c. 115.
-1 6 4-
w e arin g
ap p a re l
of
th e
seizure by
cradles
d eb to r
and
an d
his family:
(2)
(c)
One
cooking-stove
w ith
pipe
and
furnishings,
one
other
h eatin g-sto ve w ith p ip e, o n e set of co okin g-uten sils, on e lam p ,
one table, one washstand w ith furnishings, six towels, one
c lo ck , o n e b ro o m tw o p ails , o n e ax e, o n e sa w , o n e sh o v e l, o n e
washtub, one w ashboard, three sm oothing-irons, one sewing
m ac h in e an d a ttac h m e n ts in d o m e stic u se , a n d fo r th e d eb to r
and for each m em ber of his fam ily the fo llow ing:
one chair,
o n e p late, on e cu p an d s a u ce r, o n e k n ife , o n e fo rk , o n e sp o o n :
(d)
All necessary fuel, meat, fish, flour, and vegetables for the
in a r y c o n s u m p t io n o f th e d e b to r an d h is fa m ily f o r th i r t y
(e)
Tools
and
im p lem en ts
of
or
deb tor's trade or occupation,
dollars.
The
debtor
may
select
out
referred to in clause (e) of
exempted from seizure under that clause.
ch attels
to the
o r d in a r i l y
value of
used
tw o
orddays:
in
th e
hundred
of the total tools, im p lem en ts, or ch attels
subsection (1) the things w hich are
T h e an ach ro n istic ch a rac te r o f th e ex em p tio n s is e v id e n t.
p r o v i s io n s d e s i g n e d t o p r o t e c t t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e i r p a r t i e s
or to the goods.
T h at A c t also co n tain s
w h o m a y h a v e ri g h ts in
The right of a landlord to distrain was severely restricted when Part II of the
Landlord and Tenant Act was enacted in 1970.
Section 39 of the Act abolished a landlord 's rig ht to d istrain fo r d efau lt in th e p ay m e n t o f re n t e x c ep t w h e r e a te n an t has
abandon ed the prem ises.
This fo llo w ed a sim ilar restriction placed up on distress
b y the O ntario A ct pursu an t to the reco m m en dation s o f the O n tario L aw R efo rm
C o m m is s io n . 1 2
I n e n a c tin g s e c tio n 3 9 t h e B r it i s h C o l u m b i a L e g i s la t u r e t o o k a c le a r
policy decision to remove the dual concern of:
(a)
the threat of distress being held over tenants; and
(b)
th e
in cid en ce
of
illegal
distress
ag a in st
the statutory limitations in relation to distress.13
T hus, except w here rented prem ises have
is th e s u b je ct o f a sta tu to r y p r o h ib itio n .
where there has been an abandonm ent,
with othex statutory and common law requirements.14
te n an ts
d id
not
been abandoned the rem edy of
I n s o fa r as d is tre s s h a s b e e n
the landlord m ust, presumably
12.
O ntario Interim R eport 13-20.
13.
For a further discussion of this questions, see Lam ont, R esidential Tenancies 78 (2 nd ed., 1973).
14.
E .g .,
th e
D istr ess
A ct,
R .S .B .C .,
19 6 0 ,
c.
11 5 .
For
a
W illiam s, C anadian L aw of L andlord and Tenant, c. 8 (4 th ed., F. W . R hodes, 1973).
15.
This is w hat has been done in M anitoba. See T he L andlord an Tenant A ct, S.M . 1970, c. 106, s. 88 and 94 (3)
(a).
-1 6 5-
who
fu rt h e r
c o n sid e ra tio n
of
th e se
know
distress
o b t a in e d
com ply
re q u ir e m e n ts , s e e
T h is lim ited righ t to distress creates a n um b er o f an o m alies an d p ro b lem s.
For
e x a m p l e , th e e x e m p t io n s in t h e D i stre ss A c t s e e m c le a rly a im e d at le a v in g th e te n a n t
w ith th e m in im um of go od s he needs to carry o n h is d ay-to -d ay ex isten ce.
O n th e
other hand , the aband on m ent of rented prem ises con taining those goo ds raises a
p resu m p tio n th at th e te n an t n e ith e r w an ts n o r n e ed s th e m .
T h u s th e p ro tectio n
o f th e D ist r e ss A c t is u n n e c e s s a ry b u t th e lan d lo rd is n o n eth eles s req u ired to c o m p ly
w ith its p ro visio n s.
B e cau se o f th e ex istin g am b ig uity co n cern in g th e m ean in g o f
ab an d on m en t, it m ay b e argu ed th a t th e rig h t to d istrain c an n o t a rise w h e n th e
ten an cy h as b een term in ated by law fu l n o tic e o r th e ex p iratio n o f a lease an d
g o o d s a r e le f t b e h in d , e v e n if a r r e a rs o f r e n t h a v e a c c r u e d .
G o o d s m a y a ls o b e
abandoned by a tenant when no arrears of rent are due.
T h ree
situ atio n s
m ay,
th erefo re,
arise
tenant's goods but may not exercise a right to distrain.
in
w h ich
th e
1.
W h ere
b o th
th e
p re m is e s
and
th e
goods
is in arrears, but the goods are exempted by the Distress Act;
2.
W h ere
re n t
is
in
arre ars
tenant gave up possession
do not amount, to abandonment;
3.
Where goods have been abandoned but rent is not in arrears.
lan d lo rd
h av e
and
goods
have
of the prem ises
S h o u ld th e lan d lord be given righ ts again st th ese
against the tenant? What should he do with them if he has no such claim?
goods
has
b een
p o ssessio n
of
ab an do n ed , re n t
b e en
ab an d o n ed
b u t th e
in circum stances w hich
when
he
has
a
claim
The soundest solution to these problems would appear to be the complete
a b o l i t i o n o f t h e l a n d l o r d 's r i g h t to d i s t r a i n w h i l e g i v i n g h i m a s t a t u t o r y p o w e r t o
d isp ose of, or sell, aban do ned goo ds, and giving him a general righ t o f set-off
against th e pro ceed s of such a sale.15
T h is w o u ld av o id th e an ac h ro n istic effe cts
of the Distress Act and consistent with the policy of Part II.
In
th is
con text
it
w o uld
be
m en tioned
that
we
w ere
urged
by
lan dlords
to
expan d their right to d istrain.
M ore particu larly it w as su gge sted to us that the A ct
s h o u ld b e am e n d ed to re sto re to lan d lo rd s th e r em e d y o f d is tre s s a s it e x is te d
before the passing of Part II.
W e cannot agree.
The clear policy of Part II is that
r e m e d ie s o f s e lf - h e lp s h o u ld b e e l i m i n a te d a s f a r a s p o s s ib le , a n d a w i d e r ig h t o f
d istress is con trary to th is p o licy .
W e a re s atisfied th at th e righ t o f a lan d lo rd to
demand a statutory rent deposit is an adequate substitute for distress.
R ecen t
leg islation
in
M anitoba
provides
useful
guidan ce
as
to
the
precise
fo rm
w h ic h n ew le gislatio n in th is P ro v in c e m ig h t tak e.
S u b se ctio n s (2 ), (2 .1 ) an d (3 )
of section 94 of The Landlord and Tenant Act of Manitoba 16 provide as follows:
(2)
U n less
a
ten an t
the contrary fo r
on a premises after
(a)
16.
abandoning
and
a
storage
the
la n d lo rd
have
m ade
a
sp ec ific
a gree m en t to
of chattels, w h ere a tenant leaves chattels
prem ises
Ibid.
-1 6 6-
in
b reach
of
the
ten ancy
agreem en t;
or
(b)
go in g
out
of
tenancy agreement;
p o sse ssi o n
of
a
p r e m i se s
upon
te r m in atio n
of a
the
landlord
m ay
rem ov e
th e
ch attels
fro m
th e
p rem ises
an d
place
them in a sale storage for a period of at least three m on ths and at
the sam e tim e provide the rentalsm an w ith an inventory to the
chattels so removed.
(2.1)
Notwithstanding
subsection
(2), where the landlord is of the
o p in io n th a t ch a tte ls le ft o n a p rem is e s b y a te n an t w h o h a s ab a n d on ed the p rem ises o r h as go n e o ut o f p o ssession o f the p rem ises
upon term ination or expiration of a tenancy agreem ent, have no
v a l u e o r t h a t t h e s t o ra g e o f t h e c h at t e l s o r an y p ar t th e r e o f w o u ld
b e un s an itary , h e m ay , w ith th e c o n se n t o f th e re n ta ls m a n d is p o s e
of the chattels im m ediately in s uc h m an n er as the ren talsm an m ay
authorize.
(3)
W here the tenant or any person
claim ing
claim ed the chattels after three m onths
may by public auction sell them or any part thereof, and
title to
the chattels has not
have expired, the landlord
(a)
after
th e
sale
the
lan dlo rd
sh all
be
en titled
to
recover back
from the pro ceeds of th e sale an y actu al exp en ses accrued in
resp ect of th e sto rage an d co st of sale; an d th e am o un t o f an y
judgment given under s. 110; and
(b)
record
details
rentalsman; and
©
pay
any
excess
of
the
sale
proceeds
over
to
t h e r e n t a ls m a n
w h o s h a ll in tu rn p a y th e m o u t to th e M in is te r o f F in a n c e if
they are unclaimed by the tenant within one year of the sale.
of
the
sale
and
disposition
of
the
proceeds
to the
T h e se se c tio n s h a v e b e e n th e s u b je c t o f f av o u r ab le ac a d e m ic c o m m e n t,17 a lth o u g h
the com m entator ind icated that it w ou ld h ave been helpful if the legislation had
given som e guidance as to the procedure to be follow ed at the sale by public
au ction .
It w as also n o ted 18 that the legislatio n did n o t refer to the righ ts of third
p arties to th e ch attels, n o r d id it re n d er th e title o f a p urch aser at an au ctio n
i m m u n e f r o m i m p e a c h m e n t b y th e tr u e o w n e r .
T h ere is fo rce in th ese criticism s
a n d a n y f u t u r e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a le g is la t i o n i n t h i s a r e a s h o u l d b e s h a p e d t o m e e t
them.
W e would
be reluctant to
see too
great a rigidity introduced
into the auction
procedure.
E x te n siv e a d ve rtisin g m ay o r m ay n o t b e d e sirab le d ep en d in g up o n
the nature of the goods and their value.
For exam ple, a tenant m ay have
a b a n d o n e d t h e g o o d s w o r th a p p r o x im a t e l y $ 1 5 0 .
I f t h e a r r e a r s o f r e n t a m o u n t to
$200
it seem s unreasonable to
im pose on
the
landlord
a legal advertising
req uire m e n t w h ic h is lik ely to c o st $1 00 .
O n th e o th er h an d , th e valu e o f th e
goods m ay be substantial, and after the costs of storage and bale, and the
17.
See Borsky, A n E xam ination and A ssessm ent of the A m endm ents to the M anitoba L andlord and Tenant A ct (1972) 5 M an. L.J. 59, 73.
18.
Ibid.
-1 6 7-
lan d lo rd 's c laim s h av e b een satisfied, a large am ount of m oney m ay be left to
w hich the tenant is entitled.
In such a case, extensive advertising m ay be
w a r r a n te d to s e e th a t th e te n a n t's in te re sts are f u lly p r o te cte d b y o b t a in in g th e b e s t
p r ic e .
W e a re o f th e v ie w th a t it w o u ld b e a p p ro p ria te to p e r m it th e r e n ta ls m a n
to determine what procedure should be followed at the sale in any given case.
It might also be noted that the right of set-off given in subsection (3)(a) only
a pp lie s to a ju d gm e n t wh ic h h a s b ee n o b tain e d un de r th e A c t.
O ur o p in io n is that
the lan dlord sh o u ld h av e a g en eral rig h t o f set-o ff w h ich in cludes the righ t to
set-o ff arrears o f ren t.
T h ere is also so m e questio n un der th e p resen t legislatio n
as to whether the landlord m ay only distrain for rent up to the tim e of
abandonm en t, pursuant to section 39, or w hether he m ay use the rem edy to
re c o u p lo s s e s s u ff e re d u p to th e tim e h e re le ts th e p re m is e s .
T h e re s e e m s to b e
no good reason w hy the landlord should not be entitled to full com pen sation so
long as he is deligent in observing his duty to re-let the premises.
The
r e fe re n c e
in
th e
M a n ito b a
le gis la tio n
to
th e
re n ta ls m a n
h a p p ily
c o in c id e s
w ith our own procedural recom m endations m ade in an earlier Chapter.
Section
9 4 ( 3 )(c ) o f th e M an itob a A ct p ro v id e s f o r th e d isp o s a l o f u n c laim e d p ro c e e d s .
W h ile
w e a g re e th a t t h e y s h o u ld b e r e m itte d to th e re n ta ls m a n w e m a k e n o c o m m e n t o n
any further disposition.
1.
The remedy of distress be abolished with respect to residential tenancies.
2.
The proposed Act contain a provision comparable to subsections (2), (2.1), and (3) of section 94 of The Landlord
And Tenant Act of Manitoba but with the following changes:
(a)
The procedure to be followed at the sale should be left to the discretion of the rentalsman;
(b)
The Landlord's right of set-off with respect to the proceeds of the sale should be general and include a right to set-off
arrears of rent which had accrued before or after the tenant went out of possession of the premises;
3.
C.
(c)
When goods have been abandoned the landlord should be obliged to check for encumbrances in the central registry
if the a parent value of any item exceeds 550;
(d)
If the landlord is in doubt whether an item exceeds $50 in value the rentalsman may value the item and his
valuation shall be binding on all parties;
(e)
If any encumbrances are registered the encumbrancer shall be notified by the landlord forthwith;
(f)
If the encumbrance is a security agreement, abandonment of the goods shall entitle the encumbrancer to treat the
agreement as being in default.
The proposed Act provide that the ultimate purchaser of abandoned goods receives a clear title to them.
Landlord's Duty to Re-rent After Abandonment
Im portant
changes
to
the
common
law
were
in tro d uced
by
legislatio n in resp ect of th e duty of lan d lo rd s to m itigate d am ages
-1 6 8-
the
1970
upon the
aband on m ent of prem ises by the tenant.19
Before
referen ce sh o uld b e m ad e to th e co m m o n law po sitio n
ernative courses of action open to a landlord w here
premises were as follows:
analyzing these changes,
on th is issu e.
T he altth e ten an t ab an d on ed th e
(a)
The landlord could stand by and sue the tenant for rent as it fell
d u e, an d n o q u es tio n o f d am a g e s aro se .
It w as p o in ted o u t in th e
decision of Goldhar v. Universal Sections & Mouldings Ltd.20 that so long as the
landlord did not acquiesce in the tenant's abandonm ent of the
dem ised prem ises, rent accruing due under the
lease rem ained
reco v erab le an d th e prin cip le of m itigatio n of d am ag es d id n o t
apply.21
(b)
The
la n d lo r d
could
accept
th e
te n an t 's
liability in the tenant apart from arrears of rent then due.
(c)
The
ten an cy
agreem en t
m ay
h ave
co n tain ed
a
clause
statin g
th at
the
lan d lo rd co u ld as an ag e n t o f th e te n an t, re -re n t th e p re m ise s o n
behalf o f th e tenant, w ith the tenant rem aining liab le fo r any deficien cies in th e re n t.
S u ch a p ro v isio n w as s im p ly a co n tractu al term
o f th e lease p re se rv in g th e lan d lo rd 's rig h t to o b tain th e re n t se t o u t
in the original agreement in relation to the premises.
(d)
Finally,
the
landlord
m ight
n o t if y
the
t e n an t
th at
he
re -re n t th e p re m is e s o n b eh alf o f th e te n an t, b u t w o u ld
tenant for any deficiencies.
surre n d e r,
le avin g
no
further
intended
lo o k to
to
th e
I n th e la s t t h r e e situ a tio n s it is a rg u a b le t h a t n o q u e s t io n o f d a m a g e s a r is e s .
e a c h c a s e it is a q u e s t io n o f th e la n d lo rd 's te r m in a t in g th e l e a s e b y a c c e p t i n g
tenant's abandonment, but preserving his right to claim rent from the tenant.22
In
th e
This view
of the common law has been presented in the leading cases in the
are a.23
The rules govern ing the conduct of landlords in this situation w ere very
m u ch in flu en ced b y th e d o c trin e o f s urre n d er.
A s urre n der in relatio n to a
le a se ho ld in t ere s t m a y b e e ith e r (a) e x p re ss o r (b ) b y o p e ratio n o f law .
An express
s u rre n d e r o c c u rs b y ac t o f th e p a rtie s an d in v o lv e s a y ie ld in g o r d e liv e ry u p o f a n
in te r e s t i n a l e a s e t o t h e p e r s o n w h o h a s a h ig h e r o r g r e a t e r in te r e s t in re la t io n
thereto.
Surrender by operation of law is conveniently sum m arized by W illiam s
19.
See s. 45.
20.
[1963] 1 O .R . 189 (O nt. C .A .).
21.
The
land lo rd
c o u ld
not
su e
for
the
w h o le
of
th e
rent
im m e d ia te ly
upon
abandonm ent
(u n l e s s t h e r e
w a s a n effe c tiv e a cc e le ra tio n c la u se in th e ten an cy agreem en t) bu t had to w a it u n til th e e x p ira tio n
o f th e te r m o f th e le a se o f s u e p e r io d ic a lly fo r th e a m o u n ts o f r e n t w h ic h fe ll d u e fo r p a ym e n t fr o m
tim e to tim e. See W illiam s, n. 14 supra, 480.
22.
In Korsm an v. Bergl, [1967]
any rent from the re-renting.
23.
See, G oldhar v. U niversal Sections & M ouldings L td., n. 20 supra and H ighway P roperties L td. v. Kelly, D ouglas & C o., [1971] S.C.R. 562.
Lam ont n. 13 supra, 30-31.
1
O .R .
576
(O nt.
