Illegal Lockout (Landlord Changes Locks)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-26
CLNP Page ID:	512
Page Categories:	[Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)]
Citation:	Illegal Lockout (Landlord Changes Locks), CLNP 512, <https://rvt.link/1j>, retrieved on 2024-11-26
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2024/11/01

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17

22 A landlord shall not at any time during a tenant’s occupancy of a rental unit and before the day on which an order evicting the tenant is executed substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or the residential complex in which it is located for all usual purposes by a tenant or members of his or her household.

...

24 A landlord shall not alter the locking system on a door giving entry to a rental unit or residential complex or cause the locking system to be altered during the tenant’s occupancy of the rental unit without giving the tenant replacement keys.

...

35 (1) A tenant shall not alter the locking system on a door giving entry to a rental unit or residential complex or cause the locking system to be altered during the tenant’s occupancy of the rental unit without the consent of the landlord.

(2) If a tenant alters a locking system, contrary to subsection (1), the landlord may apply to the Board for an order determining that the tenant has altered the locking system on a door giving entry to the rental unit or the residential complex or caused the locking system to be altered during the tenant’s occupancy of the rental unit without the consent of the landlord.

(3) If the Board in an application under subsection (2) determines that a tenant has altered the locking system or caused it to be altered, the Board may order that the tenant provide the landlord with keys or pay the landlord the reasonable out-of-pocket expenses necessary to change the locking system. 2006, c. 17, s. 35 (3).

...

37 (1) A tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with this Act.

...

39 A landlord shall not recover possession of a rental unit subject to a tenancy unless,

(a) the tenant has vacated or abandoned the unit; or

(b) an order of the Board evicting the tenant has authorized the possession.

...

40 No landlord shall, without legal process, seize a tenant’s property for default in the payment of rent or for the breach of any other obligation of the tenant.

...

233 A person is guilty of an offence if the person knowingly,

(b) alters or causes to be altered the locking system on any door giving entry to a rental unit or the residential complex in a manner that contravenes section 24 or 35;

(f) recovers possession of a rental unit without complying with the requirements of sections 48.1, 52, 54 and 55;

(g) coerces a tenant to sign an agreement referred to in section 121;

...

235 (1) Any landlord or superintendent, agent or employee of the landlord who knowingly harasses a tenant or interferes with a tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of a rental unit or the residential complex in which it is located is guilty of an offence.

...

238 (1) A person, other than a corporation, who is guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $25,000.

(2) A corporation that is guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $100,000.

Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3

19 (1) Both spouses have an equal right to possession of a matrimonial home. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 19 (1).

(2) When only one of the spouses has an interest in a matrimonial home, the other spouse’s right of possession,

(a) is personal as against the first spouse; and

(b) ends when they cease to be spouses, unless a separation agreement or court order provides otherwise. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 19 (2).

...

24 (1) Regardless of the ownership of a matrimonial home and its contents, and despite section 19 (spouse’s right of possession), the court may on application, by order,

(a) provide for the delivering up, safekeeping and preservation of the matrimonial home and its contents;

(b) direct that one spouse be given exclusive possession of the matrimonial home or part of it for the period that the court directs and release other property that is a matrimonial home from the application of this Part;

(c) direct a spouse to whom exclusive possession of the matrimonial home is given to make periodic payments to the other spouse;

(d) direct that the contents of the matrimonial home, or any part of them,

(i) remain in the home for the use of the spouse given possession, or

(ii) be removed from the home for the use of a spouse or child;

(e) order a spouse to pay for all or part of the repair and maintenance of the matrimonial home and of other liabilities arising in respect of it, or to make periodic payments to the other spouse for those purposes;

(f) authorize the disposition or encumbrance of a spouse’s interest in the matrimonial home, subject to the other spouse’s right of exclusive possession as ordered; and

(g) where a false statement is made under subsection 21 (3), direct,

(i) the person who made the false statement, or

(ii) a person who knew at the time he or she acquired an interest in the property that the statement was false and afterwards conveyed the interest,

to substitute other real property for the matrimonial home, or direct the person to set aside money or security to stand in place of it, subject to any conditions that the court considers appropriate. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 24 (1).

(2) The court may, on motion, make a temporary or interim order under clause (1) (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e). R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 24 (2).

