White v. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

Tenant wins · 2022-02-16

Adjudicator

Lauwers J.A.

Dispute

Tenant Rights

Landlord

U.T.R.C.A.

Tenant

J.W., S.W., G.W., P.S., E.S., L.A., S.W., K.P., T.P., J.O., C.T., B.N., J.N., B.P., T.U., B.H., N.H., J.C., J.C., D.M., N.M., S.D., C.G., J.M., C.D., R.B., R.B., D.F., D.F., M.L., P.W., G.C., M.G., P.K., B.K., L.D., F.V., F.S., G.T., D.B., L.P.

Landlord rep

Ian Wright

Tenant rep

Vedran Simkic, Matthew Helfand

What happened

Tenants applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board for an order that the Residential Tenancies Act applies to their tenancies and to require the landlord to allow them unfettered access to and occupation of their homes year-round. The lease limited occupancy to weekends during a three-month winter period. The Board ruled in favor of the tenants, but the Divisional Court allowed the landlord's appeal. The tenants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The ruling

The Court of Appeal allowed the tenants' appeal, finding that the occupancy limitation in their leases with the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority is void because it is inconsistent with the Residential Tenancies Act. The Court held that the Act establishes security of tenure and does not permit temporary or conditional occupancy arrangements in residential leases. The decision of the Divisional Court was set aside.