In late summer 2014, three international students responded to a rental listing placed by a local owner on the University of Toronto Housing Services off-campus site. When students visited the house (in Toronto annex and divided into several apartments) to sign a rental agreement, the landlord instead provided them with a “reservation contract” for a nine-month occupancy period that required tenants to pay their rent in an upstream increments plan. The document also stated that the Residential Tenancies Act of 2006 (“RTA”) did not apply, that the owner was an “innkeeper” and that students had to work several hours a week as part of their agreement. 7) You cannot sublet, illegal activities, ETC: you cannot sublet, or let someone else occupy the house or replace as a tenant, unless you have our written permission in advance. The house can only be used as a place of residence for the tenants mentioned in the rental agreement. They must not use it for inappropriate or offensive purposes, including activities that violate state law or regulations. In addition, all activities of you or one of your hosts who violate the contract are deemed to terminate the contract and immediately terminate the lease. Possession of the house obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is also considered to be the termination of the contract and the immediate termination of the lease. The applicant stated that, as of May 2005, he was the Board`s safe tenant for approximately one year. He argued that the Commission was in breach of its duty of reparation and was therefore entitled to damages. His argument was that the lease was a safe lease, but the authority that was removed from that proposal and the nature of the lease purportedly granted is now opaque. The applicant argued that the property was in serious forfeiture. The Commission submits that the applicant`s allegation was in fact an attempt to pressure the Commission to provide additional shelter.
The court did not hear detailed evidence on this matter and did not find any findings on the rights and wrongs of the alleged state of reparation. The applicant`s argument was succinct (1) that there was a contractual relationship between the Commission and the applicant; (2) Council made housing available to the applicant; 3. The conditions under which accommodation was granted, if one looked at the reality and removed the choice of words and the pretext, were likely to create a lease agreement, since it was not relevant that the Commission had no rights to the property. In essence, the essential elements of the applicant`s content related to the “Bed and Breakfast Agreement” and the fact that no payment was transferred directly from the applicant to the owner of the property.