|
 |
| |
|
  |
February 14, 1992 |
 |
 |
| McBride vs. Comfort Living Housing Co-operative Inc. |
|
7 O.R. (3d) 394
[1992] O.J. No. 260
Action No. 572/91 |
|
Court of Appeal for Ontario,
Blair, Finlayson and Arbour JJ.A. |
|
 |
|
Hugh M. Evans, for appellant.
Larry J. Levine, Q.C., for respondent. |
|
| Landlord and tenant — Residential tenancies — Termination — Non-profit housing co-operative — Termination of rights of occupancy — No jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture under Landlord and Tenant Act — Equitable jurisdiction available to grant relief from forfeiture — Housing co-operative subject to rules of procedural fairness and natural justice — Co-operative Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 91 (now R.S.O. 1990, c. C.35) — Landlord and Tenant Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 232 (now R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7) — R.R.O. 1980, Reg. 547. |
|
| Real property — Co-operatives — Non-profit housing co-operative — Termination of rights of occupancy — No jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture under Landlord and Tenant Act — Equitable jurisdiction available to grant relief from forfeiture — Co-operative subject to rules of procedural fairness and natural justice — Co-operative Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 91 (now R.S.O. 1990, c. C.35) — Landlord and Tenant Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 232 (now R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7) — R.R.O. 1980, Reg. 547. |
|
| M was a member of a housing co-operative incorporated without share capital under the Co-operative Corporations Act. She resided in a residential unit in the building owned by the co-operative. After notice to her and after meetings of the board of directors and of the membership of the co-operative, her occupancy rights were terminated and she was asked to vacate her unit. She applied for an order granting relief from forfeiture under s. 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act . Her application was dismissed and she appealed. |
|
| Held, the appeal should be dismissed. |
|
| Under R.R.O. 1980, Reg. 547, M's residential unit in the co-operative is deemed not to be residential premises for the purposes of the Landlord and Tenant Act . The court below was correct in holding that there is no power under that Act to relieve against her forfeiture. Occupants like M whose occupancy rights are terminated, however, are not at the mercy of the membership of the co-operative. In a proper case, the courts will interfere with the internal proceedings of the membership and ensure that a member has been treated with procedural fairness and in accordance with the rules of natural justice. And, apart from the Landlord and Tenant Act , there remains the equitable jurisdiction of the court. In this case, M conceded that all proper steps had been taken to terminate her right to occupancy and she did not rely on the equitable jurisdiction of the court. Accordingly, her appeal should be dismissed. |
|
 Download PDF of full case |
|
|
|
|
|