-1 6 9-
C .A .)
such
a
claim
w as
characterized
as
a
claim
for
rent, less
See also,
as occurring where:24
... the owner of a particular estate has been a party to some act, the validity
of which he is by law afterwards estopped from disputing, and which would not
be valid if his particular estate had continued to exist; the law in such a case
treats the doing of the act as amounting to a surrender.
Such a surrender arises
by operation of law as distinct from the act of the parties, it will take place
independently of their intention and in some cases despite their expressed
intention.
The effect of a surrender by act and operation of law is as great as
that of a surrender by act of the parties and is in some cases greater.
Where a
lease is validly surrendered, the lease is gone and the rent is also gone, and this
principle is not affected by the fact that the lessee remains liable for breaches
of covenant committed prior to the surrender.
T hus, the effect o f a surren der is p rincip ally to term inate the ten an cy.
But a
further con sequence w as to lim it the landlord's rights to claim for any deficiency
upon a reletting after the surrender. As Laskin J., said in the Highway Properties case:25
The further consequence of [a surrender was] not only the termination of
the estate in the land but also the obliteration of all the terms in the document
o f l e as e, at le as t s o f ar as it wa s s o ug ht to sup po r t a c la im t h er eo n fo r
prospective loss.
It s h o u ld b e n o te d th a t th e d e c isio n in th e H ighw ay P roperties cas e lim ited th e d ra s tic
e ff ec t o f th e d o c trin e o f su rre n d er b y p ro v id in g th a t, w h e re th e la n d lo r d re s u m e d
p o sses sio n an d adv ised the ten ant that he w o uld p ursu e an y av ailab le righ t to
d am ag es , th e lan d lord w o uld n o t be d en ied a righ t to rec o v er fro m th e ten an t.26
T his decision , w h ich related to the com m on principles app licable to co m m ercial
tenancies, left unaffected
the four
alternative
rights
of
the
landlord
upon
ab an donm en t set out above.
I n f ac t , it p ro v i d e d a f i f t h w ay in w h i c h a l an d lo rd
might proceed.
W hen
th e
O n t ario
Law
R e fo r m
C o m m is s io n
e x a m in e d
this
q u e s t io n , 2 7
it
was
m ad e clear th at th e C o m m issio n dep lo red th e fact th at a lan dlo rd need do n o
m ore upon an abando nm ent by the tenant than sue for rent as it fell due.
Consequently, it was recommended that:28
... where a tenant abandons the premises the
landlord is not
required to mitigate his damages should
ordinary rules of contract relating to mitigation of damages will apply.
Pursuant to this recom m endation,
The Landlord and Tenant Act which provides that:
Where
a
tenant
the
O ntario
abandons
the
Legislature
premises
in
breach
present rule
be reversed
enacted
of
the
481.
24.
W illiam s, n. 14 472.
25.
[1971] S.C .R . 562, 717.
26.
F or
a
discussion
of
the
Suprem e
C o u rt
d ecisio n
see
W illia m s,
n.
14
su pra,
application of the principle enunciated, see M achula v. Tram er, [1972] 1 W .W .R . 550 (Sask D ist. C t.).
27.
See, O ntario Interim R eport.
28.
Ibid. at 54.
29.
Lam ont n. 13 supra, 32.
-1 7 0-
whereby
so that
section
tenancy
F or
a
92
the
the
of
agreement,
recent jud icial
the landlord's right to damages is subject
damages as applies generally under the
contract.
to the same obligation to mitigate his
r u l e o f l a w r e l a t i n g t o b r e a c h es o f
Is this pro vision effective to im plem ent the clear
C om m ission that a landlord sho uld b e o b liged to try
premises at the best available rent?
A strong argument can be
is that sectio n 9 2 relates to
re spe ct of re n t, su ch as th o s e
alternatives outlined earlier. As is stated by
objective of the O ntario
and re-rent the abandoned
made that it does not do so.
The basis of this view
righ ts to "dam ages" an d d o es n o t affect actions in
av ailab le to th e lan dlo rd in th re e o f th e c o m m o n law
Lamont:29
... [section 92] is surely no more than stating that when the landlord adopts
the alternative of claiming damages as he may now do by virtue of the Highway
Properties case, supra, he must of course endeavour to mitigate those damages.
But
section 92 does not remove from the landlord the four [common law]
alternative rights.
As will be indicated presently, even the wording of the section is sufficiently
c o n fu se d th a t a co u rt m ay h av e s ev ere d iffic ulty asc ertain in g th e in te n tio n o f th e
Legislature.
A s t h e l e g i s l a t io n s ta n d s a t p r e s e n t it c a n n o t b e s t a t e d w i th c e r t a i n t y
that a landlord has a duty to re-rent abandoned premises.
W hat
is
th e
present
position
in
B ritish
C olum bia?
The
1970
legislatio n
con tained a section w hich w as id en tical to sectio n 92 o f the O ntario A ct.
P resum ab ly
the intention o f the L egislature w as to force landlords to re-rent w hen prem ises
w e re ab a n d o n e d b y te n a n t s .
D o e s th e le g is la tio n h a v e th is effe ct?
It is su b m itte d
t h a t i t d o e s n o t.
I n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a t h e p o s i t i o n is f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t e d b y t h e
fact th at s ec tio n 3 5 in P a rt I I s ets o u t th a t " th e re latio n sh ip o f lan d lo rd an d ten an t
is o n e o f co n tract o n ly".
I f n o r m a l c o n t r a c t r u l e s w e r e a p p l i e d (d i s r e g a r d i n g t h e
d o ctrin e o f su rren d er an d o th er co m m o n law lease h o ld p rin cip les to th e situ atio n
w here a tenant abandoned the demised premises) the landlord w ould have a
cho ice of either keeping the con tract alive by con tinu ing to p ress for perform ance,
or
accepting
the
breach
and
thus
being
discharged
from
his
contractual
o b lig atio n s. 3 0
T h ere is n o q u e s tio n o f th e d u ty to m itigate o b lig in g th e lan d lo rd to
accep t th e rep ud iatio n .31
A strict application, therefore, of the norm al com m on
law contract rules would allow the landlord to retain his election.
D oes section
45 alter this situation?
A
close exam ination
of
the
w orking of
th at sectio n re v e als th at " th e lan d lo rd 's righ t to d am ages is su b ject to th e sam e
ob ligation to m itigate his dam ages as applies generally under the rule of law
relating to breach es of contract."
Q uite ap art fro m the difficulties w hich arise in
relatio n to ch aracterizatio n of claim s b y th e lan d lo rd w h en th e ten an t ab an d on s
30.
See, Treitel, The L aw of Contracts 735-736 (3 rd ed., 1970).
31.
Frost v. Knight (1872), L.R . 7 Ex. 111 Tredgar Iron & C oal Co. v. H awthorn Bros. (1902), 18 T.L.A . 716. See also, Treitel,
n. 30 supra 739.
32.
See, text at n. 29, supra.
33.
E .g., in the H ighway Properties situation.
-1 7 1-
t h e p r e m is e s , 3 2 a r e f e r e n c e to t h e r u l e o f la w w h i c h a p p lie s w h e r e
" a n t ic ip a to r y " b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t in d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s n o d u t y t o
section 45, from its very wording, cannot be regarded as achieving its objective.
th e r e h a s
m i t ig a t e .
been
Thus
It
ap p ears
in
fact
th at
th e
L egislatu re
in ten d ed
th at
sectio n
45
ach iev e
tw o
objectives at the sam e tim e.
F i r s t , i t r e l a t e s t o s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e th e l a n d l o r d i s
claim in g d am ages,33 an d p laces th e land lo rd u n d er a d uty to m itigate his loss;
s e c o n d l y , i t i s b e i n g u s e d t o c r e a t e a n e x c e p tio n to t h e n o rm a l c o n t r a c t r u le s , b y
s t a t i n g t h a t w h e r e t h e re is a n a n t ic ip a to r y b r e a c h b y t h e t e n a n t , t h e l a n d l o r d m u s t
accept the breach. This intended dual role is scarcely satisfactory.
In
f u lf illin g
th is
dual
ro le
se c tio n
45,
ta k e n
to g e th e r
w ith
s e c tio n
35,
a ls o
s e e m s to h a v e th e e f f e c t o f e r a d ic a t in g th e d o c t r in e o f s u rr e n d e r b y im p lic a tio n o f
law .
I f a lan d lo rd h as a d uty to re-ren t ab an d on ed prem ises, th ere can b e n o
question of a surrender arising by estoppel and term inating both the leasehold
interest an d th e lan dlord 's right to prosp ective dam ages.
Now the leasehold
interest is au to m atically term in ated , b ut the lan d lord's right to d am ages is secured
by his duty to mitigate.
We
are
of
th e
v iew
that
su b stan tial
am en dm en ts
to
section
45
are
des irab le
to rem ove the present inconsistency, reverse the com m on law
position with
resp ect to an ticip ato ry b re ac h , a n d s e ttle th e rig h ts a n d liab ilities o f each o f th e
parties.34
In the proposed Act, section 45 of Part II be replaced by a provision incorporating the following principles:
(a)
Both parties to a tenancy agreement are under a duty to mitigate their damages;
(b)
The doctrine of surrender by implication of law be specifically abolished;
(c)
The landlord be under a duty to re-rent abandoned or vacated premises at an economic rent in order to mitigate loss accruing
consequent upon the abandonment or vacating of the premises;
(d)
If there is any deficit resulting from the re-renting, the tenant be liable therefor.
34.
For the w ay in w hich V ancouver B y-law 4448 deals w ith the duty to re-rent, see paragraph 6 of
Schedule “A ”, in A ppendix.
-1 7 2-
CHAPTER X
DISCRIMINATION IN
LANDLORD AND TENANT RELATIONS
One
of
the
m ore
d i f f ic u lt
problem s
in
lan d lord
and
tenant
r e l a t io n s
w i th
w h ich th e C o m m issio n h as had to co m e to grip s h as b e en th a t o f d iscrim in atio n
b y lan d lo rd s a gain s t b o th p r o sp e ctiv e te n an ts a n d te n an ts w h o are in p ossessio n .
I n th e fo r m e r c a s e it is w id e ly alle g e d th a t s o m e la n d lo r d s , in s c re en in g p ro s p e c tiv e
tenants, use criteria w hich are unacceptable.
In the latter case it is also w idely
alleged that,som e landlords, on discovering that tenants in possession fall into
certain categories or exhibit certain characteristics, serve notices of term ination.
In m an y cases th e criteria by w h ich lan d lo rd s catego rize ten an ts w h o sh o uld be
g iv en n o tic e are th e s a m e (an d as un accep tab le) as th o se acco rd in g to w h ic h th e
ten an t w o u ld h av e b een ex clu ded fro m th e ten an cy in th e first place, h ad th e
landlord been in full possession of the facts.
It was urged upon us a
w e should address ourselves
submitted it was stated that:
number of times
to the m atter
during the course of
of discrim ination.
our study that
In one brief
The Human Rights Act contains a provision prohibiting discrimination in the sale
or rental of ho using "because of the race, religion, colour, nation ality, ancestry,
or place of origin of that person or class of persons"
(Section 9).
A prohibition
of discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status is notably missing.
We
believe that such a prohibition is very much needed ... Landlords often refuse
to rent available premises to [women, especially single mothers], preferring
males or married couples.
In
required:
another
brief
it
w as
Recognition
landlord may lawfully
seeking that accommodation.
subm itted
that
the
of the principle that,
refuse to rent vacant
follow ing
change
in
the
law
w as
except in stipulated circumstances, no
accommodation to the first applicant
The only negative stipulations would be:
(a)
where the prospective
the accommodation;
tenant
lacks
ability
to
pay
the
proper
(b)
where the prospective tenant has a previous
activity in reference to the premises occupied by him; and
record
of
(c)
where admission of the prospective tenant and
result in an increase of the population density
building beyond the limit fixed by municipal by-law.
rent
for
destructive
his family would
in the particular
W hen
these
argum ents
were
advanced
at
our
pub lic
hearings
it is
fair to
say
th at th o se rep resen tin g lan dlo rds gro up s w ere less th an en th usiastic ab out th e
p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h e r e s h o u l d b e a n o b l i g a t i o n t o r e n t a v a il a b l e p r e m i s e s t o t h e f ir s t
c o m e rs, an d so m e w e re o p e n in th eir avo w als that at p res en t th e y au to m atic ally
turned away single parents with children.
m atter
The
of
law of this Province and
discrim ination in the renting
others is not,
of prem ises.
-1 7 3-
of course, completely silent in the
In M anitoba The Landlord and Tenant
Act1 provides that:
In
d i s c r i m in a t e
renew
the renting of premises
a g a i n s t a n y p r o s p ec t i v e
(a)
or national origin of; or
(b)
by;
because
of
or the renewal of tenancies, no
tenant or tenant by refusing
religion,
membership
or
religious
participation
creed,
in
colour,
an
landlord shall
to rent or
ancestry, ethnic
association
of
tenants
the prospective tenant or tenant.
C o n tra v e n tio n o f th is s e c tio n
not more than one thousand dollars.2
by
any
person
is
an
offence
p u n is h a b le
by
a
f in e
of
by
the
In Ontario The Ontario Human Rights Code 3provides that:
No person, directly
interposition of another, shall,
or
indirectly,
or
(a)
deny to any person or class
or any self-contained dwelling unit; or
(b)
discriminate against any person or class
term or condition of occupancy of
self-contained dwelling unit,
person or class of persons.
creed,
colour,
of
alone
persons
nationality,
with
another,
occupancy
himself
unit
of persons with respect to
any commercial unit or
any
any
or
place
any
or
commercial
ancestry
of
by
of
origin
of
such
C ontravention of this prov ision is punishable by a fine of not m ore than five
h u n d re d d o lla rs .4
In add itio n , the O n tario H um an R ights C om m ission is charged
w ith th e resp on sib ility of in quirin g in to an y alleg atio n o f d iscrim in atio n , an d o f
reco m m en d in g to th e M in is te r o f L a b o u r w h a t c o u rs e o f ac tio n s h o u ld b e ta k en .5
T h e M in iste r h a s p o w e r to a p p ly to th e S u p re m e C o u rt fo r a n o rd e r en jo in in g
1.
R .S.M ., C . 136, S. 114.
2.
Ibid., s. 117 (1).
3.
R .S.O . 1970, c. 318, s. 3.
4.
Ibid., s. 15.
5.
Ibid., ss. 13, 14.
6.
Ibid., s. 18
7.
Bill N o. 100 (1973, 2 nd Sess.).
-1 7 4-
contravention.6
In British Columbia the Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act 7 provides that:
(1)
No person shall
(a)
deny to any person or class or persons the
any space that is advertised or oth erwise
being available for occupancy by a tenant; or
(b)
discriminate against any person or
any term or condition of the tenancy of space,
because of the race, sex,
of origin of that person or
of persons.
(2)
class
right to occupy as a tenant
in any way represented as
of
marital status, religion,
class of persons, or of
persons
with
respect
to
colour, ancestry or place
any other person or class
S ub s ec ti on (1 ) d oe s n o t a p p l y w h e r e a p er so n ad ve rt is es or o t he rw is e
represents that space is available for occupancy by another person who is
to share with him the use of any sleeping, bathroom, or cooking facilities
in the space.
Contravention of this provision is punishable on sum m ary conviction by the
im p o s it io n o f a fin e o f n o t m o r e th a n o n e th o u s a n d d o l la r s .
T h e A c t is f u r th e r
rein fo rced by th e existen ce o f p ro v isio n s fo r a H u m an R igh ts C o m m issio n ,8 a
D ire c to r o f H u m a n R ig h ts ,9 an d B o ard s o f I n q u iry . 10
W here a com plaint of
discrim ination is received the D irector is responsible for inquiring into and
in v e s tig a tin g th e m a tte r a n d e n d ea v o u rin g to ef f e c t a s e ttle m e n t.11
T h e settlem en t
m a y be a p p r o v e d b y th e C o m m is si o n . 1 2
T h e D i re c t o r m ay al so re f e r t h e m at ter to
a B o a r d o f I n q u i r y , w h i c h m u s t th e n h o ld a h e a r in g . 1 3
S e c tio n 1 7 ( 2 ) o f th e A c t
provides that:
8.
Ibid., s. 11.
9.
Ibid., s. 12.
10.
Ibid., s. 13.
11.
Ibid., s. 15.
12.
Ibid., s. 11 (5).
13.
Ibid., s. 16.
-1 7 5-
Where a board of inquiry is of the opinion that an allegation is
board of inquiry shall order any person who contravened this Act to
contravention, and to refrain from committing the same or
contravention, and may
justified, the
cease such
a similar
(a)
order a person who contravened the Act to make available to the person
discriminated against such rights, opportunities or privileges as, in the
opinion of the board, he was denied contrary to this Act;
(b)
order the person who contravened the Act to compensate the person
discriminated against for all, or such part as the board may determine, of
any wages or salary lost, or expenses incurred, by reason of the
contravention of this Act; and
(c)
where the board is of the opinion that
(i)
the person who
wanton disregard; and
contravened
this
Act
did
so
knowingly
or
with a
(ii)
the
person
discriminated
against
suffered
aggravated
damages in
respect of his feelings or selfrespect, the board may order the person
who contravened this Act to pay to the person discriminated against
such compensation, not exceeding five thousand dollars, as the
board may determine.
The
existing
British
Colum bia
legislation
does not go
so
far
as
to
em body
a
p r in c ip le th a t a la n d lo r d is o b lig e d to re n t p re m ise s to th e first p e rso n w h o a p p lie s.
N e it h e r d o e s it co v e r a n u m b e r o f s it u a tio n s w h e r e s o m e la n d l o r d s a d m it th a t th e y
engage in discriminatory practices or where it is alleged that they do.
We
gave
length y
and
careful
c o n si d e r a t io n
to
the
argum en t
th at
a
l an d lo rd
o ugh t to ren t a vailab le p re m ise s to th e first p e rso n or p erso n s w h o ap p lied fo r
th e m .
N a tu r ally , a s a s ta te m e n t o f m o r a l i d e a l w e f o u n d it a p p e a lin g .
