Parking Space Dispute:

Question: What can a tenant or landlord in Ontario do if a lease is silent about parking space access but the landlord previously allowed the tenant to use parking, and then tries to remove that access?

Answer: In Ontario, Hall Paralegal Services can help you assess how the Landlord and Tenant Board may apply estoppel by conduct when your lease does not expressly address parking, but the landlord’s prior conduct led you to rely on parking access, since the Board has treated consistent permission and reliance as an implied term and may order continued access plus possible rent abatement for interference.   If you are dealing with parking ticketing, refusal of access, or a sudden attempt to withdraw “free” spots, gather the lease, any written messages, photos or proof of longstanding use, bylaw ticket records, and a timeline of when permission was granted and later revoked.   To discuss your situation and next steps for a T1/T2 application or response strategy, call (519) 258-2400.

Decision Summary: PT v. VR and LR, CET-74735-18 (Re)

The case of PT v. VR, et al, 2018 CanLII 88578, addressed the dispute over, among other things, the use of parking spaces by a tenant.  As stated within the factual summary of the case, the landlords attempted to repeal permission deemed previously granted for use of parking spaces by the tenant.  The decision of the Landlord Tenant Board resulted in an Order allowing the tenant continued use of the parking spaces.  Additionally, the tenant received a small rent abatement for the period of interference in the rights of the tenant.

Interestingly, the Landlord Tenant Board decision relied upon the principle of estoppel by conduct whereas the terms of the lease itself were silent regarding use of parking spaces and thus the Landlord Tenant Board deemed, per the estoppel by conduct principle, that the previous conduct of the landlord, by permitting the use of parking spaces where the use of the parking spaces was previously relied upon by the tenant, confirmed that the use of parking spaces was intended as an implied term of the lease.

The contested legal issues involved within this case included:

• Parking Space Rights:
  The central issue was whether the tenant had the right to use parking spaces, given that the lease terms were silent on this matter.
• Principle of Estoppel by Conduct:
  The previous allowance of parking space use as provided by the landlord and the reliance by the tenant upon ithe use of parking space became a critical factor within the decision of the Landlord Tenant Board.
• Rent Abatement:
  The entitlement of the tenant to a small rent abatement as part of the broader relief granted by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Factual Details and Decision Insights

The tenant enjoyed the use of unassigned parking for four years prior to the dispute arising with the landlord.  Subsequently, the landlord sought to withdraw access to free parking and began to call local bylaw enforcement for ticketing vehicles of the tenant or guests of the tenant.

• Estoppel by Conduct:
  The Landlord Tenant Board applied the principle of estoppel by conduct while citing the applicable precedent decision of Feather v. Bradford (Town), 2010 ONCA 440, and explaining that although the lease may lack express permission granted to the tenant for using of parking spaces, the permission to use parking spaces was deemed implied due to the consistent previous use of the parking spaces; and accordingly, it was deemed improper for the landlord to subsequently revoke the permission.
• Legal Strategy:
  The tenant found succcess in this case by effectively demonstrating that the previous conduct of the landlord, being the previous permission or permission implied by allowing parking usage without previously raising the issue, established an implied term within the lease.  This assessment of prior conduct highlights the importance of scrutinizing historical behaviour.
• Future Applications:
  The strategic approaches used, such as emphasizing previous permissions and reliance upon the previous permissions provides a legal strategy roadmap for similar cases where lease terms are ambiguous yet historical conduct indicates implied terms.

The official case judgment is available here: PT v. VR and LR, 2018 CanLII 88578

Gaining an understanding of this case can help landlords and tenants to appreciate and respect the rights, responsibilities, and duties, that exist within a residential tenancy relationship.  Explore the full official case judgment as provided above for more detailed information and specific legal arguments.

Conclusion

In summary, the decision of the Landlord Tenant Board emphasizes the application of the estoppel by conduct principle in cases where lease terms lack explicit detail regarding certain rights to use amenities and the wrongful conduct arising from interference in the right to use amenities.  This decision underscores the importance of historical conduct in defining tenant rights and may contribute to an understanding of the likely outcome of future cases with similar circumstances.  Strategic understanding and informed decision-making can significantly assist in managing related legal challenges.