It does. If your lease ends you are automatically converted to a month to month lease. If OP's lease just ended on June 30 then yes he'd have a month to month rental with the new owner.

Here the lease did not end. OP was given 90 days notice that his lease was being terminated and that he had to be out by June 30th.

The only real difference between Canada and the States is that if my understanding is correct in the States the new owner would have been required to honour the original lease till completion while in Canada the transfer of the property allows for the termination of the lease as long as the new owner wishes to buy the property for personal use.

you also stated

"Here the lease did not end. OP was given 90 days notice that his lease was being terminated and that he had to be out by June 30th."

These are clear contradictions. How could a lease terminate/end and not terminate/end at the same time?

I'm assuming he's talking about the stinging nettle. "The most prominent member of the genus...it is widely distributed in Canada and the United States, where it is found in every province and state except for Hawaii."

I am sure we are both aware of what happens when you assume too much.

Game. Set. Match. End of dumbest hijack in internet history.

The lease was terminated on the 30th as in OP had to leave the property on the 30th. This wasn't the natural end of the lease but a premature termination triggered by the sale of the property and the new owner wanting the property for personal use.

Maybe it would be better to say his right to be in the property ended on the 30th.

Overtime:

When OP mentioned stinging Nettle I went to the Wiki page just like you. Then I looked down on the page and realized there is a specific variety of the stinging nettle that is exclusive to Canada. One I have never seen or heard of because I live in the US. Then I thought since maybe I have never seen one of these it could be comparable to poison ivy in the US (both have large identifiable leaves). My original phrase was a little awakward, even off base as it was meant in jest and my humor sucks. My dry humors fails at a remarkable rate and my comparison statement was not to be taken a 100% literally.

Why do the new owners of the house get to keep the rights of an old lease (that they did not sign and have probably never even seen) that ended on the 30th past the 30th again? The 90 day demand for the property is only valid under the old lease as they are contingent on each other.

I think the real whole point is that nobody is allowed to just show up at your doorstep and kick you out of a place that you have lived in for over a year in 3 days. Never heard of a law in a 1st world country that would.

The same way that had the owner bought the house for the purpose of renting he would have inherited the lease.

He had 90 days notice originally. Staying after the 30th means he is overholding but it is unclear if it is consensual or willful because of the offer to use the property till the 15th.

Okay so under the old lease the tenant should be protected from being kicked out of his house in 3 days after it expires or the demand for property is evoked (and especially when two parties are arguing over the terms of a new lease that references the property specifically - i.e. one persons word vs. another). I don't get why you keep finding grey areas here. There is absolutely no grey area here and I think the Canadian police and the other posters in this thread have made that pretty clear.

They showed up again. Truck full of 6 people or so. They walked around outside and then got back into their vehicle which was on the southside of the house and came around to the northside and pulled into the carport and then I think they saw me watching them from the window and threw it into reverse and sped away. Not sure if they'll be back or what they are up to.

Sounds like it's time for a temporary restraining order. They showed up with a posse to rough you up

At least you conceded the first statement was way off. You have flip flopped on your position/words so many times I think I am now confusing and out leveling myself. Head explodes now.

It depends on how you define protected. There are procedures for dealing with overholding and you are correct in that you'd need more than three days to force him out but that could-- depending on his status-- open him up to being sued after

rothko,

Are they trying to intimidate you or were they doing something?

Have they figured out that you have restored power?

Would this be possible? This could be a super sick Canadian scam.

-Say I owned a house and knew I was going to sell it

-I then have a friend or family member sign a lease/contract for lets say 10 years at a super sick price

-Also in the lease/contract is a special clause that states any transfer of property does not allow for the special Canadian clause that allows for a new owner to end tenancy/evict

-I then sell the house to someone and they don't read the lease and just accept the rights thinking everything is all cool cuz they got eviction rights yo

Probably would fail but the law is crazy and in theory it works. I am sure there would be something that would somehow supercede / override it.

but at least you might be able to take it to court to figure out and your buddy / family might get a free house for a few months until the court processes work themselves out. If you win welcome to your new house for 10 years!