U ltim a te ly ,
h o w ev er, w e d id n o t fin d ou rse lve s in a p o sitio n w h ere w e co u ld re co m m en d its
im p le m e n tatio n in le gislatio n .
F o r us, th e cru cial facto r w a s a reco gn itio n of th e
f a c t t h a t th e r e a re as m a n y d if fe re n t w a y s o f lif e a s th e r e a re p e o p le an d fa m ilie s ,
an d th at, fo r exam ple, even w here lan dlords of m ultiple unit prem ises overtly
restrict th e catego ries o f p eo p le to w h o m they w ill ren t, the relation ship b etw een
the tenants of such b uildings m ay be at best an uneasy one.
W e think it po intless
t o d e n y t h e f a c t th a t to fo r c e a la n d lo r d to in tro d u c e c o u p l e s w it h y o u n g f a m ilie s
in t o a b u ild in g w h ic h h o u s es eld e rly o r m id d le -ag ed p eo p le e xc lu siv ely m ay c a u se
a good deal of undesirable unrest and dissatisfaction am on g all p arties concerned.
S im ilarly, a fo rc ed b le n d in g at clo se qu arters o f th e w a ys o f life o f gro up s o f yo un g
a n d e l d e r l y a d u l ts m a y g i v e r i s e t o c o n s e q u e n c e s , t h e u n d e s i r a b i l i t y o f w h i c h w o u l d
far outstrip the value of adhering to however attractive a principle.
This
does
n ot,
however,
co nclud e
the
m atter.
There
a re
som e
s it u a tio n s ,
where
some
landlords
are
said
to
discriminate,
from
which
undesirable
consequences
would
not, in
our
view, flow
if
discrim ination
were
halted.
Accordingly, it
is
our
opinion
that
the
prohibitions
against
discrim ination
contained in section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act might usefully, and
should properly, be expanded.
First,
it
has
been
said
th at
some
landlords
w i ll
refuse
to
rent
available
prem ises to couples w ho are not m arried.
W hatever m ay be the reason fo r this
d is c rim in a tio n , if it ex ists, w e h a ve n o e v id e n ce w h ic h w o u ld le ad u s to b e lie ve
t h a t a ll u n m a r r i e d c o u p l e s , a s a g r o u p e x h ib i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w h i c h m a k e th e m l e s s
-1 7 6-
harmonious as tenants than other groups.
Secondly,
it
has
been
said
t h at
so m e
l an d l o rds
re f use
to
re n t
p r e m ises
to
p r o s p e ctiv e te n an ts b ec au se o f th e s e x u a l o r ie n ta tio n o f th e a p p lic a n ts .
We once
again cann ot subscribe to the view that untenant-like behaviou r can b e ascribed
automatically to those of one sexual preference over another.
T h ird ly ,
we
p ro p o s e
a
p ro v is io n ,
sim ila r
to
th a t
lan d lo rd s b e p ro h ib ite d fro m re fu sin g ac co m m o d a tio n
that person's membership or participation in an association of tenants.
en a c te d
to any
in
M a n ito b a , 1 4
th a t
person because of
The
q u e s t io n
of
d i s c rim in a tio n
on
the
b a s is
of
age,
b e c a u se
it
ra is e s
th e
q uestio n w h eth e r lan d lo rd s sh o uld be p erm itted to ad o pt a p o licy o f exclu din g
ch ild ren , w as , fo r us , a go o d de al m o re an gu ish e d .
W e could scarcely be m ore
sym pathetic to the p light of fam ilies, m ore particularly single m others w ith
children, w ho cann ot find accom m od atio n b ecause o f th e regrettab ly w idespread
p ractice of excluding children from rented prem ises.
O n th e oth er han d , as w e
h a v e a l r e a d y s t a t e d , w e b e l i e v e t h a t f o r c in g a l l g r o u p s i n s o c ie ty t o l i v e a t c l o s e
quarters w ith fam ilies w ith children cou ld give rise to significant unh app iness.
Therefore, while the problem of finding accom m odation for fam ilies rem ains and
m u st b e so lv ed , w e do n o t b elieve th at th e so lutio n lies in p lacin g a p ro h ib itio n on
discrim ination against children by landlords.
It go e s w ith o u t say in g th at o u r
reluctan ce to reco m m en d a p ro h ib itio n d o es n o t m ean th at th e p ra ctice o ugh t to
b e e n c o u rag ed .
It sh o u ld n o t b e.
In th e u ltim a te e v e n t, h o w e v e r, w e b e lie v e th a t
to require lan dlord s to accept fam ilies under p ain of p enalty w ould be too drastic
a step.
The
question
of
a
sittin g
ten an t's
being
given
notice
on
any
of
the
discrim inatory ground s that are now proh ibited by section 5(1) of the H um an Rights C ode
o f B r it ish C o lu m b ia A ct, o r o n a n y o f th e a d d it io n a l g r o u n d s w e p r o p o s e s h o u ld b e
in trod uc ed in to th at sec tio n , sh o u ld n o t arise if o u r p ro p o sa ls fo r ten an t sec u rity
are accepted.
One further matter should be mentioned.
It was submitted to us in one brief
that any provision
relatin g to p ro hib itio ns again st d iscrim in atio n
in
renting
premises should more logically appear in the Landlord and Tenant Act than in the Human Rights
Code of British Columbia Act.
This is not a matter on which the Commission has firm views,
but w e m en tion it for the consideration of those w ho decide on appropriate
placement for legislative provisions.
W e do, however, believe that there is value in requiring a landlord to post a
copy of section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act in a conspicuous place on
rented
prem ises, and we propose
that this requirement be
inserted
in
any
re-enactm ent of the present section 58 of the Landlord and Tenant A ct, w hich provides in
part that:
building
landlord
Where a landlord rents more than one residential premises in the same
and retains possession of part for use of all tenants in common, the
shall po st up conspicuously and maintain posted a copy of sections ...
1.
Section
14.
5(1)
of
the
Hum an
Rights
Code
N . 1. supra.
-1 7 7-
of
British
Columbia
Act
be
expanded
to prohibit
discrimination in the renting of premises on the basis of:
(a)
domestic arrangements;
(b)
sexual orientation;
(c)
membership or participation in an association of tenants.
-1 7 8-
2.
The proposed Act contain a provision, comparable to section 58 of the present Landlord and Tenant Act,
requiring a landlord to post on rented premises a copy of section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code of
British Columbia Act.
-1 7 9-
CHAPTER XI
COLLECTIVE ACTION BY TENANTS
In
form ulating
the
term s
of
reference
for
this
study
th e
C o m m is s io n
had
o ccasio n to exam in e th e earlier p ub lic p ro n o un cem en ts o f bo th lan dlo rd s an d
t e n a n ts to d e t e r m in e th e m a i n a r e a s o f c o n c e r n , a n d s u g g e s t i o n s f o r r e f o r m .
One
is s u e c le a rly ra is e d b y t e n a n ts ' g ro u p s w a s th a t it is d e s ira b le to e s ta b lis h a fo r m a l
fram ew o rk w ith in w h ich co llectiv e b argain in g b etw een a gro up o f ten an ts an d
th eir lan d lo rd co uld tak e place.
I t w a s f e lt th a t th i s s t u d y w o u l d b e i n c o m p l e t e
without an exam ination of that suggestion; therefore, w hen our advertisem ent
soliciting briefs an d subm issions w as publish ed it invited com m ent, inter alia, on
"H o w far th e co llectiv e b arg ain in g p ro c ess is a p p ro p riate to lan d lo rd an d ten an t
matters."
That
query
drew
a
co nsiderable
volum e
of
response.
Not
unexpectedly,
landlords and then representatives unanim ously rejected co llective bargaining as
a u sefu l m ean s to an en d in lan d lo rd an d tenant relation ships.
Tenants' groups,
o n t h e o th e r h a n d , w e r e in f a v o u r o f it .
O f th o s e in d i v id u a l te n a n t s w h o m a d e
su bm issio n s, o p in io n seem ed to b e even ly sp lit.
O ne difficulty facing the
C om m issio n , in an alyzing the sub m issio n s m ade, w as that relatively few offered
an y co n crete an d reaso n ed su gge stio n s as to w h y co llectiv e b argain in g w o u ld , o r
w o uld no t, w o rk an d w h at th e fu ll im p licatio n s o f th e fo rm al in tro d uctio n of
collective bargaining would be.
O nly one brief which favoured collective bargaining went so
a sp ecific sch em e.
It seem s ap pro priate to set th is sch em e o ut
introductory remarks:
far as to set
fu lly alo n g w ith
out
th e
Unless collective bargaining procedures are introduced and introduced quickly and
t ho ro ughl y, th e p r e s en t wh o l e sal e at t ac k o n t h e l i vi n g st an dar ds o f h un dr eds of
thousands will continue and social tensions mount.
By and large today's landlord is some large corporate real-estate financial
c on cern co ntro llin g th ous a nd s o f in d iv id ua l s ui te s.
T he y a re e nj oy in g b o om in g
profits. of course there are a handful of individual landlords who are not in the
s a me p o si ti on .
Th ey t o o a re m o rt ga ge d t o t he h i l t t o th e b ig ge r co r po r at e
finance landlords.
Th e y e x p e ct t h a t t h e t e n a n t s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o " s u b s i d i z e "
their equity position now that the Federal Government has terminated the
scandalous income tax concessions.
Tenants say that the time has come to stop this attack on our living
standards and to put the interests of people before private property.
The
present government was elected on this general platform and it is time that it
was implemented in the rental field.
For a substantial number of citizens rents already eat up fifty percent of their
i nc om e.
Q ui te l it er al ly t h i s m e a n s s h o r t e n i ng t h ei r li ve s.
F or th o us a nd s o f
o t he rs t h e pr o po r ti on o f in co me th at co n st i t ut e s r e n t i s i n t h e n e ig hb o urhood
of one-third. Things have gotten far out of line.
Just what constitutes a "fair" rent is of course a complex question.
t h er e i s n o di ff ic ul ty i n s ay in g t h a t t o d a y ren ts ar e d et er m i n e d n o t
equitable social standard but by "what the traffic will bear and then some."
It is inconceivable to us why one small
under no obligation to justify its income, whereas
wages are subject to the very closest scrutiny and even compulsion.
-1 8 0-
section of society,
the vast majority
However,
by any
the landlord, is
who work for
It may be of interest to note that since the very beginnings of the present
capitalist system economists have pointed out that the landlords rent is
e s s e n t i a l l y a mo n o po ly p r ic e pa id f or h is " o wn er sh ip " a s s uc h, a n d t h a t t h i s
"tribute" impedes economic development because it denies income to other
pro duc ti ve s ect io ns of s oc iet y.
A da m S mi th an d D av id R ica rd o, th e fo un ders
of capitalist political economy both stated unequivocably that the interest of the
landlords were objectively opposed to all other groups in society.
This is still the objective truth.
If rents continue to be unreasonably high
then of course industry will find it hard to recruit workers.
After the payment
of high rents, thousand upon thousand of tenants will have just that much less
income to spend on other goods and services.
In the first case the interests of
employers are adversely affected; in the second case the interests of merchants,
professionals, farmers, etc.
Hence it is high time that the privileged
m in o ri ty , b e cu rt ai le d, no t o n ly i n t he i nt er ests
vast majority in urban centers, but in the interests of society as a whole.
position of
of ten an ts
the landlords, a
wh o co n st it ute
tiny
the
We are not proposing that landlords as such be abolished and "their"
property confiscated.
But we strongly advocate that all levels of government get
into the housing market in a very substantial fashion, and thus break the present
private monopoly that exists.
This of course will take a certain amount of time,
and so this action will not solve the immediate crisis.
Hence we propose the speedy establishment of a legal framework under
w h i c h t h e p r i n c i p l e o f co l l ec t i ve b ar g ai n i n g i n l an dlo r d-te nan t mat t e r s c an take
p la ce, alo ng with so me requiremen t or justificatio n of th e in co me demanded by
landlords.
Let us be perfectly clear.
We are not advocating "rent controls" in the sense
that most people understand that term.
And we are not advocating a
m e c h a n i c a l t r a n s fe r o f c o l l ec t i ve b a r g ai n i n g p r i n c i p l e s f ro m t h e f ie l d o f labour
legislation.
We are not interested in a vast bureaucracy being set up.
But we are
vitally interested in some framework in which we would have the right to
participate in the decision making process.
There is perhap s no thing quite so
personal as a persons home, and as things stand now we are effectively denied
a say in conditions.
Accordingly we propose the following:
1.
(a)
In those apartment blocks of six or more suites, where a majority of
t en a nt s w it h in a g iv en t im e pe ri od j oi n a t e n a n t a s s o c i a t i o n , u p on
verification of this fact by the staff of the Board, 1 the association be
given collective bargaining rights and the landlord be required to
e n t e r i n t o c o l l e c t i v e n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h t h e b l o ck t e n a n t a s s o c i a t i o n
on all rental matters.
(b)
In all such instances the landlord be required by law to
the rent of all tenants in the block the minimum sum of
per month, and to forward this sum to the block tenant
©
In the month prior to
landlord would have the
the majority membership
deduct from
fifty cents
association.
the expiration of any collective agreement the
right to request the Bo ard t o ver ify again
condition, and if it were not maintained,
In
this
brief
a
system
of
M u n ic ip a l
Rent
R e v ie w
Boards
w as
p rop o sed.
These
Boards,
it w as
su g g e s te d , s h o u ld b e c h a r g e d i n e a ch m u n ic ip a lity w ith th e d u ty o f e n fo rc in g th e p ro v isio n s o f th e
L a n d lord a n d T en a n t A ct, s h o u ld b e c o m p o s e d o f a n e q u a l n u m b e r o f te n a n t s’ a n d la n d lo r d s ’ r e p r e s e n t a tiv e s ,
a n d sh o u ld b e u n d e r th e fu ll-tim e , p a id c h a irm a n sh ip o f a p erso n a g r e e d u p o n b y b o t h t e n a n t s a n d
landlords in each m unicipality.
-1 8 1-
the collective bargaining right would become invalid.
(d)
If agreement on rents and conditions cannot be reached, either party
can call on the Board to provide mediation services and the Board
itself conduct hearings and make public its recommendations for
settlement.
(e)
I f t he l an d lo r d doe s n o t imp le me nt th e reco mmen dat io n s o f the
Board, then the tenants would have the legal right to withhold their
rents.
(f)
If the tenants do not comply then the landlord would be free to
commence notice to quit action and such tenant refusal would
constitute just cause for eviction.
A
larger
proportion
of those
demonstrate that collective bargaining
submission might be regarded as typical:
representing
the
landlords'
viewpoint
sought
to
was unworkable and undesirable.
The following
Some queries come to mind on this question of tenants' unions.
(a)
Suppose 30% of the tenants form a union and post pickets outside
the building to cut off supplies of oil, visits by plumbers, electricians,
deliverymen, mailmen, etc. for the tenants who do not want to join!
What redress have those tenants got?
What redress has the landlord
got? (just this sort of thing already happens in industry with "mystery
pickets" and similar tactics.)
(b)
Tenants
unions
would
have
expenses.
Who would pay them? What
would be the dues?
What if some tenants could not pay?
Presumably the officers of th e unions would want salaries; would they be
paid by other tenants, some of them perhaps earning less than the
officers themselves?
©
Presumably
a
tenants'
union
would
want the right to strike. What
would be the nature of such a strike?
Would the tenants all move
o ut an d p o st pi cke t s t o t o p r even t n o n -uni on te nan ts fro m moving
in?
Or would the tenants stay in and stop paying rent? Would the
l an d lo r d t h en b e f re e t o cu t o f f a ll s er vi ce s - w at er , h e at , lig ht ,
elevators, cleaning, etc.?
If not, the tenants' union is simply being
given power to confiscate any landlord's property at will ...
If
some
kind
of
tenant-unionism
is
permitted,
be
here
have
the
results
I
predict.
i.
Even
heavier burdens will
for the misconduct of the "bad tenants"...
laid on the "good tenants" to pay
iii.
A
speedy
development
of "closed shops" in which the tenant
must buy membership in the tenants' union before he can even
apply for rental accommodation.
iv.
A
drying-up
of the supply of rental accommodation. (Indeed,
the fear of this development is one of the influences that is
already shrinking the supply in Vancouver.)
O ther lan dlords p ointed out that they are not free to
th o s e w h o s u p p ly th e m w ith g o o d s an d se rv ic es su ch as
fuel, and m aintenance services.
It is said th at if th ey
collectively with their tenants they would be put at an economic disadvantage.
We
are
q u o te d
at
le n g th
fro m
tw o
-1 8 2-
b rie f s
bargain co llectively w ith
m ortgage financing, taxes,
w ere required to bargain
re p re s e n tin g
o p po sin g
p o in ts
of
v ie w b e cau se th e y q u ite clearly d em o n strate tw o differen t p ro b lem s facin g th e
C o m m issio n .
F i r s t , t h o s e m a k in g s u b m i s s i o n s d o n o t a g r e e o n w h a t i s m e a n t b y
collective bargaining and how a form alized schem e m ight work.
Second, the
arguments
for
and
against
the
concept
are presented
in
a
highly
charged
atmosphere.
M o re
is
req uired
of
a
law
refo rm
co m m issio n
th an
an
en d o rsem en t
of
one
ideological view point or another.
Rather, the proposition that a structure be
in tro d uced to p erm it fo rm alized co llective bargain in g betw een th e lan d lo rd an d
th e te n an t is on e w h ich m u st be re-assessed afte r an e xam in a tio n o f th e en d s
w h ic h it is d esig n ed to ac h ie ve an d o f w h e th e r it is, all th in g s co n s id e re d , th e b e s t
m ean s o f a ch iev in g th o se en d s.
W e w o u ld b e les s th an h o n est, h o w ev er, if w e d id
not state
a philosophical position
of
our
own
before
proceeding
to
this
e xam in a tio n .
