Interim Order (Prevent Re-Renting)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-05-06
CLNP Page ID:	1781
Page Categories:	[Hearing Process (LTB)]
Citation:	Interim Order (Prevent Re-Renting), CLNP 1781, <>, retrieved on 2024-05-06
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2021/10/18

TNT-88669-16-IN (Re), 2016 CanLII 101800 (ON LTB)

Reasons:

1. The Tenant seeks an order restoring him to possession of the rental unit until the matter can be heard. It would be unusual to make such an order without holding a hearing, because the Landlord has not yet had an opportunity to respond to the Tenant’s request. However, in this case, the balance of convenience favours issuing the interim order the Tenant requests.

2. The Tenant alleges that he lives in room 2 of the basement. The Landlord obtained an order of the Board terminating the tenancy of the tenant who lives in room 1. The Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) enforced that order on December 14, 2016. However, in the course of enforcing the order against room 1, the Landlord also changed the lock to the whole basement, so the Tenant cannot access his room.

3. In support of his request, the Tenant filed a copy of the Sheriff’s notice posted on the basement door. The notice states that it is effective against room 1, not room 2.

4. Without deciding the issue, based on the information the Tenant filed there is a strong possibility that he will be successful in establishing that the Landlord illegally locked him out. The balance of convenience therefore favours permitting him to return to his home until his application can be heard.

It is ordered that:

1. The Landlord shall immediately allow the Tenant to recover possession of the rental unit and provide the Tenant with keys to the doors of the rental unit and the residential complex.

2. The Landlord shall not re-rent the unit to anyone else.

3. If the Landlord does not allow the Tenant to recover possession of the unit, the Tenant may file this order with the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) so that the order may be enforced.

4. Upon receipt of this order, the Court Enforcement Office is directed to give possession of the unit to the Tenant.

SOT-15673-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 42428 (ON LTB)

Determinations:

1. The Landlord and Tenant entered into a standard tenancy agreement at the end of March 2011. It was understood and agreed, despite a previous contract for employment, that from April 1, 2011 and in the future, the Tenant was required to pay rent for the right to occupy the rental unit. The Tenant did not pay the rent as promised despite receiving a handwritten note from the Landlord threatening to change the locks for non payment of rent. The female Landlord became frustrated by her failed collection efforts, and after discovering the Tenant had changed his own locks, proceeded to damage the Tenant’s lock by breaking a key in it. This damage had the effect of locking the Tenant out of his rental unit.

2. At the hearing, I found there to be a Landlord and Tenant relationship based on the agreement at the end of March 2011. I also found that the Landlords had illegally locked out the Tenant by deliberately damaging the lock to his door. I ordered the Tenant back into possession.

3. The female Landlord gave a submission setting out her dissatisfaction with the system and processes of the Board and her frustration with acting as a landlord.

4. The rental unit is vacant.

5. The Tenant did not prove on a balance of probabilities his moving costs or the costs of future rent. He has not secured another unit and his submission was based on his best guess of what he will have to pay at another rental unit.

For These Reasons

It is ordered that:

1. The Landlords shall immediately allow the Tenant to recover possession of the rental unit and provide the Tenant with keys to the doors of the rental unit and the residential complex.

2. The Landlords shall not re-rent the unit to anyone else.

3. If the Landlords do not allow the Tenant to recover possession of the unit, the Tenant may file this order with the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) so that the order may be enforced.

4. Upon receipt of this order, the Enforcement Office is directed to give possession of the unit to the Tenant.

TET-21195-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 91459 (ON LTB)

1. Tenant T.C. gave evidence that the Landlord served him a Notice N5 on or about November 23, 2011 alleging that he was making too much noise and was being asked to leave the complex. On December 12, 2011 the Tenant returned from work to find the locks had been changed and he could not enter.

2. The Tenant attempted to contact the Landlord on December 12, 2011 but the Landlord did not return his call. He contacted the Landlord on December 13, 2011 and went to the rental unit with Police but again the Landlord refused to allow the Tenant access to the rental unit.

3. The Tenants had no where to go and no money for a hotel so a friend allowed them to reside there for a few days. They must access the unit for medications and T.C. requires his health card on an urgent basis.

4. I find it reasonable that the Landlord compensate the Tenants $100.00 per day for the cost of food and shelter while illegally locked out of the rental unit.

5. On the basis of the Tenants’ evidence, I find that the Landlord or the Landlord's superintendent or the Landlord's agent entered the rental unit illegally, altered the locking system on a door giving entry to the rental unit or residential complex without giving the Tenants replacement keys, substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenants or by a member of their household and withheld a reasonable supply of a vital service, care service, or food that the Landlord was obligated to supply under the tenancy agreement or deliberately interfered with the reasonable supply of vital service, care service, or food.

