Joint Tenancy Agreement Ontario
A person can provide you with property and one or more other people as a co-owner. Alternatively, you can make your property available to yourself and another person to establish a joint lease. It is important that a common lease be voluntarily established with the same document and with very specific language. With respect to real estate, that is, real estate, the Transportation and Property Act creates a presumption in favour of management relations, unless the language of the document explicitly creates a common lease. One of them is when a tenant entrusts to himself, to the extent that the provisions of the land registry in force permit, the property of their share of the property. Such a transfer is usually made without notice to other tenants and results in the destruction of the property unit. Another such act is when a co-renter sells or mortgages his interests. A third example is the judicial sale of the property. In Ontario and many other jurisdictions, where there are co-owners of land and where co-owners of the property have been broken, each of them can file a court motion for the division and sale of the land by court order and for the sharing of the proceeds of the sale. Article 3 stipulates that the severance pay of the common lease can be made by any type of trade sufficient to be too intimate for the interests of all to have been treated as a common rental relationship. Rule 3 is intended to prevent a party from asserting a right of reversion if it is not fair between the parties. The main case in Ontario with respect to Rule 3 is The case of Hansen v Hansen Estate.
 If the co-owners of a property enter into a written agreement to separate the common lease, this is sufficient reason to prove the severance pay. While Article 2 refers to an explicit written agreement, Article 3, which is described in detail below, refers to cases where no explicit agreement has been reached between landowners. There are certain acts that can separate a common lease. In the case of a common lease with reversion right, the question of whether the assets are held in trust for the person who transferred them and, after death, for his estate is discussed; or if the purchaser is the economic beneficiary and is entitled to the entire property after the death. Similarly, there is controversy over when a common rent was terminated. Recent jurisprudence has developed these principles. A failure of one of the above points can lead to the separation of the common lease and create a common lease instead. It was precisely this issue that was considered by the Ontario Court of Appeal of Hansen Estate v Hansen (2012 ONCA 11 CanLII), where the court took the opportunity to outline the terms of a common lease and its removal.
The Tribunal found that each case should be tried on its own facts, in order to determine whether the parties treated their interests as a common lease and not as a common lease. It should be noted that, in the Hansen case, it was not enough for Mr. Hansen to pass on his share of the fortune to his daughters through his will. The case law has established that in Ontario, a common tenancy agreement cannot be separated solely by will, but a provision was found in a will as relevant evidence that could be used to determine whether there was a common intention to treat the common tenancy agreement as separate.  In situations where a spouse wishes to leave his property to someone other than his spouse (i.e. a child from another marriage), it would be wise to consider the use of Rule 1 or 2. This is extremely useful when cohabiting tenants have separated as a couple, so that each can transfer half of the property to their heirs, instead of the house that passes 100% to the surviving spouse (and the heirs of that person).