Vehicle - Re: Violation of City By-Laws

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-22
CLNP Page ID:	1050
Page Categories:	[Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)], [By-Laws]
Citation:	Vehicle - Re: Violation of City By-Laws, CLNP 1050, <https://rvt.link/ac>, retrieved on 2024-11-22
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2024/01/16

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

TEL-77147-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 48891 (ON LTB)

7. At the hearing, the Tenant raised issues pursuant to subsection 82(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 20016 (the ‘Act’). The Tenant says he has withheld the rent for march 2017 because the Landlord wrongfully had his car towed and he had to pay $235.00 to retrieve the car.

8. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the Tenant’s s.82 issues must be dismissed.

10. In addition, the Tenant admits that the car in question does not have license plates and was not parked in the Landlord’s regular parking lot. The Tenant also admits that he did not have a parking agreement with the Landlord for this car, and he admits that received the notice that Landlord placed on his car advising him that the car would be towed if the Tenant failed to register the vehicle and obtain a parking agreement.

11. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Landlord had a positive obligation to remove the unlicensed vehicle from the property, the Landlord properly notified the Tenant of the situation, and then was fully justified in having the vehicle removed when the Tenant failed to respond accordingly. The Landlord should not be held financially responsible for the Tenant’s failure to resolve the situation. As a result, the Tenant’s section 82 issues are dismissed.

TNT-05958-10 (Re), 2011 CanLII 26961 (ON LTB)

7. On or about September 9, 2009 one of the cars in the Tenants’ parking spots was towed away. This car was towed away after the Landlord gave the Tenants notice, some four months before, that they had to either fix the car, have it properly insured, licensed and tagged, it would be towed. At the time, the car had four flat tires, and not been driven in some time. The Notice also demanded that the Tenants sign a parking lease. Regardless of the fact that the Tenants did not sign a parking lease, they were not paying rent for their spots for quite some time, and their car was not roadworthy.

14. And even if the Landlord technically did not require a separate parking agreement to be signed, this agreement had nothing to do with imposing additional charges, and appears to be more of an administrative endeavour to assist the new property management company with its record keeping, rather than a contractual one. Be that as it may, the Tenants were never forced to sign this contract and I am stating for the record that they are not required to do so. Furthermore, their car was not towed away because they would not sign this parking contract or agreement. It was towed away because it was not roadworthy, and because this was a violation of municipal standards.

15. Insofar as the towing away of their car, the Tenants were given ample warnings about the impending towing, some four months, and they should have made better use of that time. Had the Tenants acted more reasonably, they would not have had their car towed away in the first place.

16. Insofar as the replacement cost of their car, it was the Tenants’ decision to sign away ownership of the car, and this responsibility simply cannot rest with the Landlord.

17. Overall, I cannot justify any finding of substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment, much less harassment.

TET-63521-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 72240 (ON LTB)

11. The Landlord had their car towed and impounded. They are seeking costs for this issue.

18. The Municipality sent the Landlord a letter about an unlicensed vehicle. They advised the Landlord if the car was not licensed or removed from the property they would charge her. She advised the Tenants of this and they did nothing to correct the issue. Therefore, she had no choice but to remove the car from the property. The Tenants chose not to retrieve the car after it was towed so they incurred excessive costs.

Determinations/reasons:

10. The fact the Tenants’ car was towed is their responsibility. The Landlord advised them it could happen and when they chose to take no action the Landlord was required to comply with the law.

11. The reasons contained in this order constitute all of the reasons used to make my decision.