6. I also find the Landlord terminated the tenancy in a manner that is not in accord with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. Section 37 of the RTA stipulates, “A tenancy may only be terminated in accordance with this Act.” In this instance there was no agreement by both parties to terminate the tenancy and no order from the Board to terminate the tenancy.

7. I find the Landlord acted without regard for the Tenants or the RTA and it is reasonable and warranted to levy an administrative fine against the Landlord in the amount of $500.00 to encourage compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 in accordance with Guideline 16.

8. The rental unit still contains the Tenants’ belongings.

TNT-48764-13 (Re), 2013 CanLII 54750 (ON LTB)

Determinations:

1. Here is some background information about the case. Soon after the start of the tenancy in September of 2012, the Tenants had problem with paying rent. In October, the Landlord applied to the Board for an eviction order and the parties entered into a Board mediated agreement on November 22, 2012. The Tenants failed to comply with that agreement, and the Landlord applied for and received an ex parte order dated February 6, 2013 to evict the Tenants. The Tenants filed a motion to set aside the ex parte order. The motion was heard on February 19, 2013, and the Board issued order TNL-41389-13-SA on February 26, 2013. The Landlord filed this order with the Sheriff on July 23, 2013 and the Sheriff enforced the order on August 16, 2013.

The issue that the Board has to determine is whether the Landlord has the legal right to enforce Order TNL-41389-13 issued on February 26, 2013 to evict the Tenants.

2. Order TNL-41389-13-SA issued on February 26, 2013 was a “consent order” and it is a non-remedial order that terminated the tenancy on March 2, 2013 and by March 31, 2013 the latest if the Tenants paid $2,450.00 to the Landlord by March 2, 2013. The order clearly states that the tenancy would be terminated on March 31, 2013 regardless of the circumstances.

3. As it turned out, the Tenants did make the payment on March 2, 2013. However, the tenancy would still have been terminated on March 31, 2013 under this order. Although there is no “expiry date” stated in this “consent order”, it is clear from reading this order that the Landlord should file this order with the Sheriff within a reasonable time if the Tenants did not vacate the unit by March 31, 2013.

In my view, the eviction order issued on February 26, 2013 would have been “voided” on its own on March 31, 2013, with or without the enforcement by the Sheriff.

4. On April 4, 2013, the Landlord accepted two payments totalling $1,500.00 from the Tenants. The Landlord indicated in one of the receipts that the payment is “for part rent April 1-30, 2013”. In my view, this is the Landlord’s acknowledgement that all rent arrears obligations have been satisfied and that the payment was for “future rent” starting April 1, 2013. Under section 45(1) of the Act, the acceptance of rent when all arrears obligations have been satisfied does constitute creation of a new tenancy. The Board’s position is supported by the fact that the parties agreed to reduce the rent by $50.00 effective April 1, 2013. By accepting “prospective rent” from the Tenants, the Landlord has entered into a new tenancy with the Tenants.

5. Based on the above, I find that Order TNL-41389-13-SA dated February 26, 2013 was invalid by the time the Landlord tried to enforce it in July 2013. I also find that the Landlord started a new tenancy with the Tenants effective April 1, 2013.

As a result of the wrongful instructions given by the Landlord to the Sheriff, the Tenants were locked out of their unit. The Landlord’s wrongful action to evict the Tenants after the creation of a new tenancy is an abuse of the Board process.

6. I did not find the Landlord to have any malicious intent in trying to enforce the eviction order. This is a small landlord who did not retain legal counsel until after the first hearing of this application. The evidence indicates that he was sympathetic to the Tenants’ circumstances (i.e., their difficulties in finding alternate accommodation and their concern about not to interrupt the school term of the autistic child). The Landlord even agreed to reduce rent by $50.00 in consideration of the Tenants’ financial situation.

7. The Tenants produced receipts for incidental expenses as a result of the lock-out totalling $998.23. I find that the Tenants should bear some consequence of their action. The tenancy started in September 2012 and they failed to pay their rent in October, and they have continued to have problems in paying rent even up to the time of hearing. So it should be no surprise to them that they were evicted by the Sheriff. Therefore, I decided to order the Landlord to reimburse the Tenants only for the hotel and accommodation (with her friend) charges in the amount of $482.44.

It is ordered that:

1. The Landlord shall immediately allow the Tenants to recover possession of the rental unit and provide the Tenants with keys to the doors of the rental unit.

2. The Landlord shall not re-rent the unit to anyone else.

3. If the Landlord does not allow the Tenants to recover possession of the unit, the Tenants may file this order with the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) so that the order may be enforced. The Landlord will be held responsible for the Sheriff cost incurred by the Tenants.

4. Upon receipt of this order, the Enforcement Office is directed to give possession of the unit to the Tenants.

5. The Landlord shall pay to the Tenants $482.44 which is the reasonable out of pocket expenses the Tenants have incurred while being locked out of the unit.