Tenancies and the Common Law (19:XIII): Difference between revisions

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= August 15, 2024}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = landlord}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = landlord}}


Since a tenancy agreement has elements of both contract and interest in land, privity of contract and privity of estate exists between the parties to the agreement. Covenants relating to either the estate or the agreement are enforceable  between  such  parties.  Where  either  the  reversionary  (landlord)  or  the  tenant  assigns  his  or  her interest,  privity  of  estate  only  exists  between  the assignee  and  the  remaining  original  party.  Terms  and covenants that run with (touch and concern) the land are enforceable between these parties. One of the more common situations involving a covenant running with the land is where a security deposit is paid to a landlord, and  the  property  is  then  subsequently  sold.  After  the building  is  sold  to  the  second  landlord,  the  security deposit obligations carry over to that second person. So a tenant who had lived in the building all along would be able to claim return of his or her security deposit from a new landlord, even though the tenant had originally paid the security deposit to a different person. See s 90 of the RTA regarding covenants that run with the land.
Subject to the ''RTA'', the common law respecting landlord and tenant applies (''RTA'', s 91).
 
A  sub-lessee  has  neither  privity  of  estate  nor  contract  with  the  head  landlord,  but  is  still  bound  by  all  the covenants in the original lease. 
 
Covenants in leases are independent at common law, so that one party’ s breach does not relieve the other party of  performance  obligations,  unless  the  lease  is  forfeited.  The  innocent  party  in  a  tenancy  breach  situation  isunder no duty to mitigate damages under the common law of property. However, s 7(2) of the RTA invokes a clear-cut  duty  to  do  so  in  a  residential  tenancy  (see  also  RTB  Policy  Guideline  5:  Duty  to  Mitigate).  For commercial tenancies (to which the RTA does not apply) the courts have begun to view them as contracts with all attendant rights and obligations, including the duty to mitigate where the plaintiff is seeking damages under contract (as opposed to property) law; see ''Highway Properties Ltd. v. Kelly, Douglas & Co. Ltd.'' (1971), 17 DLR (3d) 710  (SCC).  However,  there  appears  to  be  no  duty  to  mitigate where  the  landlord does  not  accept  the  tenant’s repudiation of the lease, and simply sues for rent as it comes due under the principles of property law. Should this situation arise, clients are strongly advised to consult an experienced lawyer.
 
== A. Common Law and Residential Tenancies ==
 
Subject to the RTA, the common law respecting landlord and tenant applies (RTA, s 91).
 
=== 1. General Effects of Breach of the Agreement ===
 
The  common  law  rules  of contract  respecting  the effect  of  one  party’s  breach  of  a  material term  on  the  other  party’s  performance  obligations  apply  to  a residential  tenancy agreement (RTA,  s  91;  see  also [[Introduction to Consumer Protection (11:I) | Chapter  11:  Consumer  Protection]]).  Thus,  material  terms  are dependent,  and  the  innocent  party  is  entitled  to  withhold  performance.  However, withholding  rent  because  a  landlord  has  breached  a  material  term  is  barred  by  the  RTA.  A tenant may withhold rent only as permitted by the RTA.
 
Under contract rules, a party may not be able to repudiate a contract due to another’s breach of a non-material term, but a right of “forfeit” can arise under tenancy common law. Under s  45(3)  of  the  RTA,  where  the  landlord  breaches  a  material  term,  the  tenant  may  elect  to treat the agreement as ended (an Arbitrator may have to decide whether a term is “material”).  The  landlord  may  end  the  tenancy  only  in  accordance  with  the  RTA,  because  of abandonment, or due to an agreement. The RTA does not abolish the doctrines of privity of estate and contract, but it enables a person having a reversionary interest (i.e. a landlord) and a “person  in  possession”  to  enforce  against  each  other  all  conditions  and  terms,  whether material or not, contained in the tenancy agreement for the possessed rental unit (s 83(4)).
 
See also RTB Policy Guideline 8: Unconscionable and Material Terms.
 
=== 2. Status of Other Statutes and Legal Doctrines ===
 
==== a) Interesse Termini: Tenant Rights before Possession ====
 
At  common  law,  where  an  agreement  for  lease  is  entered  into,  or  a  tenancy agreement executed, and a tenant has not entered and taken possession, that tenant has only an ''interesse termini'', i.e. contractual rights. The tenant may not exercise rights incidental to the possession of property by suing a person in possession of or upon the rental unit for trespass, assigning, or subletting the rental unit. However, s 16 of the  RTA provides  that  property  and contractual  rights  under a  residential  tenancy agreement take effect at law from the date specified in the tenancy agreement as the commencement  of  the  term  of  the  tenancy  agreement.  The  tenant  may  obtain  an order respecting his or her right to possess or occupy the rental unit. Problems will arise  when  another  tenant  has  come  into  possession;  the tenant  with  the  earlier commencement date may prevail over the later tenant, but the tenant in possession will probably be allowed to remain in possession.
 