T h is p o s itio n is o n e w h ic h h as in f lu e n c e d u s in a n u m b e r o f o u r
d ec isio n s in th is s tu d y a n d is, s im p ly state d , th a t in th e area o f lan d lo rd an d ten an t
relatio n s th e rem ed ies o f self-h elp o ugh t to b e d isco uraged if o th er m ean s o f
solving disputes can be found.
At the risk of being said to have misunderstood the
c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a in i n g , it a p p e a rs t o u s t h a t it is d e s i g n e d
ends by group pressure. They are:
(i)
achieving tenant security in some measure;
(ii)
forcing a landlord to perform his obligations;
(iii)
the
(iv)
sam e
fo rm
of
co n tro l
over
turn, having regard to the
Report.
elim ination
of
un reaso n ab le
term s
in
aims of the proposal for
to a c h i e v e f o u r p r in c i p a l
ten an c y
agreem ents; and
ren t-settin g.
We
ex am in e
th ese
en ds in
recom m endations already m ade in this
1.
T enant
security
We
h av e
alread y
reco m m en d ed
th at
th e
co n cep t
o f ten an t
security be given legislativ e reco gn itio n in th is P ro v in ce.
T en an ts m igh t
also
achieve
security
in
rented
accom m odation
by
the
collective
b argain in g p ro cess b u t w e are n o t p re p are d to s ay th at th is w o u ld be
m o re effective than reso rt by individual ten an ts to the ren talsm an in
cases w here notice has been delivered in circum stances w hich do not
justify termination.
2.
Enforcing the landlord's obligations - Elsewhere in this Report we have made a num ber
o f reco m m en dation s designed to enco urage a lan dlord to perfo rm his
obligations under the Act and under a tenancy agreem en t, and to
p ro v id e a sp e ed y m e an s o f en fo rc in g th e m if he do es no t.
T h e co lle ctiv e
bargaining p rocess is an alternative m eans of attem pting this, but do es
n o t a p p e a r to h av e m o re in trin s ic v a lu e o r lik e lih o o d o f s u cc e s s th a n th e
proposals put forward by the Commission.
3.
Eliminating unreasonable covenants - Throughout our study we have been aware of the
fact that som e landlords are in the habit of inserting unreasonable
coven ants in th eir ten an cy agreem en ts an d o f attem pting to enforce
th e m b y o n e m e a n s o r a n o th e r.
O n e o w n e r o f a m o b ile h o m e p a rk in
w h i c h f a m i l i e s a n d c h i l d r e n r e s i d e s t i p u l a t e s , f o r e x a m p l e , th a t " N o v i s i t ing
children
[are]
allowed
unloss
accompanied
by
their
parents."
E lsew h ere in th is R ep o rt w e hav e atte m p te d to m itig ate th e effect o f
-1 8 3-
su ch co ven an ts by reco m m en d in g th at th ere b e ten an t secu rity (th ereb y
p r e v e n tin g t h e te rm in a tio n o f a te n a n c y b y a la n d lo rd o n th e g r o u n d th a t
unreasonable covenants have been
breached) and that all covenants
betw een landlord an d tenant, to b e enforceable, m ust be reasonable in
the circumstances.
Admittedly, the collective bargaining process m ight
also
achieve
the
elimination
of
unreasonable
covenants
and
the
p o s s ib ility o f la n d lo r d s' try in g to en fo rc e th em , b u t o n ce ag a in w e d o n o t
believe that it is inherently more likely to succeed.
4.
Control over rent-setting - In the brief which was most strongly in favour of
co llec tiv e b a rg a in in g f o r te n a n ts a n d w h ic h w a s th e m o st sp ec ific in its
p r o p o s a l s , it i s c l e a r t h a t t h e p ro c e ss w as th o u g h t t o b e m o s t u s e fu l in
giv in g th e ten an ts ' b a rg ain in g u n it so m e o p p o rtu n ity to p articip ate in th e
d ecisio n -m akin g pro cess b y w h ich ren ts are set, an d th ereb y in h ib itin g
landlords from imposing unjustified rent increases.
The
Com m ission
has
a lre ad y
pointed
out
that
in
the
final
analysis
the
question w hether a system o f rent control should b e im posed, w hatever form it
m a y ta k e, is o n e o f ec o n o m ic p o licy. 2
W e h av e also p o in ted o u t th at w e are n o t
in a position to m ake a properly in form ed judgm ent on such a p olicy.
This
n o tw it h s t a n d in g , w e m a y c it e a g a in th e f a c t th a t th e r e a r e o t h e r m e a n s b e s i d e s th e
collective bargaining process by w hich som e control over the forces of the
m ark etp lac e in re n te d ac co m m o d a tio n m a y b e ac qu ire d .3
W hether the collective
b a r ga in in g p ro c e s s is lik e ly to b e m o r e o r le s s e ff ec tiv e in c o n t ro llin g r en t s th a n
any of these other means is not for this Commission to say.
We can, however, state that we do not have any evidence to show, and do not
b eliev e, th at th e co llectiv e b argain in g pro cess in th e area o f lan d lo rd an d ten an t
r e l a t i o n s h a s m o r e t o c o m m e n d i t t h a n a n u m b e r o f o t h e r w a y s o f a t t e m p t in g t o
reconcile opposing
interests.
We have
recommended
that disputes
between
landlords and ten an ts b e so lve d b y o th er m ean s w h ich w e b eliev e w ill be speedy,
efficien t, an d fair, an d do n ot, th erefo re, reco m m en d th at co llectiv e actio n by
tenants be given further legislative endorsement.
We
should
point
o ut
in
passing,
how ever,
th at
under
the
existing
law
tenants
already enjoy som e freedom , albeit lim ited, in the area of collective a ctio n w hich
w ill b e rein fo rce d by th e im p lem e n ta tio n o f a co n c e p t o f te n an t se c u rity .
T his
f r e e d o m d e p e n d s la r g e l y o n t h e p u r p o s e s o f th e a g r e e m e n t a m o n g t h e t e n a n t s , a n d
the means by which those purposes will be achieved.
If
ten an ts
decid e
th at
th ey
w ill
en deav o ur
to
fo rce
a
lan dlo rd
to
fo llo w
a
certain
course
of conduct by agreeing am ong them selves to term inate
their
te n a n c ie s ac c o rd in g to law ; it d o es n o t ap p ea r th at th ey w ill in v ite crim in al o r c iv il
liability.
th e
If,
h o w ev er,
issu e is no t
th e
a gree m en t
is
one
in v o lv in g
a
co llec tiv e
w ith h o ldin g
of
ren t,
so clea r.
If in th e circ u m s ta n c e s th e w ith h o ld in g o f re n t am o u n ts
2.
C hapter IV , Part II.
3.
See D onnison, “The Regulation of H ouse R ents: Som e Background N otes” in
Background Papers and Proceedings of a C anadian C ouncil on Social D evelopm ent Sem inar on R ent Policy 7 (1973).
4.
C rim inal C ode, R.S.C. 1970, c. C -34, s. 423 (2). See W right v. The Q ueen [1964] S.C .R . 192.
5.
A s a civil conspiracy. See Salm ond on Torts 505 et seq. (15 th ed. 1969).
-1 8 4-
Is
T here
a
C ase
for
R ent C ontrol?
to a b reach of contract if done
w o uld b e h eld b y th e C o u rts to
might attract criminal4 or civil liability.
Finally,
the
Landlord
and
Tenant
by an individual, there is a
b e an u nlaw fu l p u rp o se an d
Act
authorizes
a
"class
action."
possibility
th at th e
Section
60(2)
th at this
agreem en t
provides:
The application may be made by the applicant, or by a solicitor or agent on
his behalf, and, where there are a number of persons having the same interest
in the cause or matter raised in the application, one or more of such persons
may make the application, or may be authorized by the judge to appear and to
be heard on the application, on behalf of, or for the benefit of all persons so
interested.
-1 8 5-
A lth o u g h
in
m any
a re as
where
th e
c la s s
a c tio n
w o u ld
be
a p p ro p ria te
under
the
existing
law
the
rentalsman
will
have
jurisdiction
if
our
other
recom m endations are accepted, w e recom m end nonetheless that the class action
c o n t in u e t o b e p e r m i tt e d .
N a t u r a l l y , w e s e e n o re a s o n w h y t h e r e n t a l s m a n h im s e lf
sh o uld be co n fin ed to en tertain in g ap p licatio n s b y in d iv id u als, a n d w e d o n o t
b e lie v e it to b e n e c e s s a ry to in c lu d e in th e p ro p o s e d A c t a p ro v is io n th a t h e m a y
a c t w h e r e a n a p p l i c a t i o n i s m a d e to h im b y a g r o u p o f te n a n ts o r a g r o u p o f
landlords.
The proposed Act contain a provision, comparable to section 60(2) of the present Landlord and Tenant Act,
authorizing class actions in disputes arising under the Act.
-1 8 6-
CHAPTER XII
A.
OTHER PROBLEMS
The Rent-Control Act
R e n ta l
r eg u la tio n
was
in t ro d u ce d
in to
C an a d a
as
The federal legislation was reviewed in the Ontario Interim Report as follows:1
a
w artim e
m e asu re
in
1941.
The major experience of Canadians with a system of rent control, was under
w a r t i m e a n d p o s t - w ar l eg is la t i o n j us t if ie d b y t h e co n di ti o n s o f a w a r - o r i e n t e d
economy.
Order-in-Council 9029, approved on the 21s t of November, 1941,
under the provisions of the War Measures Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 206, gave authority to
the Wartime Prices and Trade Board to make regulations governing the
maximum amount of rental which might be charged for any particular
accommodation, and any particular services supplied by the landlord to the
tenant thereof, and giving to the tenant some degree of security of tenure in
a dd it io n to th a t a c c o r d e d b y t h e o r d i n a r y c o m m o n l a w a n d a p pl ic ab le s t at ut e
law.
Section 5 of P.C. 9029 established a maximum rent for all real property in
Canada which was subject to a lease on the 11 th of October, 1941, and for which
a maximum rental had not been previously fixed by or on behalf of the Board.
The maximum rent chargeable for affected accommodation was to be rent
payable under the lease in effect on the specified date.
The section also fixed
the maximum rent for real property not subject to a lease on such date, at the
rent payable under the last lease in effect between the 2 n d of January, 1940, and
the 11 t h
day of October, 1941.
"Lease" was defined in section 2(l)(c) of the
Order as any enforceable contract for the letting or sub-letting of all property
whether oral or written and included any leave or licence or the use of real
property.
Section 3 gave the Board power to fix the maximum rent at which any real
property might be rented, to prescribe the grounds upon which and the manner
in which leases might be terminated.
Provision was made for the appointment
of a Rentals Administrator, a Rentals Appraiser, a Court of Rental Appeals, and
for the appointment of other officials.
T he w artim e regulations,
fo rc e in p e a c e tim e u n til
1951.3
The
provincial
by virtue of a series of
th e ir e ff e c t a s fe d era l law ,
governm ent,
apparently
fed eral A cts,2 w ere
w as fin ally allo w ed
un w illin g
to
see
th e
continued
to e x p ire
effect
of
in
in
the
1.
2.
N ational E m ergency T ransitional Pow ers A ct, 1945, S.C. 1945 c. 25; The C ontinuance of Transitional M easures A ct, 1947, S.C . 1947 c. 16, as
am ended, S.C . 1948 c. 5; S.C . 1949 c. 3; S.C . 1950 c. 6.
3.
See
S .C .
1950
c.
6.
The
W artim e
L e a se h o l d
R e g u la ti o n s
w ere
the
Suprem e Court of Canada in 1950 w here it w as held they were intra vires the Parliam ent of Canada.
4.
S.B.C . 1951 c. 44.
-1 8 7-
su b ject
of
a
re f e r e n c e
to the
w artim e regulations
which provided:
term inated,
in
19 51
enacted
the
L easeholds
The wartime leasehold regulations
Columbia as if they were enacted as part of the Act.
In section
meaning:
2,
the
expression
"wartim e
shall
leasehold
The Orders in Council affecting dwelling
from time to time by the Governor-General in Council; and
(b)
The orders and regulations
conferred by such Orders in Council, -
from
continue
places
time
to
in
tide
A ct, 4
in
regulations"
(a)
made
R egulations
section
force
was
British
4
in
British
defined
Columbia
pursuant
to
of
as
made
authority
that by virtue of "The War Measures Act" (Canada), "The National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945"
(Canada), and "The Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, 1947" (Canada), were in force immediately
pr e c e d i n g t h e d a y o n w h i c h suc h Or de rs i n C o un c i l , o r de rs, an d reg ul at io n s ceased
to be in force under the authority of the Parliament of Canada.
T h e ad m in istratio n of th e regu latio n s an d th e po w ers fo rm erly in vested in th e
W artim e Prices and Trade B oard w ere transferred to the L ieutenant-G overnor in
Council.5
M oreover, the Lieutenant-G overnor in
Council was empowered to
make
regulations
providing
for
the
administration
and
enforcement
of
the
w ar-tim e leaseh o ld regu latio n s , a n d to s u b stitu te , re vo k e , a m e n d,6 o r rem ak e an y
of tho se regulation s.
T he A ct also p rov ided that sho uld its prov ision s con flict
with any other law in force in the province, its provisions should prevail.
In 1954 the Rent-Control Act was passed.
The effect of that Act was to repeal the
Leasehold Regulations Act and all the w artim e leasehold regulations, except to the extent that
th o se re g u la tio n s m ig h t b e ad o p ted b y in div id u al m u n icip alities.
Sectio n 3 o f th e
Rent-Control Act provides:
3.
(1)
The
C ouncil
or
B oard
of
C om m issioners
w hich the regulatio ns are in force o n th e day
force may pass bylaws: -
(2)
(a)
Adopting
such
regulations
as
m unicipality
on
the thirty-first
declaring them in force in the municipality:
(b)
Creating
a
rental
authority
and
administration and enforcement of the regulations:
(c)
R e v o k in g ,
a m e n d in g ,
the regulations.
By-laws
5.
S. 3.
6.
S. 6.
7.
R .S.B.C . 1960. C . 338, s. 2.
m ay
be
passed
-1 8 8-
r e m a k in g ,
under
this
or
are
of
of
any
m unicip ality in
t h i s A c t c o m e s in t o
in
force
in
March, 1955,
providing
su b s t it u tin g
section
w ith
for
respect
for
the
and
the
any
of
to
the
whole municipality, or one or more defined areas thereof.
The "regulations" were defined as:7
The wartim e
leasehold
authority of the "Leasehold Regulations Act."
T he R ent-C ontrol A ct also purported
Columbia, in enacting both the Leasehold
the example set by Ontario.8
regulations
to prevail over
Regulations Act and
m ade
or
established
under
any con flicting A ct.
the Rent-Control Act, was
the
British
following
The obvious question arising out of consideration of the Rent-Control Act is:
what
is th e su b stan c e o f th e re gu latio n s an d o r d ers p reserv ed , an d to w h at exten t, an d
where were, those regulations in force on the relevant date.
The O ntario
Commission approached this question in the following way:9
An examination of the regulations passed under the Act of 1951 indicates
that such cities as Ottawa, Toronto (but not all of what ii now Metropolitan
Toronto), Hamilton, Fort William, Port Arthur and Kingston were
"municipalities in which the regulations were in force on the day" the Act of
1953 came into force. (2 n d April, 1953).
There is nothing in the wording of the
Act of 1953 which indicates that a failure at any point in time to adopt the
existing regulations or to create a rental administration authority would
disentitle a municipality from doing so later.
A
sim ilar exam ination
in
British
Columbia
provides
little
assistance.
The
p ro v in c ial g o v ern m e n t w as n o t a ctiv e in e x erc isin g its p o w e rs u n d e r th e A c t o f
1 95 1 an d o n ly tw o regu latio n s ap p ear to h av e b een p ro m u lgated ,10 n eith er o f
w hich p rov ides any useful guidance.
The sub stantive o rders m ad e by the federal
B o ard are o b sc u re and no t easily ascertain ab le.
It is, th erefo re, difficu lt to sa y w ith
an y p recision w h at regulatio n s w ere in force in an y giv en m u n icip ality o r p art
thereof, which municipalities are empowered to adopt.
On
the
other
hand,
P.C .
9029
did
application w hich w ould presum ably have
Paragraph 5(1) provided:11
5.
con tain
certain
been in force
regulations
of
general
in all m unicipalities.
(1) On and after December 1, 1941, the maximum rental
(a)
for any
October
that lease;
real
1 1,
property for which there was a lease in effect on
1 94 1, s h al l b e t h e r en t a l l a w f u l ly p a y a b l e u n d e r
(b)
for any real property for which there was no lease in effect on
October 11, 1941, but for which there was a lease in effect at
some time or times since January 1, 1940, shall be the rental
lawfully payable under the latest lease in effect between January
8.
See O ntario Interim R eport 65.
9.
See O ntario Interim R eport 66.
10.
O rder in C ouncil 1099 (M ay 15/51); O rder in C ounsel 1434 (June 22/51).
11.
P.C . 9029.
-1 8 9-
1, 1940, and October 11, 1941; and
(c)
for any other real property, shall be the maximum rental that
may from time to time be fixed by or on behalf of or under
authority of the Board.
I t w o u ld , th e re fo re , se em th a t an y m u n ic ip a lity w o u ld h a v e au th o rity to e x e rc is e
t h e p o w e rs p ro v id e d b y s e c t io n 3 ( 1 ) o f t h e R e n t - C o n t r o l A c t .
T h a t A c t , b y g iv in g
m u nicip alities th e p o w ers to revo ke, am en d, rem ake, or su bstitu te th e regu latio n s
an d p ro viding th at su ch reg u latio n s p rev ail o v er c o n flictin g leg islatio n , ap p ea rs to
h a v e g i v e n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s c a r t e b la n c h e t o i n t e r v e n e , i n a v e r y s u b s t a n t i a l w a y , w i t h
ordinary laws of general application relating to landlord and tenant matters.
S e c tio n
34(2)
of
th e
L a n d l o rd
an d
T e na n t
A ct
p ro v id e s
th a t
P a rt
II
ap p lie s
"n o tw ith stan din g an y oth er A ct."