(3) In determining whether to make an order for exclusive possession, the court shall consider,

(a) the best interests of the children affected;

(b) any existing orders under Part I (Family Property) and any existing support orders or other enforceable support obligations;

(c) the financial position of both spouses;

(d) any written agreement between the parties;

(e) the availability of other suitable and affordable accommodation; and

(f) any violence committed by a spouse against the other spouse or the children. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 24 (3); 2014, c. 7, Sched. 9, s. 4.

Laczi-bencze v Cheung, 2024 ONLTB 66824 (CanLII)

28. When a tenant is illegally evicted, in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, the Board usually awards general damages. Assessing general damages has been described as more art than science. However, decision-making should “be based on a degree of consistency, equality and predictability in the application of the law” (Domtar Inc. v. Quebec, 1993 CanLII 106 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 756, at p.784).

29. The LTB has previously held that absent any unusual circumstances, the normal quantum of general damages awarded for an illegal lockout is $2,500.00. (HOT-02167-17 (Re), 2019 CanLII 86881 (ON LTB)). In 2024 the LTB has awarded much higher amounts in some cases (see for example Naylor v Equity Builders Place, 2024 ONLTB 19861 where the LTB awarded $14,740.00).

30. I find $6,000.00 to be an appropriate amount in the circumstances. The Tenant experienced homelessness and lost all of his belongings. The Landlord made no attempt to make the Tenant’s life easier. I might have awarded a higher amount but I do not find it to be appropriate in the circumstances given the lack of particulars and specifics in the Tenant’s evidence.

31. The Landlord shall also be required to pay the LTB an administrative fine of $2,000.

32. Section 207(1) of the Act establishes that the Board has authority to award payment to any given person, of up to $35,000.00. This amount is independent of any award to the Tenant: S. 207(1) of the Act states: The Board may, where it otherwise has the jurisdiction, order the payment to any given person of an amount of money up to the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court. Section 31(1)(d) of the Act provide that a Tenant may request that the Landlord pay a fine of up to $35,000.00 the current jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

33. While it is not binding upon me, the Board’s Guideline 16 outlines relevant considerations in determining the appropriateness of an administrative fine: “An administrative fine is a remedy to be used by the Board to encourage compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the "RTA"), and to deter landlords from engaging in similar activity in the future. This remedy is not normally imposed unless a landlord has shown a blatant disregard for the RTA and other remedies will not provide adequate deterrence and compliance. Administrative fines and rent abatements serve different purposes. Unlike a fine, a rent abatement is intended to compensate a tenant for a contravention of a tenant's rights or a breach of the landlord's obligations. File Numbers: LTB-T-074597-22 (formerly SOT-15435-20) LTB-T-074685-22 (formerly SOT-16695-20)”

34. I have considered all of the evidence before me, the nature and severity of the breach, and the effects of the breach on the Tenant. I find the amount $2,000 to be appropriate. In addition to the other remedies, this amount will help deter this small Landlord and other similar landlords from illegally evicting tenants.

TET-01936-09 (Re), 2010 CanLII 25302 (ON LTB)

3. Pursuant to Board order TEL-25115, issued July 22, 2009, the tenancy was terminated for non-payment of rent. The Tenants did not void this order by paying the arrears to the Landlord. RTC had the right to file order TEL-25115 with the Sheriff on or after August 2, 2009 in the event of non-payment. However, RTC did not file order TEL-25115 with the Sheriff.

7. The Tenants vacated the rental unit on September 3, 2009 as a result of the N12 Notice. The Tenants initially told the property management company retained by the Landlord that they would vacate the rental unit by August 31, 2009. However, the Tenants were not finished packing by August 31, 2009. The property management company agreed to extend the deadline until September 1, 2009. On September 2, 2009 the Tenants were still loading their van. GB, who works for the property management company, changed the locks on the rental unit on September 2, 2009 without giving the Tenants a key, but told the Tenants they could have access to the rental unit for the rest of the day to finish packing. He asked the Tenants to call him when they were finished packing. Not having heard from the Tenants, he returned to the unit at approximately 2 a.m. and discovered that the Tenants were still inside the rental unit. He asked them to leave, and then locked the door. The Tenants spent the rest of night in their truck parked outside of house.

Determinations:

2. The Landlord’s agent altered the locking system on a door giving entry to the rental unit or residential complex without giving the Tenants replacement keys.

