Rescinding an N12

From Riverview Legal Group

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2022-08-11
CLNP Page ID: 1658
Page Categories: [Personal Use Application (LTB)]
Citation: Rescinding an N12, CLNP 1658, retrieved on 2022-08-11
Editor: Sharvey
Last Updated: 2021/09/20

TST-99179-18-RV (Re), 2019 CanLII 134563 (ON LTB)[1]

17. Pursuant to paragraphs 57(5)(a) and (c) of the Act, because the Landlord advertised the unit for rent and for sale within one year of the Tenants’ vacating, he is presumed to have given the notice in bad faith unless the contrary is proved on a balance of probabilities.

18. The Landlord testified that he served the N12 notice because his daughter had just got a job close to the location of the rental unit. A few weeks after he served the N12 notice, his daughter got a different job elsewhere and no longer required the rental unit. The Landlord did not, at any time, tell the Tenants that his daughter no longer required the rental unit and he did not serve any new notices of termination.

19. Based on the uncontested facts, I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities that the Tenants vacated the unit because they received the N12 notice and that the Landlord served the N12 notice in bad faith. The Landlord’s legal representative submitted that the Tenants should have been aware that the Landlord no longer required the unit for his daughter because the Landlord sent a message in June 2018 indicating that he is selling the unit. However, the Landlord made no clear statement to the Tenants about the N12 notice. Having served the N12 notice and not having rescinded it, the Landlord cannot say that it was not effective as a reason to vacate the unit. From the Tenants’ perspective, they received a notice of termination and the Landlord consistently pursued vacant possession until they vacated. As for bad faith, the Landlord testified that he had changed his mind about requiring the unit for his daughter a few weeks after serving the N12 notice. From that moment onward, he no longer, in good faith, required the unit for his daughter’s residential use. His intention changed while the Tenants were still in possession of the unit and were indicating to him that they did not want to vacate. His continued insistence that they vacate the unit, without rescinding the N12 notice, is an indication of his bad faith.

20. The Landlord’s daughter did not move into the rental unit.

21. Based on the above, I find that the Tenants have established all of the criteria set out in subs. 57(1) of the Act.


SOT-01920-09 (Re), 2010 CanLII 12027 (ON LTB)[2]

1. On April 20, 2009, the Landlord served the Tenant with a Notice to terminate a tenancy at the end of the term for Landlord’s own use (Form N12) with a termination date of June 30, 2009.

2. Soon after receiving the notice, the Tenant negotiated with the Landlord that the tenancy should not terminate on June 30, 2009 but should extend to March 2010.

3. In or around June 2009, the Tenant bought a house and on June 26, 2009, the Tenant served the Landlord with a 30 days notice of his intention to move out of the rental unit on August 1, 2009. The Tenant moved out of the rental unit on or around August 1, 2009.

4. I find that the Tenant did not move out of the rental unit because of the notice served on him by the Landlord but because he had purchased a house. His move from the rental unit was therefore not because of the N12 served on him by the Landlord but because he gave the Landlord a notice that he was moving out of the rental unit.

5. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the Landlord gave the Tenant a notice of termination of the tenancy in bad faith. I find that the agreement that the parties had reached to terminate the tenancy in March 2010, rescinded the N12 that the Landlord had served on the Tenant.


CET-74655-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88564 (ON LTB)[3]

5. The T2 Application is largely the same as the T6 Application, except for the complaint that the Tenants received too many N12 notices and it was claimed the N8 notice was served in retaliation for the Tenants’ complaints.

6. Counsel for the Landlord explained in writing that the N12 notice sent with his letter dated March 7, 2018 had an incorrect termination date on it thus necessitating the need for it to be rescinded and replaced with a correct N12, which he did in March 2018.

7. I am satisfied the Landlord was not acting in bad faith with respect to the N12 notice served on March 8, 2018 and replaced four days later, and the N8 notice to terminate the tenancy served on March 12, 2018 for persistently late payment of rent. The Landlord was entitled to serve the notices to enforce his rights under the Act – the Tenants having had a history of being late with rent payments. Further, I accept the explanation of counsel for the Landlord regarding the need for a replacement of the N12 initially given to the Tenants. Thus, I am not satisfied the Landlord acted so as to substantially interfere with the Tenants and harass them with respect to the N8 and N12 notices.



  1. 1.0 1.1 TST-99179-18-RV (Re), 2019 CanLII 134563 (ON LTB), <>, retrieved on 2021-09-20
  2. 2.0 2.1 SOT-01920-09 (Re), 2010 CanLII 12027 (ON LTB), <>, retrieved on 2021-09-20
  3. 3.0 3.1 CET-74655-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88564 (ON LTB), <>, retrieved on 2021-09-20