W e are th erefo re faced w ith th e ex istan ce o f
tw o distinct pieces of provincial legislation , each relatin g to the sam e subject
m atter, an d w ith respect to w hich conflict m ay arise, an d each claim ing to prevail
ov er the other in case of such conflict.
Such a con flict has, in fact, arisen betw een
V ancouver By-law N o. 4448 and the Landlord and Tenant A ct concerning the right of the
G riev an ce B o ard estab lish ed un d er th e b y-law to h ear an d determ in e lan dlo rd an d
t e n a n t d is p u t e s , 1 2 a n d t h e r i g h t o f t h e P r o v i n c ia l C o u r t t o c a r r y o u t t h i s f u n c t i o n .
F urth erm o re, th ere exist sev eral areas w h ich are co vered by b o th P art II an d th e
b y - la w , s u c h a s s e c u r ity d e p o s its ;13 o b lig a t io n s to r e p a i r; a n d th e c o n s t itu t io n o f a
body to perform conciliation, mediation and advisory functions.14
The
p r o b le m s
posed
by
the
c o n f lic tin g
le g is la tio n
has
b e en
c o n s id e re d
tw ic e
b y th e c o u rts : f ir s t b y Ju d g e L e v e y o f th e P ro v in c ia l C o u rt 1 5 a n d m o re re c e n tly b y
Mr. Justice Anderson of the Supreme Court.16
In Holst and Holst v. Wells and Tabachniuk,17 the
validity of several orders of the V ancouver Rental Accom m odation G rievance
B oard w ere question ed.
Ju d g e L e v e y h e ld th e o rd e rs in v alid o n th e g ro u n d th a t
th e B o ard h ad n o judicial po w ers and thu s any b ind ing o rders w hich it purpo rted
to make had no legal effect. His reasons for so deciding are as follows:18
... the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia, making laws in
relation to property and civil rights, and in relation to matters of purely local
concern and nature, has unequivocably established the Provincial Court of
B r i t i s h C o l um b i a a s t h e s o l e c o u r t o f o r i g i n a l t r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e
issues between landlord and tenants of residential premises.
The Landlord and Tenant Act is later in time than the Rent-Control Act and Vancouver By-law
12.
See V ancouver C ity Bylaw 4448, paragraphs 11 and 12.
13.
See ss. 37 and 38 of Part II.
14.
See s. 66, as am ended, S.B.C . 1973, c. 47, s. 14. This section authorized the constitution of
landlord and tenant advisory bureaux.
15.
H olst and H olst v. W ells and Tabachniuk (unreported - V ancouver Provincial Court, N o. 8783/71).
16.
R . v. D avidson D evelopm ents L td. [1973] 5 W .W .R . 736.
17.
N . 15 supra.
18.
A t p. 4 of the unreported judgm ent.
-1 9 0-
#4448, and clearly has repealed the By-law by
same field.
By analogy to the interpretation
"occupied field" concept is clearly applicable.
implication in that it occupies
doctrine of constitutional law,
the
the
I am of the view and hold that Vancouver By-law #4448, establishing a
t ri bu na l to d ea l wi t h t h e se issue s assi g n e d t o t h e Pr o vi n c i al Co ur t o f British
Columbia, is an unlawful usurpation of the Legislature's authority to create
P ro vi nc ia l Co ur ts , a n d a n y c ivi c b o ar d, b y w h at ever name it is call ed, cannot
determine questions of fact and law in landlord and tenant matters or analogous
issues which are clearly within the scope of the courts.
The Vancouver Rental Accommodation Grievance Board is redundant in
law, and has been so since the 6th of April, 1970; when Part II of the Landlord and
Tenant A c t ca m e in t o fo rce, assign in g th e so le origin al t ri al j urisdi ct io n to the
Provincial Court of British Columbia.
Ju d g e
Levey
d id
in d ic a te ,
h o w e v e r,
th a t
som e
as p e c ts
of
th e
Vancouver
Byl a w m i g h t b e v a l i d , i n t h a t s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n h a d b e e n m a d e in t h e la n d l o r d a n d
t e n a n t l e g i s l a t i o n f o r re g u la t io n o f c e r t a in m a t t e r s b y t h e M u n i c ip a li t i e s .
H e s a id :19
By-laws may be passed by a Municipality pursuant to the Rent-Control Act, and in
B y- la w # 44 48 o f t h e C it y o f V a n co uv er , an d pa rt icula rly Sch edule A , S ec ti o n
l(a) which provides for security deposits in the amount of $25.00 in the case of
unfurnished premises and $50.00 in the case of furnished premises, such
provisions are clearly severable from the remainder of the By-law and are valid
because the Landlord and Tenant Act specifically provides for such a local option system.
B e sid e s re gu latin g th e am o u n t o f se cu rity d ep o sits fo r d am age allo w a ble w ith in th e
m u nicip ality, th e C o un c il h a s c le ar a uth o rity20 to s et u p a b ureau exercisin g
advisory
and
conciliatory
functions.
Insofar
as
the
Vancouver
Rental
A c c o m m o d a tio n G r ie v a n c e B o a r d e x erc is e s s u c h fu n c tio n s it is o p e ra tin g le g a lly .21
E v e n a f te r th e d e c is io n o f Ju d ge L e v ey , th e V an c o u v e r B o a rd b e lie v e d it re ta in e d
b ro ad er p ow ers an d co ntin ued to m ake o rd ers an d en fo rce th e V ancouver B y-law .
The
validity
of
this
authority
w as
challenged
again
in
the
Suprem e
Court and
the earlier approach of Judge Levey was confirmed.
In R. v.
Davidson Developments Ltd.22 the
C ro w n a p p e a le d b y w a y o f s ta te d c a s e f r o m a d e c i s io n o f a P r o v in c ia l C o u rt Ju d g e
d ism issin g a ch arg e th at th e resp on den t failed to co m p ly w ith an o rd er m ad e b y
the
Vancouver
Rental
Accommodation
Grievance
Board.
The
appeal
was
dism issed.
I n s h o r t , th e a u t h o r it y o f th e B o a r d to e n f o r c e th e V a n c o u v e r B y - l a w s
and make binding orders was rejected.
The
reasoning
in
the
decision
is
closely
related
to
19.
Ibid.
20.
Since 19734 every council of a city or district m unicipality is required to set up sch a bureau. See
s. 66 (2), as am ended, S.B.C . 1973, C . 47., S. 14.
21.
S. 66.
22.
N . 38 supra.
23.
E specially ss. 37 and 38.
24.
The
p ro vision
read s:
“W here
on
the
com ing
into
force
of
a p p lies to secu rity d ep o sits, an y of th e pro visio ns of th is
repugnant to, the by-law do not apply in respect of that m unicipality.”
-1 9 1-
the
this
s e c t io n ,
sectio n th a t
security
d e p o s it23
a
by-law
of
a m unicipality
are inconsistent w ith, or
provision s of Part II and the V ancou ve r B y-law s resp ective ly.
The Crown had
a rg u e d th a t th e e ffe ct o f se ctio n 3 8 (7 ) 24 o f P a r t I I w a s to r e n d e r th e o th e r p ro v is i o n s o f s e c t i o n 3 8 in a p p l i c a b l e i n r e s p e c t o f t h e C i t y o f V a n c o u v e r a n d t o l e a v e
u nto uch ed th e b y-law en ac te d b y th e C ity to g eth e r w ith th e estab lish m en t o f th e
B oard and its pow er to m ake orders.
Anderson J. answ ered that argum ent as
follows:25
I cannot accept this contention.
In my view, when Part II of the Act is
examined as a whole, it becomes clear that the Legislature has completely
occupied the field, with the exception that municipalities may provide for
security deposits to be required or received by landlords by enacting appropriate
by-laws.
Insofar as security deposits are concerned, Part II of the Act has superseded
the Rent-Control Act and if there were a power to create a Board with extensive
p o we rs , a lr ea dy r ef er re d t o, t h e n e w l e g i s l a t i o n gi ve s n o s uc h p o we rs to th e
m un i c ip a li ti es .
I t w ou ld ta ke v er y c l e a r l a n g u a ge t o p er m i t m un i c ip a li ti es to
establish courts of law or deny access to courts of liw.
It would, moreover, take
very clear language to permit a municipality the right to fix the amount of the
penalty which could be imposed by the Board.
It would see, therefore, in my view, that Section 38(7) was intended to deal
with by-laws which dealt with security deposits in a limited way, as for example,
by way of fixing the amount of such deposits.
I do not think that Section 38(7)
w as i nt en d ed b y t h e L eg is la tu re to p r ev en t th e Pro vin cial Co urts fro m deal in g
with applications made to a judge pursuant to Section 38(5).
Anderson J. also supported his decision be referring to a num ber of
a b s u rd itie s a n d in c o n s is te n c ie s w h ic h w o u ld re su lt26 fro m th e p o s itio n s u p p o r te d
by the Crown.
H e also ad d ed that, w h ile th e Legislature did h av e p o w er to
exempt
municipalities
from
legislation
which,
apart
from
the
exemption,
effectively repealed
by im plication
a
by-law
or part thereof, the exem pting
le g is l a tio n h a d to b e c l e a r a n d u n e q u i vo c a l . 2 7
T h i s w as c e r t ai n l y n o t th e c as e w ith
section 38(7).
The
p resen t
p o sition
is
th at
the
co nflict
of
jurisdiction
has
been
reso lved
in
fa v o u r o f th e P ro vin cial C o urts.
T h e C ity still re ta in s th e p o w e r, b y w h ic h o f th e
R ent-C ontrol A ct, to m a k e b y -la w s go ve rn in g lan dlo r d an d t e n a n t m atte rs in so f ar as they
are sanctioned by the Landlord and Tenant Act, Part II.
It is understood that, since the
judgm ent
of
Anderson
J.,28 the V ancou ver
Rental Accom m odation
Grievance
B o a r d h a s c e a s e d m a k in g o r d e r s 2 9 u n d e r p a r a g r a p h s 1 1 a n d 1 2 o f B y - la w N o . 4 4 4 8
an d is n o w ex erc ising ad v iso ry and con ciliatory fu n ctio n s o n ly.
It m ay, how ever,
be argued that the H olst and D avidson D evelopm ents cases are confined to situations w here
conflict exists between the Landlord and Tenant Act and regulations made under the Rent-Control
A c t , a n d d o n o t p re v e n t m u n ic ip a lit ie s f r o m p a s s in g b y - la w s a f f e c t in g a s p ec ts o f th e
25.
N . 16 supra, at 740.
26.
Ibid., at 741. E .g., a difference in penalties for beach between one m unicipality and another.
27.
C iting R . v. C anada Safeway L td. (1955), 16 W .W .R . 331 (S.C ., A pp. D iv.).
28.
R . v D avidson D evelopm ents L td., n. 16 supra.
29.
The Survey Landlord-Tenant G rievance B oard, w e understand, still purports to exercise
enforcem ent pow ers.
30.
See V ancouver By-law 4448; Surrey By-law 3129.
-1 9 2-
lan d lo rd an d ten an t relatio n sh ip
tribunals to enforce those by-laws.
The
p resen t
three reasons:
p o sitio n
w ith
upon
regard
w hich
to
the
Act
m u nicip al
is
silent,
o p ti o n s
is
and
co n stitu tin g
un satisfacto ry
for
1.
A ccess
to
the
su b stan ce
of
th e
o rders
an d
regu latio n s
is
e x tre m ely
lim ited and it is very difficu lt fo r th e o fficers of any particular
m unicipality to ascertain the precise nature and content of the
regulations
and
orders
which
may
have
been
force
in
that
municipality in 1955.
2.
The
m u n ic ip a l
power
to
regulations seems undesirably wide.
3.
The
exten t
to
w h ich
th a t
wide
power
has
decisions in the Holst and Davidson Developments cases is uncertain.
re v o k e ,
am end,
rem ake,
or
been
s u b s t it u te
l i m it e d
by
th e
th e
A s a m a tte r o f p o lic y , th is C o m m issio n is o f th e o p in io n th at th e law s re latin g to
l a n d lo r d a n d t e n a n t s h o u l d b e u n i f o r m l y a p p l i e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o v i n c e .
To the
ex ten t th at p articu lar lo cal c o n d itio n s m igh t ju stify p articu lar lo ca l law s, th e n atu re
an d exten t of m u nicip al auth ority to en act legislatio n co ncern in g lan dlo rd an d
tenant m atters should appear clearly on the face of the Landlord and Tenant A ct.
This is
specifically considered later in this Ch ap ter.
It seem s u n d esirable that provincial
legislation should perm it m unicipalities to adopt, by reference, regulations and
o r d e r s w h i c h m a y b e a s c e r t a i n e d a n d i d e n t if i e d o n ly w ith g r e a t d i f fic u lty .
W e note
that in all the by-law s based on the R ent-Control A ct w hich have com e to our attention,
the
municipality
has
adopted
and
then
immediately
revoked
the
wartime
re g u la tio n s . 3 0
T h u s it m a y b e arg u e d th a t th e L e g is la tu re 's in te n tio n to p re s e rv e th e
w a r t i m e r e g u la tio n s , w h a t e v e r t h e y m a y h a v e b e e n , h a s b e e n t h w a r t e d a n d t h e R e n t C ontrol A ct has been u sed b y m un icip alities as a "con stitution al" vehicle w hich
p r o v i d e s t h e b a s i s o f a g e n e r a l a n d p r i m a f a c ie u n c o n f i n e d p o w e r t o l e g i s l a t e w i t h
respect to landlord and tenant matters.
W e favour the repeal of
w hich m ay have been passed
constituted by its authority.
the Rent-Control Act along
u n d e r it s a u th o r it y a n d
with
the
the repeal
dissolution
of
of
any
any
by-laws
b od ies
1.
The Rent-Control Act be repealed.
2.
Any by-laws enacted under the authority of the Rent-Control Act be repeated.
3.
Any bodies constituted under the authority of the Rent-Control Act be dissolved.
O ne
further
point
rem ains
to
be
considered.
Paragraph
2(l)(d)
of
P.C .
9029
defines the term "real p rop erty" w id ely en o ug h to in clud e o ccu p an cies by licensees
as w ell as by tenants.
T h e b y - l a w s o f b o t h V a n c o u v e r a n d S u rr e y d e f in e " l e a s e "
so as to include a licence.
The scope of the Landlord and Tenant Act which we propose and
Part II of the existing A ct is confined to tenancies.
To the extent that the Rent-Control
A c t m a y f o r m t h e b a s is f o r m u n i c i p a l b y - la w s c o n c e r n i n g l i c e n c e s i t u a t i o n s s u c h a s
-1 9 3-
lo d gin g h o uses, its effect m igh t be w o rth p reserv in g.
T h is co uld be d on e b y
specific am endm ents to the M unicipal A ct. 31
W e have no guidelines to offer on such an
amendment
beyond
the
general
observations
we
have
made
concerning
the
Rent-Control Act.
Repeal of the Rent-Control Act should not affect powers of municipalities to enact by-laws regulating occupancies by
licensees and the Municipal Act and Vancouver Charter be amended to the extent necessary to effect this.
B.
Municipal Options
The only section of the
g o v ern m en ts to legislate w ith
which provides:
66.
Landlord and Tenant
resp ect to lan d lo rd
Act which specifically
and tenant m atters
( 1)
I n t h is s e ct io n , " mu ni ci pa li ty "
Interpretation Act, and includes an incorporated village.
h as
th e
m ea n in g
empowers local
is section 66
p ro vi de d
in t h e
(2)
Every
council
of
a
city
or district municipality shall, and any other
municipal council may, establish a Landlord and Tenant Advisory
Bureau.
(3)
The functions of a Landlord and Tenant Advisory Bureau are
(4)
(a)
(b)
to receive complaints
landlords and tenants;
(c)
to disseminate information for the purpo se of educating and
advising landlords and tenants concerning rental practices,
rights, and remedies; and
(d)
to
receive
and
investigate
complaints
contravention of legislation governing tenancies.
and
seek
to
mediate
d is p u t e s b e t w e e n
of
conduct
in
Two or more munic ip al it ies may, by agreement, establish jointly a
Landlord and Tenant Advisory Bureau and, notwithstanding the
M un ic ip al A c t, an ag ree me nt en ter ed in to b y a m unicipality for this
purpose may be for a term of more than one year, but not more than
five years.
O ther
provisions
seem
to
contem plate
m unicipal
legislation
but
do
not
necessarily autho rize it.
For exam ple, section 37(1), which concerns security
dep osits, com m ences w ith the w ords "un less a m un icipality, by by-law , otherw ise
p ro v id es ..." 32
S e c tio n 4 9 (1 ) sp ea k s o f th e lan dlo rd 's resp o n sib ility fo r co m p ly in g
w ith " h e a lth a n d s af ety sta n d a r d s in c lu d in g an y h o u s in g stan d a rd s re q u ire d b y la w
... It is a gen eral ru le o f m u n icip al law th at lo c al g o v ern m e n t c an p o s s e ss an d
exercise only those pow ers w hich are expressly given by statute; those necessarily
o r f a irly im p lie d in , o r in c id e n t to , e x p re ss p o w ers; an d th o se essen tial to effect th e
31.
R .S.B.C . 1960, c. 255.
32.
It
c an
be
p er su as ive ly
respect of security deposits.
a rg u ed
th at
s.
37
(1 )
-1 9 4-
d o es
no t
in
itself
en ab le
a
m u n icip ality
to
leg islate in
purposes of the corporation.33
We
see
th e
a re a
of
a c co m m o d a tio n
sta n d a r d s
and
the
p ro v is io n
of
s e rv ic e s
a s b e in g th e o n e a s p e c t o f la n d lo r d a n d t e n a n t la w w h e re lo c a l g o v e r n m e n ts m ig h t
u se fu lly b e g ive n s o m e la titu d e to e n a c t b y -la w s .
