Apartment Leasing

[Rhiannercakes 14]

Well, I don't get any bills what so ever sent here, so it's like I don't exist really... other than physically.

Everything is sent to my permanent address, aka my parents' house.

And another thing is, the landlord of these places doesn't even own them.

They're owned by a property management company and apparently my boss had to go higher than the landlord to even ask about the whole subletting/assignment thing. They're based in a totally different city.

And ugh, I really need to see the lease. If there really is something saying she can't do assignment I guess I'm screwed.

If there is nothing saying "No assignment" or whatever, and the people who own the places said "No, you can't do that," she should be able to do it anyway, couldn't she? Since there's nothing in the written lease that she signed for saying it was not allowed.

I have a feeling I've bitten off more than I can chew.

[Rhiannercakes 14]

Actually I just realized I need to correct myself.

While I don't have any physical bills sent here, I do have an account with Pizza Pizza that has this address listed and I have had pizza delivered here about 5 times.

[Spoom 8]

The landlord can't arbitrarily prevent you from assigning, to wit:

(5) A landlord shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably refuse consent to an assignment of a rental unit to a potential assignee under clause ( 3 ) ( B ). 2006, c. 17, s.95 (5).

So they'd have to have a good reason, otherwise you could take them to the Board for violating that part of the RTA.

They can't just have a "no assignment" clause; without a reason, it would be void.

Whether or not there's a "no assignment" clause in your lease has no bearing on your landlord's responsibilities, since it likely would have no effect. If your landlord has a good reason, they can say no to the assignment (and the Board knows what constitutes a good reason, usually something like a failed credit check on your part as the new assignee). Otherwise, they have to say yes.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Spoom

[trailmix 77]

What would be considered 'unreasonable'? I looked but couldn't find any clarification on that.

[Rhiannercakes 14]

The landlord can't arbitrarily prevent you from assigning, to wit:

(5) A landlord shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably refuse consent to an assignment of a rental unit to a potential assignee under clause ( 3 ) ( B ). 2006, c. 17, s.95 (5).

So they'd have to have a good reason, otherwise you could take them to the Board for violating that part of the RTA.

They can't just have a "no assignment" clause; without a reason, it would be void.

Whether or not there's a "no assignment" clause in your lease has no bearing on your landlord's responsibilities, since it likely would have no effect. If your landlord has a good reason, they can say no to the assignment (and the Board knows what constitutes a good reason, usually something like a failed credit check on your part as the new assignee). Otherwise, they have to say yes.

This is a good thing.

I was outright scared of a full NO on the subject.

... And little do they know I've been the one paying the rent for the last 5 months

[Spoom 8]

What would be considered 'unreasonable'? I looked but couldn't find any clarification on that.

It is a bit murky there. I'd contact one of the tenants' associations and ask them; likely the Landlord and Tenant Board has a lot of caselaw that would give a good idea of their definition of 'unreasonable' or 'arbitrary'.

Edit: Their FAQ page might also help. You could also contact the Landlord and Tenant Board directly at 1-888-332-3234.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Spoom