Real Estate

Ontario month-to-month lease

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 12th, 2019 5:25 pm
Tags:
Member
Mar 16, 2011
411 posts
207 upvotes
Why is it even a one year lease if it is also a month to month. Weird set up but if you are sure it's a 30 day lease, why even ask the question here?
Deal Fanatic
Jul 3, 2011
5768 posts
2931 upvotes
Thornhill
Nonsense!

What you're essentially saying is that the government forces a landlord and tenant to complete a term lease to it's last day. Such a thing would be unconstitutional even if
it was contained within the ACT which it isn't. Thus this:

"Termination by agreement
37 (3) A notice of termination need not be given if a landlord and a tenant have agreed to terminate a tenancy. 2006, c. 17, s. 37 (3)."



When the two parties of a contract agree to cancel that contract, the government has zip, zero, nada say about it.

A lease is a contract between two people and may be broken by them at anytime as long as they are in agreement.

The purpose behind the RTA's rules is to establishe the parameters by which ONE party to the contract must advise the other party that they're exercising their right to bring the
contract to it's natural end that the other party must accept.

Thus, the 60 day rule extends to the right of ONE party only to terminate the contract legally.

This particular contract, drafted by the landlord, grants the right to the tenant to terminate with just 30 days noice. To be clear, the landlord has by this clause waived their right
to 60 days notice.


OP, whomever you spoke with doesn't know what they're talking about.

If there is an objection by the landlord with your notice he has to go through the Landlord Tribunal while you're in possession of the unit. The court only enters the picture once you're out of the unit.

I suspect they misunderstood your question.

Edited to add:

OP, that person you spoke with may want to acquaint themself with this and in particular the sections: When a Tenant Wants to Move: Ending a Tenancy Agreement Early and
When a tenant wants to move General Rules

http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/documents/ltb ... 0(EN).html
Last edited by licenced on May 18th, 2018 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
May 12, 2014
2610 posts
2344 upvotes
Montreal
mcbg1 wrote: [Ontario landlord and tenant board] said even though the lease I signed gives me the option to leave with a 30-day notice, the law is 60 days so the landlord can take me to small claims.
If they say so, obviously you should take their word for it. But frankly, this is so weird. Normally, for such "protection" type laws, the "stronger party" (landlord here) can always agree to grant more protection or more favorable terms to the "weaker party" (tenant here). So the landlord and tenant would NOT be able to agree on a 90 day minimum notice, but the landlord could certainly bind himself to a 30, or even 1 day notice.

That is certainly the way it works in Quebec, and it is very surprising to see that this is not the case in Ontario. With respect, this is horrible policy. Even landlords need to be nannied now?
Jr. Member
Jan 31, 2013
115 posts
105 upvotes
Toronto
licenced wrote: Nonsense!

What you're essentially saying is that the government forces a landlord and tenant to complete a term lease to it's last day. Such a thing would be unconstitutional even if it was contained within the ACT which it isn't.
That's clearly not what I'm saying. No-one is "forced" to fulfill the terms of a lease. The law, however, does have something to say about ending a lease early.
licenced wrote: Thus this:

"Termination by agreement
37 (3) A notice of termination need not be given if a landlord and a tenant have agreed to terminate a tenancy. 2006, c. 17, s. 37 (3)."
Okay... but so what? In this situation, the landlord clearly has not agreed to terminate the tenancy. Furthermore, if on your (incorrect) theory the landlord did agree to terminate the tenancy at the time the agreement was signed, this would be illegal: see subsection 37(5).

In any event, the real issue here is whether the notice period can be shortened under the RTA in cases where the parties have not mutually agreed to terminate a tenancy. The RTA strongly suggests this is not possible. Subsections 37(1) and 37(2) state that "A tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with this Act", and that a "tenancy is terminated on the termination date set out in the notice" only "If a notice of termination is given in accordance with this Act". For notice to be given in accordance with the RTA, it must meet the requirements in section 44 (i.e. 60-day notice for a monthly tenancy, etc.) among other things.
licenced wrote: This particular contract, drafted by the landlord, grants the right to the tenant to terminate with just 30 days noice. To be clear, the landlord has by this clause waived their right to 60 days notice.
To be clear, this provision in the agreement appears to be in contravention of the RTA.