S e c tio n 4 9 (1 ) in th e p res en t A ct,
and the com parable provision recom m ended for in clusion in the proposed A ct,
are ph rased in very g en eral term s w h ich m igh t usefully be co m pared w ith so m e
specific provision s of the regulation s con tained in S chedu le A to V an co uv er B ylaw No. 4448. Those regulations include:
8.
Every
Landlord
shall
ensure
that
every
building
under
his control
containing premises and the site upon which the building is situated are at
all times free from infestation from rodents and insects which may cause
disease or unreasonable discomfort.
9.
No Landlord shall offer for rent or rent any premises which are not
supplied with electric power, wiring and electrical outlets capable of
providing illumination in every room of the premises.
10.
Where by the terms of a lease a Landlord has expressly or impliedly agreed
to provide heat, the Landlord shall provide sufficient heat to maintain the
t em p er a t u r e i n t h e p r e m i s e s a t a m i n i m u m o f 6 8 d eg re es , b et w e en t h e
hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 o'clock midnight.
11.
Every Landlord
good working order.
12.
E ve ry L an d lo r d
bathing facilities,
a n u ni nt er ru pt ed
water system.
13.
Where by the terms of a lease a Landlord has expressly or impliedly agreed
to provide any appliances, t he La nd lo rd shall maintain such appliances in
good working order.
Provided that nothing shall require the Landlord to
r e p a i r a p p l i a n c e s d a m a g e d b y t h e T e n a n t o r p r e v e n t t h e L a n d lo r d f r o m
r e c o v e r i n g f r o m th e Te n an t a su m s u f f i c i e n t t o r e p a i r a n y d a m a g e f o r
which a Tenant is responsible.
shall
make
available
to
every
Tenant
sanitary
facilities in
s ha ll en sure th at all s a ni ta ry f ac il it ie s, in cl ud in g t o il et s ,
wash basins and sinks used by Tenants are supplied with
s up p ly o f wa t e r o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e C i t y o f V a n c o u ve r' s
Such provisions provide useful guidance but a num ber of th e requirem ents w ould
ob viously be in ap p rop riate in m un icipalities w here electricity, w ater, and sew age
f a c ilit ie s a re n o t w id e ly av aila b le .
T h e w id e v a rie ty o f lo c a l co n d itio n s w o u ld m a k e
an y attem pt to include com parable provision s in the p roposed A ct an aw kw ard
exercise.
T h us, a stro n g case b an be m ade fo r leavin g th e "sp ecifics" o f
accom m od ation standards and provision of services to b e regulated by local
go vern m en ts, w h o m ay be th e best ju dges of w h at is ap p ro p riate in th e circum stances.
The proposed Act specifically empower municipalities and other local governments to set, by by-law, standards relating to accommodation
and the provision of services so long as the standards established under such by-laws are not inconsistent with the Act.
The
landlord
and
tenant
received only a lim ited m an date.
advisory
bureaux
established
under
section
66
T h e fun ctio n s w h ich th ey n o w serve w o uld , if
-1 9 5-
our
recommendations
with
respect
to
the
establishment
of
the
office
of
ren talsm an are ad opted, be perform ed by him .
T he rentalsm an w ould have at his
command
much
greater
facilities
for the
development and
dissem ination
of
educational inform ation and , b ecause he w ou ld b e given certain po w ers to m ake
b in d in g d ec is io n s , w o u ld b e a b l e to a c t m o r e e f f e c tiv e ly in re s o lv in g d is p u te s .
The
introduction o f a rentalsm an w ould, in effect, m ake local bureaux redundant and
we see little point in their retention.
1.
The proposed Act contain no provision comparable to section 66 Part II.
2.
All by-laws enacted under the authority of section 66 be repealed.
3.
All landlord and tenant advisory bureaux constituted under the authority of section 66 be dissolved.
In
th is
C h a p te r
we
have
re c a m m e n d ed
th e
d is s o lu tio n
of
re n ta l
b o a rd s
and
advisory bureaux constituted under both the Rent-Control Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act.
T he C om m ission w ishes to ind icate in the clearest po ssible term s that these
r e c o m m e n d a tio n s s h o u l d n o t b e t a k e n a s a c o m m e n t o n th e m a n n e r in w h i c h s u c h
b o d ie s h a v e c a rrie d o u t a n d a re c arry in g o u t th e i r d u t ie s .
M a n y s u c h b o a rd s h a v e
been active and inn ov ative and d eserve no thing b ut praise for the services w hich
they have rendered their respective communities.
C.
Mobile Homes
In
the
cou rse
of
this
study
o ur
attention
hag
been
directed
to
a
particular
v ariety o f lan d lo rd an d ten an t relatio n sh ip w h ich p r ese n ts p ro b lem s d ifferen t fro m
th o se en co un tered in th e m o re usual ap artm en t blo ck situ atio n .
That is the
relationship betw een the m obile hom e ow ner and the ow ner of the m obile park
w h o r e n t s th e " P a d ' ' o n w h i c h a m o b i le h o m e s i t s a n d w h o m a y p r o v i d e u t i l i t i e s
and other am enities.
T h e s p e c ia l c h a r ac te r o f th is re latio n s h ip h a s b e en p o in te d
out elsewhere:34
... although relationships between landlords and tenants frequently are not
all sweetness and light, ... landlord-tenant relationships in mobilehome parks can
be bitter and dark indeed.
There is often no such thing,as a lease; the mobile
home owner usually is a "tenant at will."
In most states, he and his home can
be thrown out at the landlord's whim.
In a few states where that whim is
supposedly bridled by law, he may still be thrown out for breaking the park's
rules - no matter how arbitrary those rules may be.
Such an eviction is not to be taken lightly, for the owner of a typical mobile
home is hardly a footloose and fancy-free traveler.
Increasingly, mobile homes
a r e l a r ge , a n d n o t r e a l l y al l t h at mo b i l e .
The y usuall y co st sever al h undred
dollars to haul from one spot to another by truck (only the smaller trailers can
be puller by car).
The truth is, mobile homes are bought today chiefly becuase
they provide low-cost housing.
Some 95 per cent of homes sold for less than
$15,000 last year came with wheels.
But the people who bought them,
according to some studies, moved no more often than the population in
general.
33.
See
R ogers,
The
Law
of
Canadian
M unicipal
Corporations
34.
Tyranny in M obile-hom e L and, C onsum er R eports, July/73, 440.
-1 9 6-
309
(2 nd
ed .,
1971).
No
express
pow ers
are
found
in
s.
37 (1).
A person evicted from a mobile-home park is actually in worse shape than
someone who loses an apartment.
Zoning laws may prevent him from putting
his mobile home on his own land, even if he is fortunate enough to own some.
Non-land" owners must resort to mobile-home parks, and in many parts of the
country space in those parks (or "trailer courts," as they used to be known) is
extremely scarce.
O ft e n , a p a r k e n t r a n c e f e e o f s e v e r a l h u n d r e d d o l l a r s i s
charged.
Add to that the expenses of mo ving the structure and the risk of
damage to the home in transit; and you can see why most mobile-home owners
would prefer to stay put.
But tenants' natural reluctance to move their dwellings, couplied with
landlords' sweeping power to throw tenants out, gives the landlords nearly total
control.
Trailer tenants often swallow conditions that might move the average
a p ar t m en t d we ll er to re be ll io n , s uc h a s s u d d e n r e n t i n c r e a s e s , t a c k e d- o n f e es ,
arbitrary rules and kickback arrangements.
T hose rem arks are directed at conditions
regrettably, many of them apply in British Columbia as well.
p rev ailing
in
the
U nited
States
but,
It has
been
pointed
out earlier in
this
Report that m ob ile
hom es
and
"pads"
are now within the ambit of the Landlord and Tenant Act and so, to the extent that "summ ary ev ictio n s" an d freq uen t ren tal in c re ase s a re n o w p ro h ib ite d , th e lo t o f th e
mobile
home
owner
has
been
eased.
The
implementation
of
the
recomm endations contained
in
this Report, such as those relating to tenant
security, would further improve his situation.
T here
are,
h ow ever,
a
nu m ber
of
prob lem s, w hidh
are
not
necessarily
peculiar
to m ob ile h o m e ten an cies, b ut w h ich m anifest them selves m ost severely in that
context, and to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act and our recommendations do
not expressly address them selves.
M ost of those problem s arise fram
the
extrem ely acute sh ortage of m obile h om e p ads, w hich has placed on them an
intrinsic value which transcends their rental value.
In
m an y
cases
o p erators
of
m o b ile-h o m e
p ark s
also
deal
in
an d
sell
m o b ile
h o m es.
B ecau se ren tal spac e is at a p rem ium it is alm o st essen tial th at, as a p art
of the "package," the seller o f a m obile hom e be able to offer space to go w ith it.
T h is p resen ts a very clear in cen tiv e to o perato r-d ealers to term in ate existin g
te n an cie s so as to o p e n u p a p ad fo r a n ew ly so ld h o m e .
T e n an t s e c u rity m ig h t
prevent such term inattion directly but it w ould still be open to the operator to
harass the tenant to the point where he leaves voluntarily.
Even
when
the park
operator does not deal in
m obile hom es the situation
is
n o t sign ifican tly d ifferen t.
In m any cases arrangem ents have evolved whereby
d e a le rs a n d p a r k o p e r a t o r s a g r e e t h a t f o r s o m e " f e e " th e d ea le r g e ts a f irs t o p tio n
o n s p a c e s a s t h e y b e c o m e ( o r a r e m a d e ) a v a i l a b l e , a l t h o u g h w e w e r e t o l d in o n e
subm issio n m ade by a park operato r th at th e "fee" co m es o ut o f th e dealer's
profit.
W hen
a
s p ac e
b ec o m e s
av a ilab le
w h ic h
is
not
c o m m itte d
to
a
n e w ly
s o ld
m o b ile h o m e, th e p ark o p erato r w ill fre qu en tly ch a rg e a nd "en try fee" to an y
m o b i le h o m e o w n e r w h o m a y w i s h t o m o v e in .
T h is p r a c t ic e s e e m s a n a l o g o u s t o
th d " k e y m o n e y " c h a rg e d in s o m e ju r is d ic tio n s w h e r e r e n t c o n t ro l k e e p s th e p ric e
of accommodation artificially depressed.
F in a lly ,
th e
sh o rta g e
of
m o b ile
home
sp a c e s
owner to sell his hom e and retain the site.
-1 9 7-
m akes
it
v e ry
d if fic u lt
M any park operators
fo r
an
demand
a"com m ission"
when
an
owner
wishes
to
m ake a private sale and
if that
" c o m m is s io n " i s n o t p a id i t i s m a d e c l e a r t h a t t h e p r o s p e c ti v e o w n e r w i ll n o t b e
a c ce p t e d a s a te n a n t b y th e p a rk o p e ra to r .
A t th e h e arin g s, w e w e re to ld b y a n
operator-dealer that he pro h ib ited th e sale o f m o b ile-h o m e in situ to pro tect his
own sales and prevent an owner from undercutting his prices.
T he
foregoing
should
not be
taken
as
a
universal condem nation
of
all
m obile
h o m e p a r k o p e k a to r s .
N o d o u b t t h e r e a re a la r g e n u m b e r w h o c a r r y o n b u s i n e s s
in a p erfectly respectable an d responsib le m an n er.
T h ere seem to b e, h ow ever, a
sufficiently large num ber of op erators, w ho abuse the p ow er w hich they have
gained as a result of the accom m odation shortage to warrant com m ent in this
Report.
W h ile
the
p ro b lem s
and
abuses
outlined
above
co uld
be
th e
sub ject
of
s p e cific s e ctio n s in th e p ro p o s e d A c t, in o u r o p i n i o n it w o u ld b e d e s ira b le to h a v e
separate legislation relatin g to m o b ile h o m e p arks.
T his has been the pattern in
o th er ju risd ictio n s.
W hile som e of our recom m endations and existing provisions
of Part II may be applicable, others are not. For example:
(a)
There
m ay
be
less
justificatio n
operator to take a damage deposit.
for
allo w ing
(b)
Section
44, w hich
gives
to
the
ten ant
a
right
to
assign
or
sublet,
m ight be extended to m onth-to-m onth tenants in m obile hom e
p ark s an d su bsectio n (6 ) m o d ified to o verco m e th e "co m m issio n"
problem.
(c)
The tenants rights with
difficult to apply to a "pad."
respect
to
privacy
set
(d)
Section
48
m ight not extend
main gate to a mobile home park.
to
altering
or
(e)
Section
49(1)
w hich
sets-o bt
th e
l a n d l o r d 's
and
maintain
the
runted
premises
fit
inappropriate when applied to mobile homes.
(f)
For
th e
purposes
whether
or
not
destruction
of
a
consideration.
(g)
our
recommended
m odification w ith
presumptions introduced.
(h)
Those
circumstances
in
which
we
have
landlord
is
justified
in
terminating
a
modification.
out
a
m o b ileh o m e
in
adding
section
a
park
46
lock
r e s p o n s i b i li ty
to
for
habitation
seem
on
the
repair
seems
of
s e c t io n
41,
in
th e
c o n te x t
of
m o b ile h o m e s ,
a
tenancy
agreement
is
"frustrated"
by
the
mobile
home
owned
by
the
tenant
requires
definition
respect to
of
"abandonment"
might
require
m obile hom e parks and
different
recommended
tenancy
may
that
a
require
M oreover, a num ber of existing parks provide inadequate electrical facilities,
in ad eq uate fire co n tro l facilities, an d in ad eq u ate sew age facilities.
T h ese m igh t b e
p ro p e rly se t o u t in p ro v isio n s o f an A c t sp e cific ally re gu latin g m o b ile h o m e p a rk s
-1 9 8-
which
could
not
be
properly
included
in
a
Landlord
and
Tenant
A ct
of
general
application.
It
is
beyond
th e
scope
of
th is
study
to
dev elo p
sp ecific
reco m b en d atio n s
w h ic h ad d re ss th e m s e lv e s to p ro b lem s pecu liar to m ob ile ho m e te n an c ie s.
As we
h a v e r e c a m m e n d e d e a r l i e r , m o b i l e h o m e p a r k s s h o u l d r e m a in w i t h i n t h e L a n d l o r d a n d
T en a n t A c t u n til s p e c ific le g is la tio n to th at en d is fo rm u lated .
W e h av e n o sp e c ific
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t o m a k e w i t h r e g a r d to th e c o n t e n t o f s u c h le g i s l a t i o n b u t m e r e l y
wish to point out some of the problems which remain to be solved.
D.
The Overholding Tenant
So
lon g
as
a
ten an cy
ag reem en t
h as
not
ex p ired
or
been
law fully
term inated
b y n o t i c e o r o t h e r w i s e , t h e l a n d l o r d 's c l a i m f o r r e n t is in t h e n a t u r e o f a d e b t
arising out of a contract.
At com m on law , where the tenant continues in
occupation
after the expiration
or term ination of a tenantly agreem ent the
lan d lo r d 's c la im f o r p a y m e n t is o f a so m e w h at d iffe re n t n atu re . W o o d f all se ts o u t
the common law position as follows:35
35.
W oodfall’s L aw of L andlord and Tenant 437 (7 th ed., W endell and W ellings, 1968).
-1 9 9-
We have now to consider the case of a relation of landlord and tenant
e xis t in g wit h out an y ar ra n ge me nt at al l f o r t h e p a y me nt o f r en t p r op er ly s o
called, and the case in which the law implies from the conduct of the parties a
p r o m i s e t o c o m p en s a t e t h e l a n d l o r d f o r h i s l o s s b y r e a s o n o f t h e t e n a n t ' s
occupation of his premises.
The action which can in such case be maintained
is not to recover rent but damages due on an implied agreement to pay for the
use of the landlord's property, and arises rather out of what may be called a
quasi-tenancy than from the strict relation of landlord and tenant.
Thus, the
damages.36
landlord's
claim
against
That
common
law
distinction
section 59 of Part II which provides:
overholding
b etw een
tenants
rent
and
technically
damages
is
the
and
reflected
for
in
A landlord is entitled to comp ensation
premises after the tenancy has been terminated by notice.
(2)
The acceptance by a landlord of arrears of rent or compensation for use
or occupation of the premises after notice of termination of the tenancy
h a s b ee n g i v e n d o e s n o t o p e r a t e a s a w a i v e r o f t h e n o t i c e o r a s a
reinstatement of the tenancy or as the creation of a new tenancy unlesk the
parties so agree.
(3)
The burden of proof
been reinstated or a
(4)
A
landlord's
claim
for
arrears
of rent or compensation for use and
occupation by a tenant after the expiration or termination of the tenancy
may be enforced by action or on summary app lication as provided in
section 60.
the notice has
tenancy created
use
one
(1)
that
new
for
is,
been waived
is upon the
occupation of
or the tenancy has
person so claiming.
T h e purp ose of sectio n 59(1) is no t clear.
It m igh t h av e b een th o ugh t th at m ak in g
th e resid en tial ten an cy a m atter o f co n tract w o uld h av e th e effect of elim in atin g
th e la n d lo rd 's rig h t a t c o m m o n la w to co m p en sa tio n fo r u s e an d o cc u p a tio n ; an d
s e c tio n 5 9 (1 ) w a s an atte m p t to p re s e rv e th e co m m o n la w p o sitio n .
If th at is th e
c a s e , it is so m e w h a t n a rro w in its te rm s .
I t p r o v i d e s f o r c o m p e n s a tio n o n ly a f te r
th e ten an cy h as b ee n term in ate d b y n o tice b u t d o es n o t p u rp o rt to giv e a tig h t to
c o m p e n sa tio n w h e re a te n an c y fo r a te rm h a s ex p ire d . 37
In o u r v ie w , se ctio n 5 9 (1 )
should clearly set out the rights of the landlord in this situation.
It is also a feature of the common law that an action for compensation for use
an d o ccu patio n w ill lay on ly so lo ng as th e lan d lo rd co n tin ues to treat th e
occupant as a tenant.
W h e n a lan d lo rd co m m en ces p ro ceed in gs fo r p o ssessio n ,
h e is tak en to h av e e lecte d to treat th e occup an t as a tresp asser an d h is righ ts are
36.
