1. The Member made an error of law and fact in his determination of the definition of Landlord that was clearly an unreasonable finding considering the evidence which was before the Member.
2. On or about April 10, 2916, the Applicant delivered a notice to the tenants advising them that he would take over management of the rental unit. The Application collected rents from the tenants and acted as the landlord in dealing with the issues raised by the tenants and collected the rents. See Schedule “A”.
3. On or about November 9, 2017, the Applicant brought a L2 application to End a Tenancy and Evict a Tenant based upon an N12, Notice to End your Tenancy Because the Landlord, a Purchaser or a Family Member Requires the Rental Unit.
4. The Member relied upon Section 2(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act which states, “the owner of a rental unit or any person who permits occupancy of a rental unit”.
5. Firstly, the Member determined that the Applicant was not a landlord since the rental unit was owned by a corporation and the Applicant was a shareholder of the said corporation.
6. Secondly, the Member determined that the Applicant was not a landlord because he was not the one who “permitted” occupancy of the rental unit to the tenant since the lease dated October 1, 2012 indicated that landlord at that time was Viet Anh Compact Ltd./1437619 Ontario and that this was the entity that permitted occupancy of the rental unit. See Schedule “B”.
THE LAW & FACTS
7. Section 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act defines Landlord as follows:
8. In Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp., 2010 ONCA 468, Lang J.A. described the proper approach to interpreting the RTA:
The modern rule of statutory interpretation requires that “the words of an Act … be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”: Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex,  2 S.C.R. 559, at para. 26, citing Elmer A. Driedger, Construction of Statutes, 2d ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983), at p. 87. Given the remedial nature of the Act, its provisions must be interpreted liberally to ensure the realization of its objectives. See Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Airlines International Ltd.,  1 S.C.R. 3, at para. 16.
9. The Applicant submits that the Member failed to consider the Sections 2(b) and (c) in his determination that the Applicant was not the landlord.
10. The Applicant submits that the definition must be interpreted broadly and in accordance with all the subsections contained in Section 2(1) and at the very least, the Applicant would be defined as an assign or personal representative of Viet Anh Compact Ltd./1437619 Ontario since he had provided the tenants with notice of same and had taken on the responsibilities of landlord including collecting rents from the tenants.
11. In the alternative, Section 2(1)(a) specifically refers to the word “permits” rather than “permitted” and the Applicant submits that the intent of the act directs the Board to determine whether the landlord had this authority at the time of service of the N12 notice upon the tenants rather than at the time when the tenants signed the lease in 2012.
12. In referring to Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp., the Court of Appeal directs that “the words of the Act be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense” and therefore, the Applicant submits that by changing the wording contained in the section from “permits” to “permitted”, the Member failed to follow the spirit and intent of the legislation.
13. At paragraph 11 of the Member’s determinations, the Member stated, “…they were not formally notified that the Landlord would take over her responsibilities”. The Applicant submits that this is a clear error of fact since the Applicant had provided the Member with a copy of Schedule “A” that was served upon the tenants in or about October 10, 2016 prior to the service of the N12.