Wrong Application Filed (LTB)

Landlord and Tenant Board Rules of Procedure, Amended January 23, 2019

A3.1 The rules and procedures of the tribunal shall be liberally and purposively interpreted and applied to:

a) promote the fair, just and expeditious resolution of disputes,

b) allow parties to participate effectively in the process, whether or not they have a representative,

c) ensure that procedures, orders and directions are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding.

A3.2 Rules and procedures are not to be interpreted in a technical manner.

A3.3 Rules and procedures will be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the Human Rights Code.

CET-24087-12 (Re), 2012 CanLII 60028 (ON LTB)

JP and TC (the 'Tenants') applied for an order determining that RT (the 'Landlord') substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenants or by a member of their household.

This application was heard in Owen Sound on September 5, 2012.

One of the Tenants, TC, and the Landlord attended the hearing. The Landlord was represented by her son, PT.

Determinations:

The Tenants filed the wrong application because their issues are maintenance issues.

It is ordered that:

The Tenants' application is dismissed.

SOT-91098-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141498 (ON LTB)

24. The Tenants also advanced a claim relating to the locker. HD’s locker was broken into and he incurred the expense of a new lock and chain. MF endured long waits, security escorts and the physical aggravation of moving his locker contents from the basement to the rental unit. He endured the clutter of his locker contents in the middle of the living room. The Tenants also advanced a claim relating to the uncertainty, the Landlord’s alleged lack of communication with them, evasive and dilatory conduct, the inconsistent treatment of the tenants; and the clutter and mess in their unit on their return after the lock-out. These are claims in the nature of substantial interference with their reasonable enjoyment which are not properly before me in this T6 application about repairs and maintenance.

25. The Tenants also advance a claim relating to the noise, dust and trip hazards during the reconstruction from their return to the residential complex on March 29, 2017 to on or about June 2, 2017. HD claimed interference with his lifestyle and enjoyment of his family cottage and usual holidays in the Caribbean. Again, these claims are in the nature of substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment which are not properly before me in this T6 application about repairs and maintenance.

26. MF also claimed one (1) month’s rent abatement due to the loss of laundry facilities and loss of the lobby intercom service in or about May 2017 for about 2 ½ months during the reconstruction. These claims are in the nature of substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment and/or decrease in services or facilities which are not properly before me in this T6 application.

TST-82718-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28789 (ON LTB)

8. The parties do not dispute that the Tenant paid the Landlord separately for the last month of the tenancy. Therefore, the Landlord cannot use the Tenant’s rent deposit for any other purpose and he must return it to the Tenant. I note that I did not make any determinations with respect to the Landlord’s claim that the Tenant damaged the rental unit as that claim was not properly before me.

SWT-25100-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 64271 (ON LTB)

7. I was referred to no specific legal authority for the proposition that, as a social housing provider, the Landlord was under any special obligation to respect competition laws with respect to cable/satellite service at the complex and invite tenders for such contracts. Nor was I shown that, in advance of its contract with the current satellite provider, it had failed to do so. In any event, this Board is charged with enforcing the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and related statutes. That being so, the alleged failure to comply with laws intended to protect competition in an open market place was not properly before me as an alleged breach of the RTA.

TSL-85613-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 59997 (ON LTB)

8. In the application, the Landlord named four individuals as “Tenants”. However, at the hearing, the Landlord testified that these individuals are actually the unauthorized occupants and they are not tenants. The Landlord testified that a person who used to occupy the commercial unit on the ground floor of the residential complex permitted the occupants to live in the rental unit without his consent. The Landlord did not name this individual as a party/tenant in the application.

9. Based on the Landlord’s testimony, I find that this application is not properly before me because it does not identify a tenant of the rental unit. All applications before the Board must identify at least one landlord and one tenant. I cannot consider the merits of this application without a tenant being named. I also cannot grant the relief that the Landlord is asking for because it involves terminating the tenancy and there is no tenancy before me.

SWT-37218-12 (Re), 2012 CanLII 60090 (ON LTB)

1. The standard of proof on proceedings before this Board is “proof on a balance of probabilities.” By that standard, a party seeking to prove any fact in evidence must establish that, “more probably than not”, the assertion is true. Where the evidence of the opposite party is as believable as that of the party bearing the burden of proof, the latter cannot be said to have discharged that burden.

2. The sole issue before me here was whether, by calling the police concerning their belief that he was smoking marijuana in the rental unit on July 19, 2012, the Landlord’s had harassed the Tenant or otherwise substantially interfered with his reasonable use and enjoyment of the premises. The burden of proof in that regard was on the Tenant.

3. Other issues between the parties – the cleanliness of the rental unit, whether rent was paid promptly, whether the property had been damaged by the Tenant – were not properly before me in this proceeding.

4. Even had I found that the Tenant to have lacked credibility on one of these peripheral issues, the rules of evidence prohibit decision-makers from drawing adverse inferences against a witness’s evidence as a whole based upon adverse findings in particular instances.

5. In all of the disclosed circumstances, I cannot find that the Landlords’ preliminary determination that the odour was emanating from this Tenant’s rental unit was unfounded or even unreasonable.