3. The Landlord’s agent entered the rental unit illegally

4. The Landlord’s agent substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenants.

TST-54122-14 (Re), 2015 CanLII 69365 (ON LTB)

25. I am also satisfied that the Landlords breached section 24 of the Act by changing the locking mechanism to the common facilities and did not provide the Tenants with a replacement key. I am satisfied that the Tenants’ use of the facilities were part of the agreement the Tenants had with the Landlord TR from the beginning of the tenancy.

30. Based on the Landlords’ conduct, namely the conduct of Landlord AP, and its effect on the Tenants, I find a fine in the amount of $500.00 against the Landlords is warranted in the circumstances. This fine is levied in order to discourage the Landlords from engaging in a similar conduct in the future.

27. Based on the impact of the Landlord’s breaches on the Tenants, I am satisfied that an abatement of rent in the amount of $825.00 is warranted. This represents approximately 25% abatement for two months.

TST-57059-14-RV (Re), 2015 CanLII 36970 (ON LTB)

33. The only evidence offered by either party with respect to a replacement key was a statement by the Tenant that when she first spoke to the Cleaner about what happened she asked for her locker back. There is no other indication she asked for another locker or a replacement key. The Landlord also led no evidence to indicate that after it realised what had happened it provided or offered to her a replacement key or locker.

34. What this means is that there is actually no dispute between the parties that the Landlord changed the lock on the locker in question and failed to provide a replacement key. Rather, the Landlord argues that the Tenant was not entitled to the locker she was using; it was not included as a service in her tenancy agreement.

35. It is true that access to a locker is not explicitly included in the Tenant’s tenancy agreement but it would appear that is the norm for this residential complex; that is the reason why the locker clear out project was necessary. Lockers were not explicitly assigned; they were given away on a first come first serve basis.

36. The Tenant says that the superintendent gave her access to the locker when she was an occupant living in the previous unit. That superintendent was never called by the Landlord to testify so I accept this is true even though the Tenant was not a tenant in the residential complex at the time; merely an occupant. There was also no evidence to refute the Tenant’s statement that when she signed the lease for the current rental unit no one asked her for the locker back.

37. Under these circumstances it is not open to the Landlord to claim now that the Tenant had no rights with respect to her locker. That would be the equivalent of permitting the Landlord to benefit after the fact from its own carelessness in granting access to lockers without keeping track of who had one and who did not.

38. So I am satisfied that the Landlord breached section 24 of the Act. I would point out that changing the lock to the locker alone is not a breach of section 24; rather a landlord is free to change a lock – the breach only occurs where the landlord fails to provide a replacement key after the lock is changed.

45. The application seeks abatement of the rent in the amount of $238.00. The monthly rent is $1,265.00. So the abatement requested is about 19% of one month’s rent. Given my knowledge of previous cases before the Board I believe this is not an unreasonable nominal amount for abatement given the Landlord’s breach here. An order shall issue accordingly.

TST-78142-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88280 (ON LTB)

3. The residential complex is a rooming house with four floors. There are three units on the third floor, a unit on the second floor and a unit in the basement. The rental unit is on the third floor. It has a bathroom but shares a kitchen with three other units.

6. At the hearing, the Landlord provided his reasons for locking the Tenant out, including complaints from other tenants that the Tenant smoked marijuana in his car. However, section 24 is an absolute ban on a landlord locking a tenant out and it does not allow for any justifications. The Landlord could have availed himself of other notices and procedures at the Board to address the Tenant’s offending behaviour. In fact, the Landlord was aware of this option because he served an N5 Notice of Termination on the Tenant but he did not take further steps because he did not want to pay the application filing fee.

7. Accordingly, I find that by denying the Tenant access to the residential complex on September 27, 2016 and changing the locks to the building without giving the Tenant a key, the Landlord violated section 24 of the Act. I also find that by locking the Tenant out, the Landlord substantially interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex or rental unit contrary to section 22 of the Act. In support of his allegation that the Landlord harassed him, the Tenant’s only evidence was a text message the Landlord sent him on September 20, 2016 saying that the Tenant had one week to move out before the Landlord changed the locks. However, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that this text rises to the level of harassment.

HOT-03127-18-AM (Re), 2018 CanLII 141506 (ON LTB)

5. A few days prior to the lock out, the Landlord had left the Tenant a letter dated July 27, 2018 (although he may have intended it to be dated June 27, 2018), stating that the Tenant would no longer have access to the rental unit after 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2018 due to non-payment of rent and “other tenancy issues”. The letter further states that the Tenant’s use of the rental unit as an Airbnb/short term rental was against the tenancy agreement. The letter also states that the locks would be changed by 8:00 a.m. on July 2, 2018.