==== b) Implied Surrender: Abandonment ====
 
At common law, a lease may be ended by “surrender”  due  to  conduct  of  the parties,  consistent  only  with  a “merging”  of  the  tenancy  interest  back  into  the landlord’s  (owner’s)  estate.  Surrender  occurs,  for  example,  where  the  tenant abandons  and  the  landlord  repossesses  and  re-rents.  Generally,  no  further  rent  or compensation  for  the  unexpired  portion  of  the  tenancy  may  be  claimed  on surrender.  However,  following ''Highway  Properties  Ltd.  v.  Kelly, Douglas  &  Co.  Ltd.'' (above), claims for lost rentals are allowed, provided the landlord notifies the tenant that the surrender is accepted subject to rights to claim for lost future rent. 
 
Abandonment  is  cause  for ending a  tenancy,  but regardless  of  the  wording  of  the tenant’s notice, or the wording of the acceptance of surrender, or the absence of a notice, abandonment gives rise to the landlord’s duty to mitigate.
 
==== c) Frustration ====
 
At  common  law,  the  doctrine  of  frustration  of  contracts  does  not  apply  to  a conveyance  of  an  estate  (e.g.  a  lease).  However,  there  are  cases  that  have considered how the doctrine might apply to a lease or tenancy agreement where the thing transferred is completely destroyed (e.g. a suite is destroyed by fire or water).
 
The doctrine  of frustration  now  applies  to  residential tenancy  agreements  (RTA,  s 92) and commercial leases (''Commercial Tenancy Act'', s 30). If some unforeseen event occurs that prevents the agreement from being performed, it will be considered to have been frustrated and is thereby terminated at the time of the event. Frustration will  rarely  be  found  where  the  event  appears  to  be  largely  self-induced  (and  the result of acts or omissions which might themselves constitute a breach of covenant, e.g.  a  municipal  closure  order  made  pursuant  to  a  fire  bylaw  where  the  landlord failed  to  install  sprinklers).  If  the  event  is  totally  self-induced,  the  perpetrator  will not  be  able  to  establish  frustration.  Two  factors  to  consider  beyond  the  normal contract  law  concerns  are:  1)  the  length  of  the  unexpired  term  at  the  time  of frustration, and 2) the possibility of an alternative use of the rental unit.
 
==== d) Mitigation of Damages: Duty to Re-rent ====
 
Residential  landlords  and  tenants  have  a  duty  to  mitigate  their  damages  where either  has  a  claim  against  the  other  for  losses  due  to  the  other’s  breach  of  the agreement  (RTA,  s  7(2)).  Where  a  tenant  ends  the  tenancy  illegally,  or  vacates  or abandons the rental unit other than in accordance with the RTA, the landlord has a duty  to  re-rent  the  rental unit  at  a  reasonable  price. Failure  to  do  so  may  result  in reduced compensation. See RTB Policy Guideline 5: Duty to Mitigate Loss.
 
==== e) The Right to Distrain the Tenant’s Personal Goods ====
 
Under the RTA, a landlord has no right to distrain (i.e. seize) a residential tenant’s personal goods for default in rental payment, nor may the landlord  seize a tenant’s personal goods to satisfy another claim or demand, unless the seizure is made by a person authorized by a court order or an enactment  (s 26(3) and (4)). If a landlord seizes goods contrary to s 26(3), the tenant may apply to the court for  an order to return the property, or for a monetary claim for damages. Note that a landlord may distrain the tenant’s goods where the tenant has abandoned the rental unit. 
 
== B. Damages, Debts, Compensation, and Specific Performance ==
 
Where an enforceable term or condition has been breached, a number of remedies are available. The availability  of  remedies  is  restricted,  however,  by  the type  of  breach  (i.e.  material  term,  or  not)  and conduct involved.
 
