Inside Storey
GETTING A MOVE ON
Redeveloping a site can be attractive when land is scarce, but a challenge when residents are involved BY TED McINTYRE WITH DAKK MARRELLO AND JOEY JAMIL
TIME IS PRECIOUS. You’ve submitted the required zoning and site-plan applications and have closed on a land deal with the intention of redeveloping a site. However, there are tenants in the existing building who don’t feel they’re obliged to leave. OHB discussed two such examples and the lessons that can be learned from such redevelopments with Joey Jamil, an associate with Robins Appleby Barristers + Solicitors, and Dakk Marrello, an independent paralegal with whom Robins Appleby regularly consults on problematic landlord-tenant files. OHB: NOT ALL TENANT RELOCATION NEGOTIATIONS GO SMOOTHLY. DAKK MARRELLO: “I had a
case where a developer purchased an Ontario property that offered temporary lodging. Let’s call it Motel X. ohba.ca
@onhomebuilder
Motel X had rooms that were rented by the day, with weekly and monthly discounts if the occupant stayed for longer periods of time. “With the intention of building a fair-sized low-rise condominium building, the developer purchased Motel X with the assumption that, since the property was a motel, Ontario tenancy laws did not apply. However, this is not a black-and-white issue. “Many developers, including the one in this scenario, have attempted to remove occupants from properties without seeking proper legal advice as a way to save time and/or money. If the removal goes well, a developer may save a few hundred dollars. But if the removal goes sideways, a developer may incur project delays, fines and legal bills totalling tens of thousands of dollars. “The developer approached me after taking steps to remove the occupants
from their rooms. At the time I got involved, there was one occupant left who refused to leave and threatened to delay the project indefinitely. “Assuming the occupants were not tenants seemed a fair position, given that the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) clearly states that it does not apply to hotels or motels. But this isn’t actually always the case, and a determination of whether or not a tenancy exists could take months, if not years. “If a tenancy is in question, the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) is the governing body responsible for making the final determination. And the LTB is always backlogged. “In Motel X’s case, one of their missteps was referring to the occupants as ‘residents’ in the letters they sent out, and reminding them that they would still have to pay ‘rent’ until the day they left. If a notice is being provided to occupants of temporary lodgings, it’s advisable to refer to them as guests who are paying a daily, weekly or monthly rate. But that wasn’t the case with Motel X, and copies of the letters were provided to police by the remaining occupant as a way of proving that she was a tenant, preventing her immediate removal. “Motel X also didn’t keep records of how long each occupant was in each room. The developer purchased the property for the sole intention of developing it, and didn’t check previous records of the property. This created a problem, as the remaining occupant claimed that she had lived there for years, in the same room, and the developer could not prove otherwise. “The lesson is that when purchasing a property, it’s helpful for the developer to know which rooms are occupied, how long they’ve been occupied by the same occupant and dates on which the occupants are scheduled to leave the property. “From my experience, the LTB will bend over backwards to help tenants. The best action a developer can take is to separate themselves from the process of removing occupants and to be careful what they tell ONTARIO HOME BUILDER FALL 2022
17