(Note: none of this is legal advice, nor should be relied upon by the OP or others as such.)
Deal Fanatic
Jul 3, 2011
5768 posts
2931 upvotes
Thornhill
Reakt0r wrote: That's clearly not what I'm saying. No-one is "forced" to fulfill the terms of a lease. The law, however, does have something to say about ending a lease early.
Of course the LL hasn't agreed to terminate early. That is what the N11 is for - a mutual agreement with 30 days to effect that right extended to the tenant by the landlord. That's the only way to take advantage of the 30 days.
Okay... but so what? In this situation, the landlord clearly has not agreed to terminate the tenancy. Furthermore, if on your (incorrect) theory the landlord did agree to terminate the tenancy at the time the agreement was signed, this would be illegal: see subsection 37(5).
And nowhere did I say that the landlord agreed to terminate the agreement within the lease, did I?
In any event, the real issue here is whether the notice period can be shortened under the RTA in cases where the parties have not mutually agreed to terminate a tenancy. The RTA strongly suggests this is not possible. Subsections 37(1) and 37(2) state that "A tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with this Act", and that a "tenancy is terminated on the termination date set out in the notice" only "If a notice of termination is given in accordance with this Act". For notice to be given in accordance with the RTA, it must meet the requirements in section 44 (i.e. 60-day notice for a monthly tenancy, etc.) among other things.....
There ya go , see the underlined in your own statement.
It is not. It does not say the tenant may terminate with 30 days notice, it does not say the landlord and tenant agree to a termination date in advance it says the tenant may exercise a 30 day notice.

Tenant may do that via the N11. tenant may not do hat via N9 because that is the ONE (unilateral) party authority vested by the RTA to state the that the contract will legally not be renewed.

Get it now?

But if you want to split hairs, the entire agreement is null and void if it wasn't on the standard form.
Jr. Member
Jan 31, 2013
115 posts
105 upvotes
Toronto
Can you translate your post into English? Thanks.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
11587 posts
7842 upvotes
Edmonton
Reakt0r wrote: Can you translate your post into English? Thanks.
Can you specify who and which post you're referring to? Thanks.

C
[OP]
Temp. Banned
Dec 20, 2005
1019 posts
383 upvotes
Well I don't know what to think anymore...
Deal Addict
May 12, 2014
2610 posts
2344 upvotes
Montreal
mcbg1 wrote: Well I don't know what to think anymore...
Honestly, for the reasons stated above, I would be surprised if a court ruled against you.

However, the safe way to play it is to listen to the tribunal's advice line. If they are like Quebec, they sometimes give out erroneous or incomplete advice. But it's still more likely to be right than anyone here.


Unless you're willing to pay for real legal advice and thereby get the protection of liability insurance.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 14, 2008
8305 posts
1872 upvotes
Ontario
I don’t understand why this is becoming so challenging. IMO, it sounds like the person at the board didn’t quite understand your scenario because the agreement is written in an odd way.

Month-to-month leases exist, and from what I can tell, the protections exist to provide a minimum of guarantees to tenants. If a LL wants to formally and in writing give the option that improves upon this benefit (the tenant only has to give 30 days notice instead of 60), the LL is shit out of luck and would have a fun time arguing the tenant breached contract - when the tenant did no such thing.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Feb 25, 2018
566 posts
212 upvotes
You can break any lease with 30 days notice: Just tell the LL you lost your job and have no money!

Image
[OP]
Temp. Banned
Dec 20, 2005
1019 posts
383 upvotes
Bumping this because I'm still not sure what to think of the whole situation.
Deal Addict
Mar 20, 2017
1257 posts
1007 upvotes
mcbg1 wrote: I called the Ontario landlord and tenant board this morning. They said even though the lease I signed gives me the option to leave with a 30-day notice, the law is 60 days so the landlord can take me to small claims.

However, I have the option to ask the landlord to assign my lease to someone else. She has 7 days to reply. If she doesn't reply or says no, I can give my 30-day notice. So that's what I'm gonna do.

Just sucks that she has to make it so complicated when she is the one who prepared the lease and decided on the terms in the first place...
People who answer the phone calls at LTB are not qualified to give you such advice.
They are just regular office managers who are hired to collect forms and provide info about that process.
The judge is qualified to make such decisions only, or a lawyer.

Of cause it is always better to directly communicate LL and try to prove her your point. Without complete confidence, LLs are not going to LTB/SCC to spend their time, money and emotions.
Worst case scenario is that you'll pay those missing extra months and 30% of lawyer fees, if LL uses it.
Newbie
Jan 11, 2017
81 posts
5 upvotes
Hi Guys,

Need advice here. I am living in an apartment unit for the past 2 years and the lease was over after 1 year then its month-month. Recently gave them N9 notice to end the tenancy around Mar 5 and requested them to accept the last date as 10 May. But they refused and said you can get the new tenant as an assignment. But later on refused to accept New assignment as well and when I confronted what the law says, they just said give them 30 days notice N11. I asked them if this is mutual on email, but they didn't respond.

My question is:

Do you see any issue in the above conversation?
Can I give the notice N11 any day of the month for 30 days or it has to be from 1 to 1 date only? After the last day notice, I won't be liable for rent, am I right?
Can I give them the notice on 3rd April to stay till 2 May ?

Thanks
Nitin

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)