6. The Tenant believes she was locked out pursuant to the Landlord’s letter. The Tenant was not aware of any order of the Board, terminating the tenancy. The Tenant had not received a notice of termination or an application to terminate the tenancy at the time she was locked out. Further, on July 2, 2018, the Tenant was not intending to move out of the rental unit. The Tenant moved out on August 28, 2018. There were no other lock-outs after July 2, 2018.

7. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Landlord breached section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the “Act”) by altering the lock on the door to the rental unit during the Tenant’s occupancy without giving the Tenant replacement keys. Even if the Tenant was not paying her rent or was causing other issues in her tenancy, the Landlord was required to follow the procedures for terminating the tenancy in the Act, instead of circumventing them. The tenancy could only be terminated in accordance with the Act, as provided by section 37, but in this case the Landlord attempted to do so unilaterally and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

TST-80082-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 9501 (ON LTB)

4. There is no dispute between the parties that the Tenant initially moved into room number 3. On December 29, 2014, he paid a last month’s rent deposit of $500.00.

7. The parties agreed at the beginning of the tenancy that the monthly rent would be $550.00

26. As a result, I am satisfied that the Landlord changed the locks and refused to give the Tenant a replacement key. This is a breach of section 24 of the Act.

27. After the events of November 30, 2016, the Tenant started living in a shelter. He is looking for a new place to live because he does not want to return to the rental unit. But he does want his stuff back. He was able to collect some of his possessions from the rental unit but because he is in a shelter he does not have room for many of his things so there are still possessions belonging to him in the rental unit.

3. The Landlord shall pay to the Landlord and Tenant Board an administrative fine in the amount of $2,600.00 by January 31, 2017.

7. The Landlord shall also pay to the Tenant $3,000.00 for compensatory damages.

8. The Landlord shall also pay to the Tenant $467.50 for abatement of the rent.

9. The total amount the Landlord owes the Tenant is $3,985.09.

CET-67363-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 93939 (ON LTB)

57. It is undisputed that the Tenant vacated the rental unit as of August 2016 as requested by the Landlords so that necessary repairs could be effected. The Landlords submitted an order to remedy unsafe building issued on July 19, 2016 from the City of Barrie Building Services Department which states that the Landlords are required to restrict access to the damaged units and perform remedial work to make the building safe for occupancy.

58. The Landlords refused to provide the Tenant with replacement keys because they believed that either the rental agreement was frustrated, there was a fundamental breach that relieved the Landlords from performance and/or the Tenant abandoned the rental unit. I have not found that the tenancy agreement was frustrated nor that there was a fundamental breach nor that the Tenant abandoned the rental unit. Therefore the Tenant remained entitled to occupancy of the rental unit and the Landlords contravened section 24 of the Act by failing to provide the Tenant with replacement keys.

Illegal lockout remedies

59. The Tenant seeks an order restoring possession of the rental unit to her. In the alternative, the Tenant seeks increased rent for one year.

60. Subsection 31(3) of the Act states that if the Board determined that the landlord has altered the locking system on a door giving entry to the rental unit/complex without giving the tenant replacement keys and if the Board is satisfied that the rental unit is vacant, the Board may order that the landlord allow the tenant to recover possession of the rental unit.

61. It is not appropriate to issue an order allowing the Tenant to recover possession of the rental unit. The Landlords have re-rented the unit to other Tenant who have been in possession of the rental unit as of July 1, 2017.

68. Therefore the Tenant is entitled to increased rent paid for a one year period from June 1, 2017 until May 1, 2018. The Tenant is entitled to $11,105.70 calculated as follows:

July 1, 2017 – September 8, 2017 $625 x 10 weeks – [1] = $3,728.40

October 13, 2017 – May 1, 2018 $2000/month = $7,377.30

70. The Tenant is entitled to storages expenses for the period from June 8, 2017 until October 10, 2017 of $4,500.00. The Tenant submitted invoices in support of the amount claimed.

SOT-68533-16-RV (Re), 2016 CanLII 44359 (ON LTB)

1. The Tenant’s application alleged that the Landlord locked the Tenant out of the rental unit and disposed of the Tenant's property while he was hospitalized.

2. While he was hospitalized, the Tenant's spouse and co-tenant provided the Landlord with notice of her intention to terminate the tenancy, which the Landlord accepted. She did not inform the Tenant of her intention. It was only upon leaving the hospital that the Tenant found out. By then, the Landlord had retaken possession of the rental unit.

