# Modern Approach — Worked Examples Applied to RTA and general interpretation questions. --- ## Example 1 — Bad Faith under RTA s.51 **Question:** What does "in good faith" require under RTA s.51 for a landlord ending a tenancy to occupy the unit? ### TEXT The phrase "in good faith" is not defined in the RTA. In ordinary usage, "good faith" means honestly, without ulterior motive. ### CONTEXT - RTA s.51 sits in Part 4 of the Act, addressing ending tenancies. - Adjacent provisions require notice, compensation, and specific grounds. - RTA s.51.4 imposes obligations to actually occupy and consequences for failure. - The scheme suggests good faith is a live requirement, not a formality. ### PURPOSE The RTA is remedial legislation protecting tenants and regulating tenancies. Purposes include stability of tenure and prevention of disguised evictions for other purposes (rent increases, resale, etc.). Good faith under s.51 must serve this purpose. A landlord who intends to use s.51 as a rent-raising mechanism is not acting in good faith. ### HARMONY The interpretation of "good faith" that harmonizes text, context, and purpose is: An honest intention at the time of service to occupy the unit for the stated purpose, without ulterior motive. Consistent with: - Text (ordinary meaning of good faith) - Context (compensation regime under s.51.4) - Purpose (protecting against disguised evictions) Supported by the framework in *Gichuru v Palmar Properties* and RTB Policy Guideline 2A. --- ## Example 2 — "Occupant" vs "Tenant" under the RTA **Question:** When someone lives in a unit but is not on the tenancy agreement, are they an "occupant" or a "tenant" under the RTA? ### TEXT RTA definitions (s.1): - "Tenant" — someone with rights and obligations under a tenancy agreement - "Occupant" — a person, other than a tenant, who occupies a rental unit The distinction is between tenancy-agreement holders and non-parties who reside in the unit. ### CONTEXT - Multiple RTA provisions distinguish tenants from occupants - Different rights and remedies attach - A person may become a tenant through conduct (implied tenancy) even without a written agreement ### PURPOSE The RTA protects those with tenancy rights and provides different treatment for those without them. The distinction matters for eviction procedures, notice requirements, and other protections. ### HARMONY The correct approach: - Look at the actual arrangement, not the label used - If a person pays rent, has exclusive possession, and has ongoing occupancy under an arrangement with the landlord (even oral), they may be a tenant - If they merely reside as guests or family members without such arrangement, they are occupants Substance over form (the equitable maxim) applies. The RTA's remedial purpose supports finding tenancy where the arrangement functions as one, even without formal documentation. --- ## Example 3 — Silence in a Statute **Question:** The RTA specifies certain grounds for ending a tenancy. May a landlord end a tenancy on grounds not specified in the RTA? ### TEXT RTA Part 4 lists grounds for ending tenancies. The list is detailed and specific. ### CONTEXT - The Act's scheme is exhaustive on this point - RTA s.5 provides the Act applies despite any agreement to the contrary - The scheme suggests the Act's grounds are the only grounds ### PURPOSE Protecting tenants against arbitrary eviction is central to the RTA. Allowing landlords to invoke unenumerated grounds would defeat this purpose. ### INTERPRETIVE RULES APPLIED - **Expressio unius est exclusio alterius** — the express listing of grounds implies exclusion of others - **Purpose-driven** — the remedial purpose reinforces the exclusion ### HARMONY The interpretation: RTA Part 4 grounds are exhaustive. A landlord cannot end a tenancy on grounds not listed. Note: this is a strong case for expressio unius because the statutory scheme is systematic. In other statutes, the same rule might not apply where the listing is illustrative rather than exhaustive. --- ## Example 4 — Ambiguity Between Text and Purpose **Question:** [Hypothetical] A statute uses the word "vehicle" without definition. A dispute arises whether "vehicle" includes bicycles. ### TEXT Ordinary meaning of "vehicle" — likely includes motorized road vehicles and often bicycles too. Ambiguous at the margin. ### CONTEXT The statute in question is a Motor Vehicle Act. Context suggests "vehicle" in this statute refers to motor vehicles. ### PURPOSE The Act's purpose is regulating motor vehicle use. ### HARMONY Text is ambiguous. Context and purpose point strongly to motor vehicles only. The correct interpretation excludes bicycles. This example shows how context and purpose can narrow textually broad language. --- ## Example 5 — Absurdity Avoidance **Question:** [Hypothetical] A regulation says "no dog shall enter the park." A guide dog assisting a person with a disability enters the park. Does the regulation exclude the guide dog? ### TEXT Literal text: no dog. Guide dogs are dogs. ### ABSURDITY Excluding a guide dog would prevent a person with a disability from using the park — an absurd result inconsistent with human rights legislation and reasonable regulatory purpose. ### PRESUMPTIONS - Presumption against absurdity - Presumption of constitutionality (Charter s.15 implications) - Presumption of compliance with human rights law ### HARMONY The interpretation: "dog" is read purposively to exclude guide dogs and service animals. The literal text yields to the harmonious reading. --- ## Example 6 — Applying the Modern Approach to an ATA s.58 JR **Question:** The RTB arbitrator interpreted RTA s.[X] in a particular way. Was that interpretation patently unreasonable? ### PROCESS Step 1 — State the modern approach as the governing framework. Step 2 — Analyze the correct interpretation using text, context, and purpose. Step 3 — Compare the arbitrator's interpretation to the correct interpretation. Step 4 — Assess whether the arbitrator's interpretation could reasonably result from the modern approach. Step 5 — If not, argue patent unreasonableness. ### KEY POINT The bar is not "the arbitrator got it wrong." The bar is "no reasonable interpretation could reach the arbitrator's result." This is the patent unreasonableness threshold. For a merely wrong interpretation (that a reasonable interpreter could have reached), the JR fails. For an interpretation that ignores text, context, or purpose in a fundamental way, the JR may succeed. --- ## Discipline in Interpretation Arguments Common failures: - **Text-only argument** — ignoring context and purpose weakens the argument - **Purpose-only argument** — reading against text without acknowledging the text is a stretch - **Ignoring the modern approach framing** — courts expect the modern approach to be the frame - **Rule-collecting** — throwing every Latin maxim without integration - **Assumption of correctness** — treating your interpretation as obvious rather than earning it through analysis The strongest interpretation arguments: - State the modern approach explicitly - Work through text, context, and purpose systematically - Show harmony among all three - Address the opposing interpretation and explain why it fails one or more elements - Cite supporting authorities where available An interpretation argument that reads like an application of the modern approach is much stronger than one that assumes the answer.