1.      The Landlord requested a review of TSL-01347-19 issued on March 5, 2019.

2.      The Landlord sought a review on the ground that the member committed an error of fact which amounted to an error of law because when she dismissed the Landlord’s application for not being compliant with s. 48(5) because the landlord was corporation and as the section provides, a corporation cannot serve an n12 notice for Landlord’s own use.

3.      The Member’s found that the  rental unit is owned in part by the Landlord, MD and a numbered company.  This is correct, however, the actual Landlord id MD who has been the Landlord since the rental unit was purchased. 

4.      The Landlord testified that he has owned the property since 2003 when he purchased it under power of sale. 

5.      He acknowledged that in 2007, he transferred 50% of the ownership of the property to a numbered company that is owned in part by his father and in part by him and the transfer was done for cash flow purposes. The Landlord was unable to produce a parcel register to prove ownership, however he was able to produce other documentation that confirmed that the Landlord is the legal owner.

6.      Section 48(5) does not require the property to be wholly owned by an individual, 48(5)(a) only requires it to owned in part by individual.  I am satisfied that the rental unit is owned in part by an individual therefore his request to review is granted.

7.      Having granted the Landlord’s review, a hearing de novo ensued on his Notice to Terminate at End of the Term for Landlord’s or Purchaser’s Own Use (N12) application.

8.      The Landlord testified that he served the Tenant with an n12 because he recently added to their young family.  His wife gave birth to a baby and they also have a toddler.

9.      When his wife was pregnant, they decided to sell their condo save the money and buy another property. As time went on and the housing market got more expensive, they decided to terminate the tenant’s tenancy and take back possession of the rental unit. they prefer the main floor because it is all one level and they have two small children.

10.   Their preference is to occupy the main floor though eventually they may want to terminate the tenancy of the upper floor tenants as well.

11.   He and his wife decided to sell their 1-bedroom condo when he discovered that his wife was pregnant.  They banked the money and moved in temporarily with his in laws north of the city.  They require the rental unit for their own personal use in order to accommodate their growing family. 

12.   He testified that he and his wife share one room in his in-laws home with their new born son. When they are not at his in-laws, they stay with his father who has a little more space.

13.   The Tenant believes that the Landlord has intentionally targeted her because he finds her to be a difficult tenant and he has complained to his father about her.

14.   She believes that he is motivated by malice and will simple re-rent the unit after he evicts her.  The Tenant testified, that the Landlord’s father, led her to believe that she could stay in the rental unit.

15.   Section 48(1) of the Act rrequires that, in order to be successful in this application, the Landlord must satisfy me that at the time of the service of the N12 Notice, he had a good faith intention to move into the unit.

16.   The relevant case law is clear that the test of good faith is genuine intention to occupy the residential unit, and not the reasonableness of the Landlord’s decision (Feeney v. Noble (1994), 19, O.R. (3d) (Div. Ct.).  However, I may draw inferences about the Landlord’s good faith from the Landlord’s conduct and motives (Fava v. Harrison 2014 ONSC 3352 (CanLII), 2014 ONSC 3352 (ONSC DC).

17.   I found the Landlord likewise credible when he described the living arrangement for his family.  Anticipating that they would be allowed to take back possession of the rental unit, they enrolled their son in a school near by and occasionally drive from York region to midtown Toronto so their son can attend school.

18.   The Landlord is entitled to take possession of his property for his own personal use and the Tenant’s have not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Landlord gave notice in bad faith.  Their assumption that he does not like them does not amount to bad faith.  It may very well be that he does not like them, the Tenant seemed credible in her belief that the Landlord does not like her or at the very least finds her difficult but there is no evidence to suggest that he will not move in.

19.   If he has not already done so, the Landlord is required to pay the Tenant compensation equal to one month of rent on or before March 31, 2020.  If the Landlord does not provide the compensation, the Tenant is instructed to notify the Board.

20.   The Tenant has resided in the rental unit for a long time.  She lives on fixed income and has built her life around the neighbourhood where the rental unit is located.  Her doctors and other services are within a short walk or drive of the rental unit.  She also testified that she has roommate because she is not financially able to afford to maintain the rental unit without assistance.

21.   I have considered all of the disclosed circumstances in accordance with subsection 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'), and find that it would not be unfair to postpone the eviction until April 30, 2020 pursuant to subsection 83(1)(b) of the Act. By providing the Tenant with a delay to the end of April 2020, she has now had more than 12 months to organize her affairs and arrange for alternate suitable housing.