3. After a contested hearing, the hearing member dismissed the Tenant's application. Central to his reasoning for doing so was a determination that the tenancy had been properly terminated by the Tenant's spouse, and that the Landlord had acted lawfully in taking possession of the rental unit.

6. The "English approach," as Vice-Chair Gascoyne described it, was summed up by Lord Neuberger of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Sims v Dacorum Borough Council (2014) UKSC 63, at paragraphs 1 and 2:

1. Where a tenancy of land is held by more than one person, those persons hold the tenancy jointly. In Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v. Monk (1992) AC 478 (“Monk”), the House of Lords unanimously held that, where such a tenancy is a periodic tenancy, which can be brought to an end by a notice to quit, the common law rule is that, in the absence of a contractual term to the contrary, the tenancy will be validly determined by service on the landlord of a notice to quit by only one of the joint tenants. (This was not a revolutionary decision: it had long been assumed to be the law: see eg Doe d Aslin v Summersett (1830) 1 B & Ad135, 140 per Lord Tenterden CJ.

2. Thus, in common law, one of a number of joint periodic tenants can bring the tenancy to an end against the wishes, even without the knowledge, of his or her co-tenant or co-tenants, by serving a notice to quit on the landlord.

8. In contrast, the principle that one joint tenant may serve a termination notice that binds other joint tenants has been accepted by Canadian courts for many decades, including in the following cases:

Burrows v. Michelson (1904) 1904 CanLII 127 (MB QB), 14 Man.R. 739 (K.B.);

Balemba and Balemba v. Louis, (1945) A.J. No. 81 (S.C.);

Andreason v. Clarke, (1945) A.J. No. 10 (S.C.);

Dudiak v. Holzer, 1950 CanLII 133 (SK QB); and

Soucy v Milton Heights Inc., 2015 SKQB 126 (CanLII)

10. In my view, the hearing member did not err by concluding that the tenancy was properly terminated by the notice of only one joint tenant. Such a conclusion was amply supported by law.

11. Another element of the Tenant's position warrants comment. The Tenant relied on the reasons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Hansen Estate v. Hansen 2012 ONCA 112 in support of his position that the termination notice served by his co-tenant should only have served to convert the joint tenancy into a tenancy in common, and that he should continue as a tenant.

14. Unlike judges of the Superior Court of Justice, members of this Board do not have jurisdiction to sever tenancies. This Board is a creature of statute, and members of this Board may only exercise powers conferred on them by statute. There is no statutory authority empowering Board members to sever tenancies.

CET-10092-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 27008 (ON LTB)

5. The facts of this matter are simple. After a five month tenancy, on January 10, 2011 the Landlord visited the Tenants and demanded rent payment. A heated argument ensued and police were called by the Tenants, who ended the incident.

6. The next day, on January 11, 2011 the Landlord reported to the Barrie police that he has two “unwanted persons” at his residence who were his former “friends and room mates”. The Landlord was “adamant to have the two unwanted guests removed from his residence” (all quotes from Barrie Police Services Arrest Report dated January 11, 2011).

7. Two officers arrived at the scene and entered the unit while the Landlord remained outside in his car. They explained to the Tenants that contrary to their opinion, they had “no right to reside there against the complainant’s wishes”. According to the report, the Tenants were unable to “comprehend plain English” because of “their extremely high level of intoxication”. Within minutes they were arrested under section 2(1)(b) of the Trespass to Property Act, placed in a cruiser in handcuffs and delivered to the nearest Tim Horton’s, where they were released. This being around 10 pm, one of the Tenants was in his pyjamas.

8. The Arrest Report ends with the following observation: “Both parties do in fact, rent a room and there is no lease agreement in place and both parties do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Tribunal. As such, the complainant did have every right to have both males removed from his premises”.

9. Starting from the morning of January 12, 2010 the Tenants have made repeated attempts to get access to their belongings, clothes, documents, car keys, etc. which all remained inside the apartment. The Landlord demanded the payment of $1,300.00 before allowing any access. After police intervention, the Tenants were able to remove their belongings on January 17, 2011. They were never permitted to return to the apartment to continue their tenancy.

14. Not only did RM initiated (which means, carried out) an illegal eviction in the middle of the night, but then stubbornly refused to provide access for the Tenants. On top of this he tried to create an appearance that the apartment was shared accommodation on the day the eviction took place.

