FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Toronto, ON – February 6th 2026 – The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) starts 2026 with a landmark legal win at the Divisional Court. The ruling safeguards the right of survivor tenants of intimate partner violence to remain housed.
ACTO represented Ms. Denise Browne, who faced eviction from her longtime matrimonial home after her husband was removed by police for domestic violence, and then gave notice to his landlord as a way of absolving himself from rental obligations. On the basis of that notice, the landlord obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) taking the position that only the husband was a tenant of the unit as his was the sole name on the lease. Despite living in the home for over 10 years and raising her two children there, and believing herself to be a tenant, Ms. Browne was faced with the choice of being evicted or paying more than double her rent to remain housed.
In Henley Crescent v Browne, the Divisional Court restored the tenancy and held that Ms. Browne was a tenant. The Court ruled that in certain circumstances the remaining spouse could stay in their home and pay the ongoing rent, rather than paying the current market rent as if they were a new tenant. This outcome is particularly significant for tenants who are survivors of domestic violence. Many are forced to flee their homes with limited legal options to remain housed. The Residential Tenancies Act does not acknowledge how gender-based violence drives housing instability.
In the appeal to a panel of judges on January 5th 2026, ACTO submitted that:
- Mr. and Ms. Browne were married spouses. They occupied the unit together for over a decade having raised their two children there.
- When Mr. Browne gave notice to end the tenancy, he was trying to terminate what he thought was his part of a joint tenancy; to absolve himself of rental obligations. He never intended to terminate the tenancy for his wife and children.
- Vacancy decontrol; a means for landlords to increase the rent as much as they wish whenever a unit turns over, has created a financial incentive for landlords to evict tenants, especially long-term tenants. In the case of Ms. Browne, the landlord is claiming that she is not a tenant and asked for more than double the current rent for her to stay on.
- The Residential Tenancies Act is meant to prevent unlawful evictions and provide redress for the power imbalance between landlords and tenants. The definition of “tenant” is expansive and needs to include many different kinds of living arrangements and occupiers within the protections offered by what is remedial legislation – husbands, wives, partners, adult children of their parents.
- By deciding that Ms. Brown was not a tenant, the LTB did not consider other legislation and legal doctrines — such as the Family Law Act, the Human Rights Code, and the best interests of the child doctrine.
The Divisional Court found:
- The Residential Tenancies Act definitions of “tenant” and “tenancy agreement” are expansive, and the tenant protection focus of the legislation should inform their interpretation.
- The LTB’s initial decision finding that Ms. Browne was a tenant, was a reasonable decision. Where a decision is reasonable and based in law, it cannot be dismissed simply because another Member believed that it was driven by emotion or the desire to achieve a specific result.
- A tenant cannot automatically end their spouse’s tenancy by serving a notice to terminate after leaving when their spouse is still living in the home.
- The prejudice of losing one’s home of 13 years is far greater than the potential “prejudice” to landlords deprived of the opportunity to dramatically double the rent.
The case of Henley Crescent v Browne is emblematic of how the Residential Tenancies Act fails to provide adeqaute protection for survivors experiencing violence in their rental housing, thereby increasing the likelihood of an eviction (ACTO, 2025). The Court’s decision sets a crucial precedent for survivors of domestic violence, reinforcing that they and their families should not be penalized or displaced because of violence they have experienced. Moreover, it removes a potential weapon from the person causing harm to the survivor, where they could trigger an eviction simply by terminating their tenancy after leaving the relationship. This case also reasserts the important tenant-protection focus of the legislation which Courts have repeatedly confirmed in decisions spanning several decades.
Quotes
“There is no question, no debate that the definition of “tenant” in the legislation is broad and inclusive. Why the Landlord and Tenant Board decided that a wife and mother was not a tenant, when she was there when the lease was signed over a decade ago, lived in the unit, raised her children in the unit, regularly interacted with the landlord about the unit and where rent was paid from a joint bank account, would decide that she was not a tenant is unconscionable,” says Karen Andrews, Staff Lawyer with ACTO and co-counsel on the appeal case.
“This case sends a clear message to landlords who attempt to exploit sensitive situations, such as domestic violence, for profit”, says Katherine Haist, Staff Lawyer with ACTO and co-counsel on the appeal case.
About Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario
The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) is a specialty community legal clinic with a province-wide mandate to advance and protect the interests of tenants living with lower incomes. ACTO specializes in housing issues related to tenants. ACTO also provides legal information and assistance to self-represented tenants appearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board through the Tenant Duty Counsel Program (TDCP).
For more information, including interviews with representatives, please contact:
Ukeme Ebong
Communications and Public Affairs Specialist, (ACTO)
416.597.5855 ext 5170