New Owners Ordered To Pay Fine To former Tenants

[rustled]

Let's stick to the topic. If it's impossible to present a logical defence for these homeowners who didn't behave responsibly, it may be because there is no logical defense.

Yes, the RTA/RTB are IMO skewed unfairly against homeowners and landlords. However, these particular homeowners are the architects of their own problems.

The regs are for owners use. As long as its not being re rented it falls within that. If they take a week or 6 months to move in. They are in fact acting in good faith.

I didn't claim they weren't acting in good faith, and that's not what the RTB said, either.

The RTB can only rule on what's in front of them.

The complaint was in front of them: the new owners hadn't moved in.

The RTB had given the new owners ample opportunity to provide an explanation. The new owners did not respond, and it is NOT the RTB's job to figure out why.

[1669]

The RTB can only rule on what's in front of them.

The complaint was in front of them: the new owners hadn't moved in.

The RTB had given the new owners ample opportunity to provide an explanation. The new owners did not respond, and it is NOT the RTB's job to figure out why.

Yes, the NDP has changed the law to reverse onus, which mean tenants can apply for a financial windfall for the low cost of the $100 filing fee. Just fling a little mud and hope it sticks, to hell with evidence.

In many instances reverse onus provisions have eventually been revoked, they are a perversion of justice.

[69cutlass]

The regs are for owners use. As long as its not being re rented it falls within that. If they take a week or 6 months to move in. They are in fact acting in good faith.

I didn't claim they weren't acting in good faith, and that's not what the RTB said, either.

The RTB can only rule on what's in front of them.

The complaint was in front of them: the new owners hadn't moved in.

The RTB had given the new owners ample opportunity to provide an explanation. The new owners did not respond, and it is NOT the RTB's job to figure out why.

This is straight from the RTA.

Good faith requirement
The landlord must intend to use the rental unit for the reason stated on the notice to end tenancy. Landlords must not have dishonest motives for ending the tenancy.

Tenants who have evidence that a tenancy was ended in bad faith can apply for dispute resolution.

See that little thing called evidence...

[rustled]

I didn't claim they weren't acting in good faith, and that's not what the RTB said, either.

The RTB can only rule on what's in front of them.

The complaint was in front of them: the new owners hadn't moved in.

The RTB had given the new owners ample opportunity to provide an explanation. The new owners did not respond, and it is NOT the RTB's job to figure out why.

This is straight from the RTA.

Good faith requirement
The landlord must intend to use the rental unit for the reason stated on the notice to end tenancy. Landlords must not have dishonest motives for ending the tenancy.

Tenants who have evidence that a tenancy was ended in bad faith can apply for dispute resolution.

See that little thing called evidence...

As I said earlier: the tenants could easily have provided evidence these new owners had not moved in - because these new owners had not moved in.

There are many examples of problems with the RTA/RTB being unfair to owners and landlords.

This particular case, IMO, is NOT one of those examples.

This particular case is an example of people who didn't do what they should have done (pick up the mail related to their property and respond to notices of registered mail), and then complained about the consequences of not having done what they should have done.