Fire Pit in Yard (LTB)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-04-28
CLNP Page ID:	2340
Page Categories:	Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)
Citation:	Fire Pit in Yard (LTB), CLNP 2340, <https://rvt.link/am>, retrieved on 2024-04-28
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2024/02/07

Szeto v Bernard, 2022 CanLII 127337 (ON LTB)

6. The Landlord’s representative spoke to the damage the pool and fire pit will cause to the grass. The notice served on the Tenants is not for damage. The representative also argues that these items constitute a breach of the tenancy agreement because the Tenants are not authorized to make changes to the rental unit.

7. The legal test for the N5 notice an interference with a landlord’s lawful rights and privileges must be substantial. I find that the Tenant’s having these items in the yard does not constitute substantial interference as required under the Residential Tenancies Act.

8. The request to terminate the tenancy based on the N5 notice is denied.

TEL-97380-18 (Re), 2019 CanLII 126906 (ON LTB)

1. On December 3, 2018, the Landlord served the Tenants with an N7 notice of termination alleging that an occupant or guest have an illegal open fire pit with garbage in it and are using the property as a construction waste site, storing metal waste; the tenants are parking their vehicle on the lawn.

2. The box on the N7 notice checked off by the Landlord indicates that the Landlord is asserting that this conduct is inconsistent with use as a residential premise and that has caused or can be expected to cause significant damage.

...

6. Having an open fire pit at a rental unit is not a use inconsistent with residential premises. People have bon fires outside their homes, especially in cottage homes. Similarly, storing items at the residential premises is not a use inconsistent with residential premises. People store items such as metal in their garage, sheds, etc.

NOL-31200-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88709 (ON LTB)

12. The Landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to establish damage to the backyard because of a fire pit constructed by the Tenant. The photos show some brown areas of grass around the pit however this evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that any damage is undue. The report dated June 12, 2018 from the Fire Department does not describe any damage but requires a reduction in the size of the fire pit to comply with relevant bylaws.

Braich v Luckhart, 2022 CanLII 100309 (ON LTB)

1. The Landlord served an N6 notice alleging the Tenants committed an illegal act.

2. The Landlord claims the Tenants had an open-air fire in the backyard. The Tenants acknowledge this occurred and testified that it was a mistake. They testified that they have two authorized fire pits, but their permits had expired. A friend was helping dispose of items, lit the fire, and was told to put it out by the Tenants. The fire was not fully extinguished, and the fire department issued a $156.78 fine to the Landlord.

3. Board Guideline 9 provides guidance on an illegal act notice. An illegal act must be a serious violation of a federal, provincial or municipal law and must be serious to warrant eviction. An illegal act will be serious if it has the potential to affect the character of the premises or to disturb the reasonable enjoyment of the landlord or other tenants. The seriousness of this ground can be seen in the fact the notice cannot be voided.

4. Considering this guidance, I find the illegal act described by the Landlord in not serious and did not affect the character of the premises or to disturb the reasonable enjoyment of the landlord or other tenants.

5. As such, the Landlord’s application must be dismissed.