At
com m on
law,
the
action
for
use
and
occupation
was
not
prim arily
directed against the
overholding tenant, bu t h ad a m u ch w id er ap p licatio n .
T h e t e n a n c y c o u ld o n ly b e c re a te d b y d e e d
and, w here parties purpo rted to create the tenancy by less form al m eans, the landlord’s claim w as
one for use and occupation.
The aim of s. 10 (2) of
the L andlord and Tenant A ct is to fix the m easure of
dam ag es for u se an d o ccu p atio n at th e rent purp orted to be reserved by th e less fo rm al arrangem en t.
37.
S.
59
(4 ),
w h ich
r e la t e s
to
the
procedure
of
t h a t “ a l a n d l o r d ’ s c l a i m f o r .. . c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r
or term ination of the tenancy m ay be enforced ...” (em phasis added).
-2 0 0-
enfo rcin g
use and
a
c laim
for
o ccu p a tio n b y
c o m p e n s a t io n ,
h o w e v e r , p r o v id e s
a ten a n t a fter th e ex p ira tio n
put on yet another basis. Woodfall states:38
By issuing and serving a writ in ejectment, the claimant elects to treat the
defendents therein named as trespassers, on and from the day mentioned in the
writ: and he cannot sue them as tenants for use and occupation subsequent to
that day.
But the rent which became due before the day mentioned in the writ of
e je ct m en t m a y b e r ec ov er ed in a n a c ti o n fo r u se a n d occup at io n (wh er e t h e
d em is e w as no t b y d ee d) , n o tw it h st an d in g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n e je ct m en t .
Th e
remedy for the occupation on and subsequent to the dote mentioned in the writ
is by an action for mesne profits ...39
I t s e e m s , t o u s , u n d e s i r a b l e t h a t th e o l d d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r u s e
and o ccup ation and m esne profits sho uld b e m aintained and w e have concluded
th at th e lan d lo rd 's e n title m e n t to c o m p e n satio n s h o u ld c o n tin ue so lo n g as th e
ten an t is in o ccu patio n , n o tw ith stan d in g th e fact th at p ro ceed in gs fo r p o ssessio n
may have been commenced.
In
the
subm ission s
which
we
received, a
nu m ber
of
landlords
urged
that
they
should b e entitled to claim do ub le rent against o verho lding tenants "just like
la n d lo rd s in M an ito b a."
T h at w o u ld seem to b e a re fe re n ce to s e ctio n s 5 2 an d 5 3
of The Landlord and Tenant Act of Manitoba, 40 which are comparable to sections 16 and 17
of the B ritish C olum bia A ct.
T h ose landlords w ho m ade such sub m ission s w ere,
ap p a re n tly , un aw are of th eir po ssib le righ ts un d er sectio n s 16 an d 1 7 .41
We
co n sider th e lan dlo rd's claim for do ub le rent to be an archaic and in ap p ro p riate
rem edy.
W e h av e n o q uarrel w ith th e pro po sitio n th at th e lan d lo rd sh o uld be
e n title d to fu ll co m p en satio n fo r an y lo sses w h ich h e m ay su ffer w h e n a te n an t
o v e rh o ld s; b u t to fix h is co m p en sa tio n at "d o ub le re n t" is , at b es t, a cru d e atte m p t
to d o ju s tic e .
T o t h e e x t e n t t h at th e d o ub le re n t re m e dy acts as a p e n alty w hich
w ill d e te r t e n a n t s f r o m o v e r h o l d in g , i t s e e m s in a p p ro p ria te th a t it s h o u ld g o to th e
landlord .
T he m odern tendancy is that actions for pen alties be pursued by public
prosecutors and that proceeds go to the C row n.
W hile the qui tam actio n still
re m ains in existen ce,42 th e situatio n s in w h ich
it is available have steadily
38.
N . 35 supra, 444.
39.
See B irch v. W right (1874) 1 T.R. 378; Jones v. C arter 1846), 15 M . & W . 718; Franklin v. C ater, (1845) 1 C.B. 750.
40.
R .S.M ., c 136, ss. 52, 53.
41.
The applicability of those sections is discussed in C hapter I.
42.
S. 36 of the Interpretation A ct, R .S.B.C . 1960 c. 199, provides:
W h ere
any
p ec u n iary
p en alty
or
any
fo rf e itu re
is
im p o sed
fo r
any
c o n trav en tion
of
an y
A ct,
th en , if n o o th er m o d e is p resrib ed fo r th e recov ery th ereo f, th e p en alty o r fo rfeitu re is rec o v er ab le
w i t h c o s ts b y c i v i l a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g a t t h e s u it o f th e C r o w n o n ly , o r o f a n y p r iv a te p a rty s u in g
a s w e l l f o r t h e C r o w n a s f o r h i m s elf, in a n y f o r m a llo w e d in s u c h c a s e b y th e la w o f th e p r o v i n c e ,
before any C ou rt h aving jurisdiction to the am ou nt of the p enalty in cases o f sim ple contract, upon
t h e e v i d e n c e o f a n y o n e c r e d i b l e w i t n e s s o t h e r t h a n t h e p l a in t i f f o r p a r t y i n t e r e s t e d ; a n d i f n o o t h e r
pro vision is m ade for th e appro priatio n of su ch p enalty o r fo rfeitu re, one-half thereof belongs to
th e C r o w n , an d th e o th er h al f b e lo n g s to th e p riv a te p la in tif f (if a n y) a n d if th e re is n o n e th e w h o l e
belongs to he C row n.
43.
But see Partnership A ct, R .S.B.C . 1960 c. 277, s. 77.
-2 0 1-
narrow ed. 43
W e have reco m m ended earlier
Tenant Act should not be preserved in the proposed Act.
that
section s
16
and
17
of
the
L andlord
and
An
ov erho lding
tenant
presents
serio us
p rob lem s
to
th e
lan dlo rd
w h en
he
h as
re-let th e p rem ises to a se co n d ten an t ass u m in g th at it w o u ld b e a v ailab le.
W e a re
told
that it is
not uncommon
for the
incoming
tenant to
arrive
at the
prem ises,w ith a van load of furn iture an d then fin d he is n ot able to m ove in
b ecau se a previo us ten an t has no t vacated .
In th ose circum stan ces th e in co m in g
ten an t, if altern ativ e p rem ises are n o t im m ed iate ly av ailab le , faces th e n ecessity o f
p u t t i n g h i s g o o d s i n s t o r a g e a n d a r r a n g in g f o r s l e e p i n g f a c ili t i e s u n t i l t h e p r e m i s e s
or alternative accom m odation b ecom es available.
The extra costs likely to be
in c u r re d a r e o b v i o u s . I t s h o u l d b e p o in t e d o u t th a t s u c h a s it u a t io n is n o t a lw a y s
th e f a u lt o f th e o u tg o in g te n a n t .
H e m a y b e a t th e m e rc y o f a fu r n itu r e m o v e r
w h o has failed to tu rn up .
It seem s to be the practice am ong som e m oving
companies to "over book" to protect themselves against cancellations.44
L andlords
w ish
to
avoid
their
exposure
to
liability
to
the
inco m ing
ten an t
in
these circum stances.
Som e have suggested that the Landlord and Tenant Act should provide
tha t a n o u t go in g t e n a n t b e o b lige d t o va c at e th e p re m ise s b y 6:00 p .m . o n th e last
day of the tenancy.
W e fail to see h o w such a p ro vision w ould solve the problem .
O t h e r la n d lo r d s h a v e s u g g e s t e d th a t th ey b e g iv e n im m u n it y f r o m a n a c t io n b y th e
incom ing tenant, and that tenant should be com pelled to sue the overholding
tenant directly for any dam ages wh ich he m ay have suffered.
W e reject that
su ggestion .
I n m a n y c a s e s , th e o v e r h o l d i n g t e n a n t m a y b e " j u d g m e n t p r o o f . "
In
su ch circum stan ces w h y sh o uld th e lan d lo rd , w h o allo w e d th e o verh o ld in g ten an t
i n t o p o s s e s s i o n i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e , a n d h a s h a d a c o n t i n u i n g r e la t io n s h ip w it h h i m ,
b e p re fe rre d o v er th e in co m in g te n an t w h o co n tracted w ith th e lan dlo rd in g o o d
faith an d h ad n o d ea lin g s w h atev er w ith th e ov erh o ld in g ten an t.
M oreover, there
s e e m s t o b e n o r e a s o n w h y t h e l a n d l o r d , if s u e d b y t h e i n c o m i n g t e n a n t , s h o u l d
n o t b e ab le to jo in th e o v erh o ld in g te nan t as a th ird party.
L an d lo rd s seem to b e
un aw are of the existence of this rem edy so their right to third p arty proceedings
might usefully be set out specifically in the proposed Act.
1.
Section 59(1) be preserved in the proposed Act but modified as follows:
(a)
The right of the landlord to compensation for use and occupation of premises after a tenancy has expired should be
included;
(b)
The landlord's entitlement to compensation should continue so long as the overholding tenant is in possession,
notwithstanding the commencement of proceedings for possession, and should be considered to be damages.
2.
The provision in the proposed Act comparable to section 59 be subject to those provisions relating to tenant security.
3.
The proposed Act provide that in any action by a tenant against a landlord for failure to deliver possession of the premises, the
landlord is entitted to join an overholding tenant as a third party.
44.
See letter in C onsum er R eports, N ov./73, p. 658.
-2 0 2-
CHAPTER XIII
A.
CONCLUSION
A
w id e
v a rie ty
of
re c o m m e n d atio n s
have
been
m ade
sum m ary is set out below.
In each case, the Chapter
recommendation may be found in the body of the Report is indicated.
Chapter I
in
th is
R e p o rt
and
and page at which
a
a
The Landlord and Tenant Act
1.
Part II of the existing Landlord and Tenant Act be repealed and replaced by a new Landlord and
Tenant Act relating only to residential tenancies (hereafter "the proposed Act").
2.
The proposed Act contain the provieione of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act, as modified by the
recommendations made in this Report.
3.
The proposed Act contain a provision comparable to section 3 of Part I.
4.
The proposed Act incorporate by reference sections 12, 12, 14, and 33.
5.
Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act be preserved as a separate Act to be known as the
"Commercial Tenancies Act."
Chapter II
Scope of the Proposed Act
1.
The scope of the proposed Act be the same as the scope of Part II and its provisions should not extend to occupancies which, at
common law, are treated as licences.
2.
Assuming the presumption contained in section 35 of the Interpretation Act were reversed in accordance with earlier
recommendations of this commission, the proposed Act contain no provision that the Act is not binding on the Crown.
3.
The proposed Act contain a statutory definition of the term "caretaker's suite" and provide that it is included in the definition
of "residential premises;" but the recommendations relating to tenant security should not apply to the caretaker's suite.
4.
The definition of "residential premises" in the proposed Act continue to include mobile homes and "pads" until specific legislation
is enacted with respect to tenantlies in mobile home parks.
5.
The definition of "residential premises" in the proposed Act not contain any exemption based on the amount of rent payable.
-2 0 3-
Chapter III
Resolution of Disputes - The Rentalsman and the Courts
1.
In the proposed Act an official known as the rentalsman be given exclusive jurisdiction over, and functions related to, the following
matters involving the landlord and tenant relationship:
(a)
the disposition of rent deposits;
(b)
the disposition of damage deposits;
(c)
a landlord's failure to provide essential services;
(d)
a landlord's failure to effect repairs;
(e)
the imposition of discriminatory rent increases;
(f)
the determination of the nature of "hidden" rent increases;
(g)
the supervision of the disposition of dbandoned goods;
(h)
the making of all possession orders; and
(i)
certain advisory, investigatory, mediatory, arbitrative and educative functions.
2.
There should be no right of appeal from a decision of the rentalsman, and his decisions should not be reviewed in any court.
3.
Matters arising out of:
(a)
the proposed Act; and
(b)
the general law of landlord and tenant;
over which the rentalsman is not allocated specific jurisdiction, should continue to be decided in the courts.
4.
The courts should continue to have the power to decide on questions of possession of residential premises which may arise collaterally
in any other action.
5.
It should be made clear that the Provincial Court of British Columbia does not have exclusive jurisdiction over those matters
arising out of the landlord and tenant relationship which would be reserved for the courts if our recommendations are accepted.
6.
The rentalsman, in exercising his jurisdiction should attempt to observe the rules of natural justice as far as possible, but should
not be bound to act in accordance with the rules of evidence.
7.
The rentalsman, acting on the authority of an order of a Judge of a County Court, should have the powers of access to documents
and to premises, subject to the same limitations as to confidentiality, set out in section 85(4) to (8) of The Landlord
and Tenant Act of Manitoba.
8.
The rentalsman should have legal qualifications.
Mr. Paul D.K. Fraser in a dissent recommends that:
There should be a right of appeal from a decision of the rentatsman with respect to an order for possession; the appeal should be by why
of trial de novo to the Small Claims Division of the Provincial Court of British Columbia with no right of subsequent appeal.
-2 0 4-
Chapter IV
Tenant Security and Rent Control
1.
Subject to the following recommendations, sections 52, 55, 56, and 57 should continue to govern the termination of periodic
tenancies but with these modifications:
(a)
Section 55(1) should be amended to provide that four weeks' notice is necessary to terminate a weekly tenancy; and a
notice to terminate a weekly tenancy should be given on or before the last day of one week of the tenancy to be effective on
the last day of the week four weeks hence.
(b)
Where a landlord purports to terminate a periodic tenancy, the period of which is less than two months for any of the following reasons:
(i)
(ii)
The landlord bona fide requires the premises for occupancy by himself or his immediate family,
he shall give the tenant n6 less than two months' notice.
(c)
(d)
2.
If a tenant fails to pay his rent within three days of the time agreed on the landlord may make a written demand for
payment; and if the tenant fails to pay the rent within five days of that demand the landlord may:
(i)
serve a notice on the tenant terminating the tenancy, effective the last day of the rental period for which the rent
is unpaid; and
(ii)
apply to the rentalsman for all or part of such statutory rent deposit, as may have been made by the tenant.
Where the conduct of a tenant is such that a landlord would be justified in terminating a periodic tenancy and the quiet
enjoymentor safety or neighbouring tenants is impaired to the extent that it would be inequitable to them to permit such
conduct to continue, or the tenant is causing extraordinary damage, a landlord may with the consent of the rentalsman
and after such investigation or hearing and upon such terms and conditions as the rentalsman thinks proper, terminate
the tenancy upon such shorter notice, in prescribed form, as the rentalsman may allow; and that notice should not be
subject to further review by the rentalsman.
W hen a tenant receives a notice from his landlord terminating his periodic tenancy, that notice be subject to review by the
rentalsman who shall set aside the notice unless one or more of the following circumstances applies:
(a)
The notice was served in accordance with the foregoing recommendation for unpaid rent;
(b)
The tenant has failed to obey any court order related to his occupancy of the premises;
(c)
The conduct of the tenant, or persons permitted on the premises by him is such that the quiet enjoyment of other tenants
is disturbed;
(d)
Occupancy by the tenant has reauzted in deterioration of the premises beyond reasonable wear and tear;
(e)
The landlord bona fide requires the premises for occupancy by himself or his immediate family;
(f)
(g)
The tenant has failed to make an agreed statutory deposit with the rentalsman within 30 days of the commencement of
the tenancy;
(h)
The tenant has deliberately misrepresented the premises to a potential buyer or tenant;
-2 0 5-
(i)
The tenancy was for an "off season" period only, of premises otherwise used as a hotel or for recreational purposes; and
the tenant was aware of that fact at the time the tenancy commenced;
(j)
The premises are permanently occupied by a greater number of minors than is permitted by an express limitation in the
tenancy agreement.
(k)
The safety, or any other legitimate intereat of neighbouring tenants or of the landlord is seriously impaired by any act or
omission of the tenant or persons permitted on the premises by him.
3.
When a landlord delivers to a tenant a notice terminating a tenancy, the landlord shall, upon the request of the tenant and no later
than 48 hours after such request is made, deliver to the tenant, in writing, his reasons for termination along with particulars of
any alleged acts or omissions of the tenant.
4.
The notice referred to in the previous recommendation should be in a prescribed form clearly settint out:
(a)
the right of the tenant to written reasons and particulars for the termination; and
(b)
the right of the tenant to apply to the rentatiman for review of the notice and the time limit governing that application.
-2 0 6-
5.
A request to the rentalsman to review a notice terminating a tenancy should be made no later than 15 days before the date upon
which the notice purports to terminate the tenancy, except where there is a bona fide dispute as to whether the tenant has allowed
rent to fall into arrears, in which case the rentalsman may extend the time within which the tenant may request such review.
6.
Upon the expiration of a tenancy agreement for a term, the parties shall be deemed to have renewed the agreement on the same
terms and conditions, but as a tenancy from month-to-month, except where
(a)
circumstances exist which would justify the termination of a periodic tenancy and the landlord has delivered to
the tenant a written notice setting out his refusal to renew and the grounds therefor no less than one month before
the end of the term;
(b)
the tenant has delivered to the landlord, no less than one month before the end of the term, a written notice of his
intention to vacate the premises at the end of the term;
(c)
the parties have negotiated a new tenancy agreement.
7.
A notice delivered by a landlord pursuant to the foregoing recommendation should be subject to review by the rentalsman in the
same manner as if it had purported to terminate a periodic tenancy.
8.
Where a tenancy for a term is deemed to be renewed as a month-to-month tenancy, and a rental increase would have been
permissible had the original tenancy been from month-to-month, the landlord may require that the rent payable for the new tenancy
be at a higher rate but subsections (2), (3), and (4) of section 51 should apply to such increases.
9.
The proposed Act empower the rentalsman, on the complaint of a tenant that he has been discriminated against in the setting of
a reni increase with the purpose of dislodging him from the premises, the burden of proving which shall be on the tenant, to declare
that the increase is discriminatory and ineffective.
Chapter V
Security Deposits
1.