=== 1. Termination (Ending the Tenancy) ===
 
A  term’s  breach  may  entitle  the  innocent  party  to  put  an  end  to  the  agreement,  and  either regain possession (landlord) or vacate the rental unit (tenant). Compensation or damages, in addition  to  termination,  may  also  be  available.  However,  it  is  risky  to  assume  a  breach  is fundamental  enough  to  put  an  end  to  an  agreement,  for  if  the  party  who  makes  that assumption is wrong, they may be held to be in breach and liable for damages. It is better to have such matters adjudicated.
 
=== 2. Damages ===
 
A person suffering loss due to the breach of an express, implied, or statutory term may apply for damages through dispute resolution under s 58(1) of the RTA, or, if not precluded by the RTA, by civil action in Small Claims or Supreme Court. Damages may be available where the tenant harms or destroys property. See RTB Policy Guideline 16: Claims in Damages.  


=== 3. Debt ===
== A. Implied Surrender: Abandonment ==


Under  s  6  of  the  RTA, action  for  debt  may be taken for  rent arrears, e.g. where  there is  an early ending of the tenancy by the tenant and loss of rent.  
At common law, a lease may be ended by “surrender” due to conduct of the parties, consistent only with a “merging” of the tenancy interest back into the landlord’s (owner’s) estate. Surrender occurs, for example, where the tenant abandons the rental unit, and the landlord repossesses and re-rents. Generally, no further rent or compensation for the unexpired portion of the tenancy may be claimed on surrender. However, claims for lost rentals are allowed.  


=== 4. Duty to Mitigate ===
Abandonment is cause for ending a tenancy, but regardless of the wording of the tenant’s notice, or the wording of the acceptance of surrender, or the absence of a notice, abandonment gives rise to the landlord’s duty to mitigate.


Under  s  7(2)  of  the  RTA,  any  time  a  monetary  claim  arises  between  landlord  and  tenant, both have a duty to mitigate damages (i.e. minimize losses). For example, if a tenant breaks a lease that was for a fixed term of one year, the landlord could sue the tenant for the balance of  the  rent  payments.  Nonetheless,  the  landlord  has  a  duty  under  s  7(2)  to  try  to  minimize his  or  her  loss  by  re-renting  the  rental  unit  as  soon  as  possible,  rather  than  just  suing  the tenant for the whole year’s rent. See RTB Policy Guideline 5: Duty to Mitigate Loss.  
== B. Frustration ==


=== 5. Compensation ===
The doctrine of frustration applies to residential tenancy agreements (''RTA'', s 92) and commercial leases (''Commercial Tenancy Act'', s 30). If some unforeseen event occurs that prevents the agreement from being performed, it will be considered to have been frustrated and is thereby terminated at the time of the event. Frustration will rarely be found where the event appears to be largely self-induced (and the result of acts or omissions which might themselves constitute a breach of covenant, e.g., a municipal closure order made pursuant to a fire bylaw where the landlord failed to install sprinklers). If the event is totally self-induced, the perpetrator will not be able to establish frustration. Two factors to consider beyond the normal contract law concerns are: 1) the length of the unexpired term at the time of frustration, and 2) the possibility of alternative use of the rental unit. If the lease is one to which the ''RTA'' doesn’t apply, by common law the doctrine of frustration would not apply.


An  Arbitrator  may  award “compensation”  to  an  innocent  party  (a  tenant  or  landlord)  who has suffered direct loss due to a “contravention” of the RTA by the other party.
== C. The Right to Distrain the Tenant’s Personal Goods ==


Persons  merely  in  possession  can  enforce  a covenant  or  condition  of  a residential tenancy agreement, take the above action, or be acted against.Specific performance may also be an applicable remedy. This does not apply to an illegal squatter.  
Under the ''RTA'', a landlord has no right to distrain (i.e., seize) a residential tenant’s personal goods for default in rental payment, nor may the landlord seize a tenant’s personal goods to satisfy another claim or demand, unless the seizure is made by a person authorized by a court order or an enactment (s 26(3) and (4)). If a landlord seizes goods contrary to s 26(3), the tenant may apply to the court for an order to return the property, and/or for a monetary claim for damages. A landlord may, where personal property has been abandoned by the tenant, remove it from the residential property, and must deal with it in accordance with the ''RTR'', which impose specific obligations on landlords in these circumstances. See Sections 24 and 25 of the ''RTR'' for specific obligations of landlords.


