An Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) tribunal has ordered the eviction of a former building superintendent who remained in his employment-provided accommodation for more than six months after being terminated from his position.
The tribunal ordered the former employee, E.B., to vacate his superintendent unit by March 24, 2025, and to pay $13,597.10 in compensation and filing fees to the landlord.
E.B. had been employed as a superintendent at a North York residential complex since March 2023, with accommodation provided as part of his employment package. His employment was terminated on Aug. 6, 2024, but he continued to occupy the unit without paying rent.
The tribunal noted that while normally superintendents must vacate their premises within seven days of employment termination, the landlord had extended this period, offering E.B. the right to remain until Aug. 31, 2024.
Jurisdiction limitations
The tribunal emphasized that it lacked “statutory jurisdiction to explore the reasons for the termination of the superintendent’s work, such as a claim for wrongful dismissal,” effectively separating employment issues from tenancy matters.
This jurisdictional boundary highlights a critical consideration for employers who provide accommodation as part of employment contracts – termination and housing issues are handled under different legal frameworks.
Compensation ordered
The tribunal calculated daily compensation at $65.42, based on a monthly rent of $1,990, and ordered E.B. to pay $13,411.10 for the period from September 1, 2024, to March 24, 2025, plus an additional $186 for the landlord’s application filing costs.
Ongoing compensation at the daily rate of $65.42 was also ordered for any days E.B. remained in the unit beyond March 5, 2025, until actual vacancy.
Relief from eviction denied
Despite acknowledging E.B.’s difficult personal circumstances, including having “two daughters to take care of, does not have a job and has no place to live,” the tribunal declined to grant relief from eviction.
The tribunal member stated: “I am sympathetic to the Tenant that he has two daughters to take care of, does not have a job and has no place to live. But the Tenant has paid no rent to the Landlord since his employment was terminated. He cannot expect the Landlord to provide him free accommodation indefinitely.”
This reasoning emphasizes that personal hardship alone is insufficient to overcome the legal consequences of employment termination when housing is tied to that employment.
Enforcement provisions
The order specified that if E.B. did not vacate by the deadline, the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) was directed to enforce the eviction beginning March 25, 2025.
The ruling also noted that any unpaid amounts would begin accruing interest at 5% annually beginning March 25, 2025, and that the eviction order would expire on September 25, 2025, if not filed with the appropriate Court Enforcement Office.
Implications for employers
This case serves as a reminder for HR professionals and employers who provide housing as part of employment packages to ensure clear documentation regarding the conditional nature of such accommodations and the processes following employment termination.
The separation of employment law and residential tenancies law means that wrongful dismissal claims proceed separately from housing disputes, potentially creating complex situations for both employers and employees when employment-based housing arrangements end.
The case also demonstrates the tribunal’s approach to balancing humanitarian considerations with property rights, showing that while personal circumstances are considered, they may not override the fundamental principle that superintendent accommodations are tied to active employment.
For more information, see Finch Main Gardens Ltd. v Belfon, 2025 ONLTB 20890 (CanLII).