The landlord be permitted to require, at the commencement of a tenancy, that a tenant pay to the rentalsman a statutory rent
deposit of an amount less than or equal to the first month's rent, or a statutory damage deposit of an amount less than or equal
to one-half of the first month's rent, or both.
2.
No more than one statutory rent deposit and one statutory damage deposit may be required with respect to any one dwelling unit
regardless of the number of occupants.
3.
Except for statutory deposits, all security deposits, premiums, and bonuses be prohibited.
4.
The term "security deposit" be defined in a manner comparable to the following
... money or any property or legal right advanced or deposited under a rental agreement by a tenant or anyone on his
behalfs to a landlord or his agent or anyone on his behalf to be held by or for the account of the landlord, the primary function of
which is to secure the performance of any obligation under the tenancy agreement or the payment of a liability of the tenant or to
be returned to the tenant upon the happening of a condition and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this definition shall
include advance payments of the last month's rent, deposits for damage for which the tenant is responsible, deposits for failure to
pay rent, collateral contracts giving the landlord a right to demand consideration if the tenant quits early, and non-refundable
deposits, and requiring a rental payment early in a tenancy which is substantially larger than the others.
5.
The rentalsman hold all statutory deposits as trustee for the tenant, subject to any rightful claim by the landlord.
6.
The rentalsman invest all statutory deposits in securities permitted by the Trustee Act.
7.
Interest on statutory deposits be applied by the rentalsman to the costs of operation of his office.
-2 0 7-
8.
The statutory rent deposit be available to the landlord only with respect to claims for:
(a)
arrears of rent;
(b)
all or part of the final instalment of rent when a tenancy has been lawfully terminated; and
(c)
reasonable loss of revenue by a landlord arising out of the unlawful termination of a tenancy by a tenant.
9.
Upon the delivery of a notice by a tenant lawfully terminating a tenancy, the tenant may, in writing in prescribed form consent to
immediate payment of the statutory rent deposit to the landlord and when such consent is delivered to the landlord he should be
deemed to have received the amount of the rent deposit toward the satisfaction of such rent as may be or become payable.
10.
Upon presentation by the landlord of the tenant's written consent given in accordance with the foregoing recommendations the
rentalsman should pay to the landlord the statutory rent deposit.
11.
The statutory damage deposit be available to the landlord only with respect to claims for losses arising out of the tenant's failure
to observe the statutory duty imposed on him by section 49(2) to repair damage caused by his wilful or negligent conduct or that
of persons who are permitted on the premises by him; and it shall not be available with respect to the cost of cleaning or the breach
of any covenant in the tenancy agreement relating to the use and maintenance of the premises which the rentalsman determines is
unreasonable.
12.
A landlord may assert a claim on a statutory deposit by delivering to the rentalsman
(a)
the tenant's written consent to the claim;
(b)
a notice of claim;
(c)
a copy of a summons or writ for a claim relating to the statutory deposit,
no later than 15 days from the termination or expiration of a tenancy.
13.
Except where the tenant has consented in writing to the landlord's claim, the rentalsman, upon receiving a landlord's notice of
claim shall, if possible, determine if the tenant disputes that claim.
14.
If the landlord's claim is disputed the rentalsman shall determine the dispute in accordance with the recommendations relating to
procedure and disburse the statutory deposit accordingly.
15.
If the tenant cannot be found, he should be deemed to have disputed and the rentalsman may proceed to determine thi rights of the
landlord on that basis in the absence of the tenant.
16.
If, after 15 days hove elapsed and no notice of claim has been delivered to the rentalsman by the landlord, the rentalsman shall,
upon being satisfied that the tenancy has in fact terminated or expired, pay to the tenant, upon his application, the statutory deposit
held.
17.
The rentalsman may, at any time, pay the statutory deposit to the tenant, upon receiving the written consent of the landlord.
18.
Rights against statutory deposits should be transferable
(a)
at the option of the tenant, from a previous tenant has moved and provided the previous landlord to an existing landlord
when the landlord has no adverse claims;
(b)
between landlords when the premises is sold.
Chapter VI
Contractual Nature of the Tenancy Agreement
-2 0 8-
1.
The term "material" not be defined for the purposes of section 42.
2.
The proposed Act contain a provision comparable to section 42 but with the following changes:
(a)
The breach of a material covenant by a landlord should not permit the tenant to withhold rent;
(b)
A breach of a material covenant or a condition by one party should entitle the other party to treat the tenancy agreement
as being at an end, except where it is a breach by the tenant and is one which would not justify the termination of a
periodic tenancy by the landlord.
3.
The proposed Act provide that a written tenancy agreement may contain, and that the tenant shall obey, all reasonable obligations
or restrictions, which are not inconsistent with the Act, whether denominated,by the landlord as "rules" or otherwise, concerning
the tenant's use, occupation, and maintenance of his dwelling unit, appurtenances thereto, and the property of which the dwelling
unit is a part.
4.
For the purposes of the foregoing recommendation a restriction or obligation is reasonable only if:
(a)
it is for the purpose of promoting the convenience, safety or welfare of the tenants of the property or the preservation of the
landlord's property from abusive use, for the fair distribution of services and facilities generally;
(b)
it is reasonabzy related to the purposes for which it is promulgated;
(c)
it applies to all tenants of the property in a fair manner; and
(d)
it is sufficiently explicit in its prohibition, direction or limitation of the tenant's conduct to fairly inform him of what he
must or must not do to comply.
5.
Subject to recommendations made elsewhere, the remedies available for breach of a tenancy agreement not be restricted to damages.
6.
The proposed Act provide that the validity of tenancy agreements for residential premises shall not be affected by the Lord's
Day Act.
7.
The proposed Act contain, in place of section 43 a provision incorporating the following principles: All covenants, material or
otherwise, and conditions relating to residential premises should be enforceable as between any person lawfully in possession of the
premises and any person having an interest in a reversion of the premises.
8.
The foregoing recommendation should not derogate from the rights of parties where, at common law, there exists privity of contract
or privity of estate.
9.
Any conflict between the Statute of Frauds and the proposed Act to be resolved in favour of the statute of Frauds.
10.
Any conflict between the Land Registry Act and the proposed Act to be resolved in favour of the Land
Registry Act.
11.
Section 36(2) be clarified so as to indicate that the liabizity of the tenant to pay rent for his occupancy ceases untit an executed
copy of the tenancy agreement is delivered to him.
12.
It be made an implied term of every tenancy agreement that, where services have been supplied by the landlord which have not been
provided for in the tenancy agreement, the landlord shall continue to supply those services.
13.
Landlords should not be permitted to contract out of the duties imposed under the foregoing recommendation.
-2 0 9-
-2 1 0-
Chapter VII
Statutory Duties and Prohibitions
1.
The proposed Act contain a definition of the landlord's obligation to repair in the following terms:
“A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining the residential premises in such a state of decoration and repair
as, having regard to the age, character, and locality of the premises, would make it reasonably fit for the occupation of a reasonably
minded tenant who would be likely to rent it; and for complying with health and safety standards, including any housing standards
required by law, and notwithstanding that any state of non-repair existed to the knowledge of the tenant before the tenancy
agreement was entered into.
2.
The proposed Act contain a provision which continues to impose on tenants an obligation, of the kind now imposed by section
49(2) of the present Act, to maintain ordinary standards of cleanliness.
3.
The proposed Act contain a provision which is similar to section 46(2) of the present Act, but which limits the time at which a
shorter period of notice may be agreed upon to the time at which notice of termination of the tenancy is gsven, whether by the
landlord or the tenant.
4.
The proposed Act contain a provision which permits a landlord, within 48 hours of the giving of notice of termination of a tenancy,
to enter upon the premises within three days after he has indicated his intention to exercise such right, for the purpose of inspecting
the premises for damage, provided that:
(a)
the landlord shall not exercise the right unless he has first notified the tenant at least eight hours before the time of entry,
unless some shorter period is agreed upon; and
(b)
the time of entry shall, unless otherwise agreed upon, be between eight in the forenoon and nine o'clock in the afternoon
as specified in the notice.
5.
The proposed Act contain a provision similar to section 48 in the existing Landlord and Tenant Act, with
an exemption for a landlord or tenant who changes a lock in a case of emergency where there is a threat to security, this exemption
not extending to lock on doors giving direct access to rented premises.
6.
The proposed Act, in addition to containing a provision comparable to section 47 of the existing Landlord and
Tenant Act, make it clear that a landlord does not have the right to restrict the access to rented premises of persons whose
visits are solicited by tenants of those premises.
7.
It be made clear in the proposed Act, that the element of mens rea must be present before an offence is committed under
the Act.
8.
The proposed Act, in the re-enactment of a provision comparable to section 49(1) and (2) of the present Act, also contain a
provision which exempts failure to discharge the obligations imposed by section 49(1) and (2) from penal consequences.
Chapter VIII
Rental Rates
1.
The proposed Act contain a provision comparable to section 51(1) as it was enacted in 1970, but amended to provide that in the
second and following years of a tenancy rent shall not be increased more often than once every year.
2.
The proposed Act include, for the purposes of the section comparable to section 51, a statutory definition of "rental increase" so
as to include within that term:
(a)
any additional charge levied by a landlord with respect to facilities previously enjoyed by a tenant at a lesser or no charge;
and
-2 1 1-
(b)
a withdrawal of services which results in the substantial impairment of the tenancy use and enjoyment of the rented
premises and associated services and facilities except where the added charge or withdrawal of services has been consented
to by the rentalsman in accordance with the following recommendations.
3.
Where a landlord wishes to impose an added charge with respect to facizities enjoyed in common by a number of tenants and which
had previously been enjoyed at a lesser or no charge; or when the landlord wishes to effect a withdrawal of services previously
available to a number of tenants in common and that withdrawal of services would substantially impair the use and enjoyment
of the premises and associated services and facilities, the landlord may apply to the rentalsman who may consent to the added charge
or withdrawal of services subject to such termi and conditions as it may seem just to impose.
4.
The definition of rental increase should not prejudice the right of a tenant to bring an action against the landlord for bredch of
contract.
5.
Nothing in the provision limiting the frequency of rent increases should restrict the right of landlord and tenant to agree, at the
commencement of a tenancy or at the time a rental increase is lawfully made, that if the number of permanent occupants of rented
premises increases the rent may be raised by an agreed amount for each additional occupant; and a rental increase made pursuant
to such an agreement should not constitute a rental increase for the purposes of that provision.
6.
The rentalsman should be given jurisdiction to resolve any dispute between landlord and tenant as to whether or not an additional
occupant is "permanent" for the purposes of the foregoing recommendation.
7.
The existing prohibition against acceleration clauses in tenancy agreements set out in section 50 be retained in the proposed Act.
Chapter IX
Abandonment
1.
The Act contain a definition of "abandonment" incorporating the following principles:
(a)
A landlord is entitled to treat rented premises as abandoned by the tenant when there has been absolute relinquishment
of the premises accompanied by an intention not to return;
(b)
Evidence of an intention not to return may be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the relinquishment
of the premises or from express, oral or written notice from tenant to landlord;
(c)
A failure to occupy or remain in possession of residential premises, combined with a failure to pay rent, for a period of
one month shall raise a presumption of abandonment;
(d)
So long as rental payments are in good standing, a presumption shall be related that the tenant has not abandoned the
premises.
2.
The onus of proof of abandonient should rest on the landlord, except where the tenant claims the landlord is in breach of a duty
to re-rent following abandonment.
3.
The remedy of distress be abolished with respect to residential tenancies.
4.
The proposed Act contain a provision comparable to subsections (2), (2.1), and (3) of section 94 of The Landlord
and Tenant Act of Manitoba but with the following changes:
(a)
The procedure to be followed at the sale should be left to the discretion of the rentalsman;
(b)
The landlord's right of set-off with respect to the proceeds of the sale should be general and include a right to set-off arrears
of rent which have accrued before or after the tenant went out of possession of the premises.
(c)
When goods have been abandoned the landlord should be obliged to check for encumbrances in the central registry if the
-2 1 2-
apparent value of any item exceeds $50;
(d)
if the landlord is in doubt whether an item exceeds $50 in value the rentalsman may value the item and his valuation
shall be binding on all parties;
(e)
If any encumbrances are registered the encumbrancer shall be notified by the landlord forthwith;
(f)
If the encumbrance is a security agreement, abandonment of the goods shall entitle the encumbrancer to treat the agreement
as being in default.
5.
The proposed Act provide that the ultimate purchaser of abandoned goods receives a clear title to them.
6.
In the proposed Act, section 45 of Part II be replaced by a provision incorporating the following principles:
(a)
Both parties to a tenancy agreement are under a duty to mitigate their damages;
(b)
The doctrine of surrender by implication of law be specifically abolished;
(c)
The landlord be under a duty to re-rent abandoned or vacated premises at an economic rent in order to mitigate lose
accruing consequent upon the abandonment or vacating of the premises;
(d)
if there is any deficit resulting from the re-renting, the tenant be liable therefor.
Chapter X
Discrimination in Landlord and Tenant Relations
1.
2.
Section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code
discrimination in the renting of premises on the basis of:
of
(a)
domestic arrangements;
(b)
sexual orientation;
(c)
membership or participation in an association of tenants.
British
Columbia
Act
be
expanded
to prohibit
The proposed Act contain a provision, comparable to section 58 of the present Landlord and Tenant Act,
requiring a landlord to post on rented premises a copy of section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code of
British Columbia Act.
Chapter XI
Collective Action by Tenants
The proposed Act contain a provision, comparable to section 60(2) of the present Landlord and Tenant Act, authorizing
class actions in disputes arising under the Act.
Chapter XII
Other Problems
1.
The Rent-Control Act be repealed.
2.
Any by-laws enacted under the authority of the Rent-Control Act be repealed.
-2 1 3-
B.
3.
Any bodies constituted under the authority of the Rent-Control Act be dissolved.
4.
Repeal of the Rent-Control Act should not affect power of municipalities to enact by-laws regulating occupancies by licensees, and
the Municipal Act and Vancouver Charter be amended to the extent necessary to effect this.
5.
The proposed Act specifically empower municipalities and other local governments to set, by by-law, standards relating to
accommodation and the provision of services so long as the standards established under such by-laws are not inconsistent with the
Act.
6.
The proposed Act contain no provision comparable to section 66, Part II.
7.
All by-laws enacted under the authority of section 66 be repealed.
8.
All landlord and tenant advisory bureaux constituted under the authority of section 66 be dissolved.
9.
Section 59 (1) be preserved in the proposed Act, but modified as follows:
(a)
The right of the landlord to compensation for use and occupation of premises after a tenancy has expired should be
included;
(b)
The landlord’s entitlement to compensation should continue so long as the overholding tenant is in possession, and should
be considered to be damages.
10.
The provision in the proposed Act comparable to section 59 be subject to those provisions relating to tenant security.
11.
The proposed Act provide that in any action by a tenant against a landlord for failure to deliver possession of the premises, the
landlord is entitled to join an overholding tenant as a third party.
Acknowledgments
T h ro ugh o ut
th is
stu d y
th e
C o m m issio n
h as
h ad
th e
b en efit
of
th e
view s
of
la rg e n u m b e r s o f p e o p le , an d w o u ld lik e to th a n k th o s e w h o s u b m itte d w ritte n
briefs and m ade oral presentations at the public hearings.
Those briefs and
presentations brought us to an awareness of the practicalities of day-to-day
landlord an d ten an t relatio n s w h ich w as of great im p o rtan ce in help ing U s to
formulate our recommendations.
The
C om m ission
has
also
been
very
able
assisted
by
a
research
team
c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s l e g a l s t a f f a n d m e m b e r s o f t h e F a c u lt y o f L a w o f
the University of British Columbia and their student research assistants.
O ur
w a rm e s t
th a n k s
go
to
Ar th ur
L.
C lo se,
th e
C o m m issio n 's
L eg al
R esearch
O f f i c e r , w h o w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f r o m t h e i n c e p t i o n o f t h e s t u d y f o r t h e c o o r d in a t i o n
o f all research an d up on w h om fell th e b urd en o f a sign ifican t p o rtio n of th e
research itself an d o f d raftin g a large p art o f th is R ep ort.
It is largely th ro ugh th e
u n s tin tin g tim e an d s k illed e ff o rt w h ich h e d ev o ted to th e s tu d y th a t w e w e re ab le
to meet our deadline.
M r.
C l o s e 's
b u rd en
was
co n sid erab ly
ligh ten ed
by
the
efforts
of
K e it h
B.
Farquhar, our new D irector of Research.
M r. Farquhar was responsible for
drafting a num ber of central chapters of the R epo rt, and assisted in the general
o rgan izatio n o f th e P ro ject, particu larly in its later stages.
W e are happy to
acknowledge his invaluable assistance.
We
extend
our
appreciation
-2 1 4-
to
Professor
L.
L.
Stevens
and
his
research
assistants, Ann e Stewart and G illian W allace,
and d etailed m aterial on the background to the
tenant security and security deposits.
for providing us
L andlord and Tenant
O ur thanks go also to Professor P. D. Leask
E llis, for the statistical com pilation s app earing in
w ith a n um b er of altern ativ e p ro ced ural m o d els fo r
tenant disputes, and for the research on the Manitoba rentalsman system.
and
this
th e
w ith co m prehensive
A ct, th e co n cept of
his research
assistant, Henry
R epo rt, for providing us
reso lu tio n o f lan d lo rd an d
R. C. BRAY
Chairman
A. A. ZYSBLAT
Commissioner
P. FRASER
Commissioner
P. D. K. FRASER
Commissioner
December 11, 1973.
-2 1 5-

document - British Columbia Law Institute

Transcription

Similar documents

Residential Eviction Mediations

Buy to let-Tips for investors

Weslayan Plaza - Regency Centers

Potter County Sales - Potter

The Marketplace @ Oaks

BLACKBUSH DROVE WHITTLESEY CAMBRIDGESHIRE PE7 2LJ

Flat 1, Serre Chevalier

Paseo Colorado 11x17 Lease Plan COMPLETE

jeffrey road alton parkway

Town Center at Sterling