15. The only issue remaining is the size of compensation. The Tenants asked for the actual costs pf $4,470.00 associated with this attack on their rights and supported them with bills and invoices. They never asked for compensation related to stress, disruption of their lives, being left without clothing, etc. for a week in winter and other losses. I find that for these losses they are entitled to compensation of $5,365.00.

16. The total compensation the Landlord shall pay to the Tenants is $9,835.00.

17. I considered whether, in view of the egregious disregard for the law, the Landlord shall pay a fine to the Board. I considered Guideline 16 of the Interpretation Guidelines of the Board which deals with fines. I decided that in the circumstances described above a fine in the amount of $2,000.00 is appropriate.

CET-74138-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88571 (ON LTB)

23. The Tenant testified that the locks to the entry door to the unit were changed on December 29, 2017. He said the Landlord was willing to permit him to access his unit through the Landlord’s unit however the Tenant was uncomfortable. The Tenant called the police who took his room key and told him to leave the premises.

24. The Tenant said the Landlord refused to allow him to retrieve his belongings on December 30, 2017. He said he was without his medications and wore the same clothes for 7 days. The Tenant said he was able to retrieve some of his belongings on January 4, 2018 but is missing some of his personal property. The Tenant requested $2,000 damages for stress and anxiety.

25. The Landlord said he locked the inside of the side entry door because there was a lot of snow which made it unsafe for the Tenant to enter so he offered the Tenant entry through the front door of the house. The Landlord said he did not call the police and did not evict the Tenant, the police told the Tenant to leave. The Landlord said the Tenant took his medications with him and the Landlord recommended a unit for rent next door to the Tenant, where he now resides. The Landlord also said the Tenant took all of his belongings on January 4, 2018 and said he does not have any of the Tenant’s belongings at the unit.

26. Section 24 of the Act states that a landlord shall not alter the locking system on a door giving entry to a rental unit or residential complex of cause a locking system to be altered during the tenant’s occupancy of the rental unit.

27. It is undisputed that the Landlord did not “evict” the Tenant. The Tenant vacated the rental unit based on the direction of the police. The Tenant has an opportunity on December 29, 2017 and January 4, 2018 to remove his personal belongings from the unit.

28. The Landlord did not alter the locking system to the side entry door but locked it on the inside because of concerns of snow accumulation outside this door and the impact to the safety of the tenants. The Tenant was able to enter the unit the same day when another tenant exited the complex through this door and the Landlord offered the Tenant another entry option. Therefore there is no breach of section 24. Furthermore, there was a minimal impact by the Landlord’s action to secure the side entry door from the inside although the Landlord should have cleared the snow instead of securing the door in accordance with his obligations under section 20.

29. As a consequence, the Tenant is not entitled to the remedies for increased rent, replacement costs for personal belongings, out-of-pocket expenses for meals and damages of $2,000 for stress and anxiety because the Landlord illegally evicted him.

30. It is appropriate to order termination of the tenancy as of December 29, 2017 because the parties agreed that the tenancy terminated on this date.

TET-91006-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113879 (ON LTB)

3. On May 5, 2018 the Tenant was locked out of his room by the Landlord. The Landlord had left him a message on his phone indicating that he would be changing the locks, calling the police and throwing the Tenant’s belongings out.

4. The Board issued an interim order dated May 8, 2018 which allowed the Tenant to obtain his medications from his room; prevented the Landlord from re-renting until the matter was heard, and prevented the Landlord from disposing of the Tenant’s belongings.

5. There is no dispute by the parties on the events. The Landlord acknowledges that he locked the Tenant out as the Tenant was in rental arrears.

...

8. While the Landlord may have had reasons why he wanted to evict the Tenant, he did not follow the lawful process for doing so as required by section 37(1) of the Act. The eviction notice was not served in accordance with the Act’s rules and the Landlord’s clear intent in changing the locks was to deny the Tenant entry into the rental unit. The Act also provides that only the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) can evict a tenant from a rental unit.

9. I also find that the Landlord substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenant by evicting him without first serving him a notice of termination in accordance with the Act and without receiving a Board eviction order.

...

13. Here the Tenant was paying for the right to enjoy his unit without fear of being illegally locked out. Given the Tenant’s testimony and the impact the situation had on him, now living in a shelter, an abatement of rent for the entire month of May 2018, and the return of his last month’s rent deposit is reasonable. An abatement of $1200.00 is therefore granted.