Section  95  is  a  penalty  section,  which  states  that  breaches  of  the  listed  sections  (mostly landlord  breaches)  are  punishable  by  fine. While  it  would  appear  that  there  has  been  little resort  to this  offence  section,  it  may  be  prudent  to  advise  landlords  of  this  potential consequence of a breach (see [[Dispute Resolution in Residential Tenancies (19:X)#1. Disputes Covered by Dispute Resolution | Section X.A.1: Disputes Covered by dispute resolution]]).
== D. Duty to Mitigate ==


== C. Class Action ==
Under s 7(2) of the ''RTA'', any time a monetary claim arises between landlord and tenant, both have a duty to mitigate damages (i.e., minimize losses). For example, if a tenant breaks a lease that was for a fixed term of one year, the landlord could sue the tenant for the balance of the rent payments. Nonetheless, the landlord has a duty under s 7(2) to try to minimize their loss by re-renting the rental unit as soon as possible, rather than just suing the tenant for the whole year’s rent. A landlord who makes such a claim must prove that they took reasonable steps to re-rent the unit and was not able to do so. See RTB Policy Guideline 5: Duty to Mitigate Loss.


A class action is an action taken by one or more persons on behalf of a number of people who have a common  interest  in  that  action.  Where  the  matter  involves  more  than  one  person  with  a  common interest, an order may be made affecting all persons who have the same common interest. Note that for  hidden  rent  increases,  the  RTB  may  limit  the  application  of  its  order  to  one  or  more  of  the affected rental units. If several tenants seek a joint hearing, under the RTA, an Arbitrator may hear the cases jointly without the consent of the landlord.
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters15-23}}

Latest revision as of 08:56, 30 August 2024

This information applies to British Columbia, Canada. Last reviewed for legal accuracy by the Law Students' Legal Advice Program on August 15, 2024.



Subject to the RTA, the common law respecting landlord and tenant applies (RTA, s 91).

A. Implied Surrender: Abandonment

At common law, a lease may be ended by “surrender” due to conduct of the parties, consistent only with a “merging” of the tenancy interest back into the landlord’s (owner’s) estate. Surrender occurs, for example, where the tenant abandons the rental unit, and the landlord repossesses and re-rents. Generally, no further rent or compensation for the unexpired portion of the tenancy may be claimed on surrender. However, claims for lost rentals are allowed.

Abandonment is cause for ending a tenancy, but regardless of the wording of the tenant’s notice, or the wording of the acceptance of surrender, or the absence of a notice, abandonment gives rise to the landlord’s duty to mitigate.

B. Frustration

The doctrine of frustration applies to residential tenancy agreements (RTA, s 92) and commercial leases (Commercial Tenancy Act, s 30). If some unforeseen event occurs that prevents the agreement from being performed, it will be considered to have been frustrated and is thereby terminated at the time of the event. Frustration will rarely be found where the event appears to be largely self-induced (and the result of acts or omissions which might themselves constitute a breach of covenant, e.g., a municipal closure order made pursuant to a fire bylaw where the landlord failed to install sprinklers). If the event is totally self-induced, the perpetrator will not be able to establish frustration. Two factors to consider beyond the normal contract law concerns are: 1) the length of the unexpired term at the time of frustration, and 2) the possibility of alternative use of the rental unit. If the lease is one to which the RTA doesn’t apply, by common law the doctrine of frustration would not apply.

C. The Right to Distrain the Tenant’s Personal Goods

Under the RTA, a landlord has no right to distrain (i.e., seize) a residential tenant’s personal goods for default in rental payment, nor may the landlord seize a tenant’s personal goods to satisfy another claim or demand, unless the seizure is made by a person authorized by a court order or an enactment (s 26(3) and (4)). If a landlord seizes goods contrary to s 26(3), the tenant may apply to the court for an order to return the property, and/or for a monetary claim for damages. A landlord may, where personal property has been abandoned by the tenant, remove it from the residential property, and must deal with it in accordance with the RTR, which impose specific obligations on landlords in these circumstances. See Sections 24 and 25 of the RTR for specific obligations of landlords.

D. Duty to Mitigate

Under s 7(2) of the RTA, any time a monetary claim arises between landlord and tenant, both have a duty to mitigate damages (i.e., minimize losses). For example, if a tenant breaks a lease that was for a fixed term of one year, the landlord could sue the tenant for the balance of the rent payments. Nonetheless, the landlord has a duty under s 7(2) to try to minimize their loss by re-renting the rental unit as soon as possible, rather than just suing the tenant for the whole year’s rent. A landlord who makes such a claim must prove that they took reasonable steps to re-rent the unit and was not able to do so. See RTB Policy Guideline 5: Duty to Mitigate Loss.

© Copyright 2024, The Greater Vancouver Law Students' Legal Advice Society.