Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
What happens in the event of a fire? Let's say a fire caused by lightning burns the place he is renting to the ground. That would immediately end the lease; as the item he is renting no longer exists.
Wouldn't the fact that it's now a case of the place he is renting for habitation is no longer suitable for habitation be the same idea?
|
http://www.slsedmonton.com/civil/lan...nd-tenant-law/
Quote:
|
If the residential premises are destroyed, or are so severely damaged that they cannot be fixed or the tenant cannot live there, then all further rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant under the tenancy agreement are cancelled. The event that caused the damage must not have been anticipated, or intentionally caused, by either the landlord or the tenant.
|
http://www.landlordandtenant.org/liv...ge.aspx?id=602
Quote:
Yes. If you stop paying rent you are at risk for being evicted for non-payment of rent. Even if you have to move out while the repairs are taking place you should still pay rent.
...
If the premises are completely destroyed by a disaster such as fire, it is likely that the lease agreement could be treated as frustrated (i.e., unable to be carried out) and the agreement will be over. However, if premises can be repaired so that the contract can continue, the contract will not be frustrated.
|
Yeah, if it's destroyed then it's gone, agreement is frustrated because the property no longer exists.
On the flip side, what if it's a gas leak that renders it uninhabitable but can be fixed in a few hours with an emergency visit from Atco (or whoever)? Obviously it's not reasonable that the agreement be declared frustrated just because it's uninhabitable for a few hours.
So it's not simply the fact it's uninhabitable that results in frustration of the agreement, it's the time frame involved as well.
So it's a question of what's a reasonable time frame to wait for damages to be repaired. I think as long as the landlord is making every possible effort to make repairs it would be unfair to have the agreement declared frustrated despite that.
In today's 1% vacancy it probably isn't an issue, but if it was the opposite where filling a vacancy was difficult, I think it's unfair that the tenant can just walk away from a legal agreement.
It's like the tenant expecting the landlord to be responsible if someone stole their bike while the bike was on the landlord's property.