Frustrated Contract

I have had two seperate situations with house fires in my community. In each case the homes were owned by the residents. In the first case when the tenant’s home burned she insisted on continuing to rent the lot until she found a replacement home. I wanted her gone as she was a terrible tenant. We ended up at a Landlord Tenant Board hearing where I argued “frustrated Contract” and lost. Keep in mind our LTB is extremely pro tenant and I did not challenge the ruling in Divisional court.

I now have a second tenant home fire that is now arguing “frustrated Contract” in order to avoid having to provide 60 days notice (she has already moved a replacement home into a near by park).

Recognizing the fact that this is a land lease only situation and the fact that our LTB has once ruled a house fire does not qualify under “frustrated contract” and that our LTB could in this case now rule it does what is the true legal determination of “Frustrated Contract” in regards to land lease communities.

My opinion is that since the lease is only on the land and the land lease contract was not effected by the house fire “Frustrated Contract” does not apply.

Have any of you dealt with this in a legal situation.


Is this in California, because I’ve never even heard of terms such as “LTB” before?

Sorry Frank the LTB is our Landlord Tenant Board in Ontario Canada.

Anyway their decisions are not really what I am concerned with I am interested in knowing if anyone has had experience with “frustrated Contract” law.

I have thoroughly researched the definition/topic and it appears not to apply in regards to land lease when the home is destroyed but am curious if anyone has first hand experience with it or if anyone is a lawyer that may better understand the law than I do.

I guess I am seeking confirmation on how I understand the law applies, or more to my interpertation does not apply, to our business situation.