14. The Tenant provided no evidence supporting a claim for pain and suffering. When asked how the illegal eviction affected him, he testified that he was staying in a shelter for now and he is on social assistance. I find that the Tenant has suffered displacement and some difficulty from the unexpected lock out and deserves some compensation for pain and suffering. The Tenant is granted $500.00 for pain and suffering.

TNT-91405-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28632 (ON LTB)

4. On June 23, 2016 the Tenant came home from his girlfriend’s home where he had been staying for a few days to find that the Landlord or someone on his behalf had entered his unit without notice, removed all of his possessions and placed most of them in a dumpster outside the house, and changed the lock giving entry to the rental unit.

...

12. The Tenant provided a list of the possessions in the rental unit that were lost, together with the cost of those possessions. From the photographs provided, one can see that a large dumpster is full of furniture and other possessions. In addition, the Landlord may have retained some of the Tenant’s items for his own use or for resale.

13. Based on the evidence at the hearing I find that the Landlord illegally retained and/or disposed of the Tenant’s goods valued at over $40,000.00. I also find that the Landlord illegally threatened the Tenant, entered his rental unit illegally, changed the locks contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’), and seriously interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit.

...

It is ordered that:

1. The Landlord shall pay to the Tenant $25,000.00. This represents less than the reasonable costs that the Tenant will incur in replacing property that was destroyed or disposed of by the Landlord’s actions.

2. The Landlord shall also pay to the Tenant $50.00 for the cost of filing the application.

3. The total amount the Landlord owes is $25,050.00.

Dybajlo v Kaldus, 2020 CanLII 119198 (ON LTB)

5. For the following reasons, I find that the Landlord has harassed the Tenants, entered the rental unit illegally and altered the locking system without giving the Tenants replacement keys.

8. The Tenants returned to the rental unit on July 5th to find that the Landlord had locked them out of the complex and would not respond to them. The Tenants sat in their car in the driveway, called the police, spoke to several dispatchers, but were told that, because of the pandemic and other complications, there was no way of knowing when the police could attend the unit.

9. The Tenants waited several hours in the driveway, and then checked into a hotel room where they lived for several days. On July 7th, the police finally became available and attended the rental unit with the Tenants. After several hours of negotiation and with the help of a locksmith, the Tenants were eventually able to gain entry to the unit. Once inside, the Tenants discovered that their belongings had been removed and were piled in garbage bags in the garage.

10. During this incident, the Tenants say that the Landlord was aggressive with them and the police officers and it took several hours for the police to de-escalate the situation. As a result of these tensions, the Tenants were uncomfortable staying in this hostile environment after the police left, so they stayed in their hotel room for another night.

11. The Tenants returned to the unit the following day and found that the Landlord had completely removed the rental unit door and he was smoking narcotics on the Tenants’ couch. The Tenants called the police again, who attended the rental unit and told them they had no jurisdiction to remove the Landlord because this was a matter for the Board to resolve.

12. The Tenants then left town during their days off and returned to the rental unit on July 12th to find the Landlord asleep in their bed in the rental unit. At the hearing, the Tenants provided a picture of the Landlord asleep in one of their beds.

13. The Tenants say this confirmed that they had no choice but to move out of the rental unit and find alternate accommodations. The Tenants then rented a trailer which they lived in for the next two months. The Tenants were ultimately able to retrieve their belongings from the garage at some point in August 2020.

14. Finally, the Tenants say that the Landlord continued to advertise the rental unit in July on a short-term rental website and they provided the Board with copies of these advertisements and one review from a person who had stayed in the unit for a weekend in July.

15. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Landlord harassed the Tenants, entered the rental unit illegally and altered the locking system without giving the Tenants replacement keys contrary to sections 23 and 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act').

16. The Landlord sent text messages to the Tenants notifying them that they could no longer live in the rental unit. The Landlord then rented out the unit to other people while the Tenants were gone. In the meantime, the Landlord removed the Tenants’ belongings, stored them in the garage and prevented the Tenants from entering the unit for several days until the police forced him to do so. The Landlord then essentially moved into the rental unit himself for a period of time, while also renting it out temporarily to people vacationing in the area.

17. As I am satisfied that the Landlord has breached several sections of the Act, the Tenants’ application should be granted and a remedy should flow to the Tenants.

The Remedies

It is Ordered

29. In these circumstances, Landlord has shown a blatant disregard for his obligations under the Act. Given the severity of the breaches here, the impact on the Tenants of the Landlord’s behaviour, the other remedies awarded and my knowledge of similar cases, I find that an administrative fine of $1,000.00 is appropriate in these circumstances. An order will issue accordingly.

d) Out of Pocket Expenses

30. The Tenants are requesting an order for the out of pocket expenses they incurred because of the Landlord’s actions. A breakdown of the total out of pocket expenses is as follows:

a) Trailer rental from July to August = $950.00

b) Hotel stay = $496.09

c) Missed work for Tenant #1= $1,233.00

d) Missed work for Tenant #2 = $1,849.50

e) Mileage to their hometown based on ministry guidelines of $0.41km and 236km one way travel for 4 trips with 2 vehicles = $774.08

f) Locksmith Fee = $81.36

g) Legal Costs = $1,500.00

h) Total Out of Pocket Expenses Requested = $6,884.03

31. The Tenants provided receipts and a chart summarizing the above-noted expenses. With the exception of the Tenants’ legal costs, I am satisfied that the Tenants incurred these out of pocket expenses as a direct result of the Landlord’s conduct and an order will issue for $5,384.03.

Syrette v Pirozzi, 2021 CanLII 84572 (ON LTB)

13. The Tenant is a vulnerable person receiving support through ODSP and was the victim of an illegal lockout during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tenant has experienced undue pain and suffering and financial hardship as a direct result of the Landlord’s actions. Therefore, the Tenant is entitled to general damages in addition to a rent abatement. I am awarding an amount of $5,000.00 in general damages as a result of the Landlord’s deliberate actions and the detrimental impact it has had on the Tenant. I find the circumstances suffered by the Tenant caused her pain and suffering. Attempts made by the Tenant to recover her belongings were refused by the Landlord. The Landlord disposed of her belongings. The items also included her government issued identification and items which have important sentimental value which cannot be replaced, the ashes of her family members.

Lamirande v Gray, 2024 ONLTB 10310 (CanLII)

13. As explained below and in the Interim order issued on November 14, 2023, the Tenant proved the allegations contained in the application on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, the Landlord must:

• Pay to the Tenant $1,118.00 which represents compensation in the amount of $1,070.00 and the $48.00 cost the Tenant incurred for filing the application.

• Pay to the Board an administrative fine of $1,000.00.

• Not collect rent with respect to this tenancy from the period August 16, 2023 to November 15, 2023.

...

31. I do find after careful consideration of all facts that the Landlord altered the locking system on a door giving entry to the rental unit or residential complex without giving the Tenant replacement keys.

32. Section 37 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) states that a tenancy may only be terminated in accordance with the Act. The Act provides that a tenancy may be terminated by notice, by agreement, or by order of the Board.

33. Section 39 of the Act states that a landlord shall not recover possession of a rental unit subject to a tenancy unless,

a) The tenant has vacated or abandoned the unit; or

b) An order of the Board evicting the tenant has authorized the possession.

34. There is no evidence before me that the Tenant had abandoned or vacated the unit nor that there was an order for the Board evicting the Tenant. The only claim that was made for abandonment was by the Landlord that the Tenant did not come back and ask for keys, so they deemed it was abandoned. The Landlord never served the Tenant any forms or application or file one with the Board to declare the unit abandoned.

35. The actions of both parties have been questionable throughout the period from August 16, 2023 till November 15, 2023. Neither party attempted to reach out to the other to address the serious issues with this tenancy after the one feeble attempt made by the Landlord. However, even after testifying to the hardships of being homeless, the Tenant has chosen not move back into the property even after seeking and obtaining a repossession order from the Board.

36. There is no doubt that the Landlord changed the locks of the rental unit and did not provide keys to the Tenant on August 16, 2023, but the Tenant also did not attempt to ask for keys once since she got to know that the lock was changed. Neither party tried to mitigate their losses. The only step taken by the Tenant was to file an application with the Board on October 31, 2023, a month and a half after the lockout.

37. I do accept that there was an emergency situation on August 13, 2023 which justified entry into the unit without a notice of entry. The Landlord became aware of the smoke detectors not working in the complex due to hydro being disconnected. I also find that the Landlord was able to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Tenant’s unit had fleas, which the Tenant acknowledged, which establishes a need to discard some of the Tenant’s belongings like mattress, box spring and clothes which would retain the fleas. This is a relevant a consideration with respect to the appropriate remedy.