Excessive Visits from Real Estate Agents

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-25
CLNP Page ID:	1830
Page Categories:	[Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)]
Citation:	Excessive Visits from Real Estate Agents, CLNP 1830, <https://rvt.link/4->, retrieved on 2024-11-25
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2023/09/17

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

CET-64293-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28748 (ON LTB)

18. The Tenant claims substantial interference or harassment because there are excessive visits from the Landlords’ real estate agent.

19. She testified that the Landlords informed her they had decided to sell the home.

20. Subsection 27(2) of the Act specifies that a landlord or with written authorization of the landlord a real estate broker or salesperson may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry to allow a potential purchaser to view the rental unit. Subsection 27(3) of the Act requires the notice to specify the reason for entry, the day of entry and a time of entry between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.

21. The first undated text message from the Landlords fails to comply with section 27 of the Act. The message does not specify a time of entry between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. and since it states the entry is “this evening” fails to provide 24 hours notice.

22. Entry by a real estate agent was attempted on February 28th without proper notice and another entry was requested by phone at an unknown date.

23. During the first week of March, the Tenant received a message from the Landlords’ real estate agent stating that he intends to show the property every weekend from 1 to 4 p.m.

24. The notice submitted into evidence dated March 4th only partially complies with section 27 of the Act. The Landlords provided 24 hours notice for the March 5th entry however merely stating “he will be visiting during week days too this week” does not comply with the Act.

25. I am awarding the Tenant a rent abatement of $25.00 for each of the five attempts at entry described above. The total amount awarded to the Tenant for substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment because the Landlords failed to comply with the entry provisions under the Act is $125.00.

TST-94251-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 111712 (ON LTB)

10. It seems to me that the Landlords had a duty to take reasonable steps to minimize the impact the viewings would have on the Tenants. On the evidence before me the Landlords did what they could. When the Tenants complained to E.W. about the way viewings were being conducted, E.W. took steps to ensure that potential purchasers’ realtors were informed in advance of the Tenants’ needs. I do not see what more the Landlords could reasonably have done.

TNT-07149-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113851 (ON LTB)

5. In February and March 2018 the rental unit was for sale. S. 27(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) permits a real estate broker or sales person, with the Landlord’s authorization, to enter a rental unit WITH WRITTEN NOTICE GIVEN TO THE TENANT AT LEAST 24 HOURS BEFORE THE TIME OF ENTRY, to allow a potential purchaser to view the rental unit.

6. The Landlord and her agent insisted that all showings were done with proper notice. This is incorrect. The Tenant produced 17 e-mails in which showings were demanded with less than 24 hours’ notice. The agents entered the unit with the use of a key left in a lockbox at the property.

7. These persistent showings on short (or no) notice seriously interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit. In all there were about 60 showings of the rental unit before it was sold, which was a serious disruption to the Tenant.

...

It is ordered that:

1. The Landlord shall pay to the Tenant $339.50 for interest on the last month rent deposit and the return of the key deposit.

2. The Landlord shall also pay to the Tenant $103.61 for the cost of the parts used by him to repair the leak in the kitchen sink.

3. The Landlord shall also pay the Tenant an abatement of rent in the amount of $1,500.00 for interference with his reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit and illegally entering the unit.

CET-13651-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 50514 (ON LTB)

Determinations:

1. The Landlord’s agent illegally entered the rental unit on April 21, 2011. This entry by a real estate agent to show the unit to a potential purchaser occurred without the consent of the Tenants or the required notice to the Tenants.

2. The Tenants are entitled to a rent abatement of $36.16, which is equal to the full day’s rent for the day that the illegal entry occurred ($1,100.00 monthly rent x 12 months, divided by 365 days = $36.16 per day).

CET-77573-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141486 (ON LTB)

3. The Tenant testified that the Landlord or her agents illegally entered the unit. He said the entries occurred four to five times in a two month period with not notice. The Tenant said a contractor hired by the Landlord walks into the unit at any time. The Tenant also said the house is for sale and in July there were several visits by real estate agents and prospective buyers without any notice. The Tenant submitted a log he kept for the visits in July 2018.

4. The Landlord denies entering the unit and said no contractor she hired entered the unit. The Landlord said she asked her real estate agent to provide the Tenant with proper notice and he said that he did.

5. The Landlord breached subsection 27(2) of the Act by failing to provide the Tenant with written notice to allow potential purchasers to view the unit. The Tenant provided a detailed written log which identifies six entries without notice between July 7th and July 31, 2018. The Landlord did not provide sufficient evidence that her real estate agent gave notice to the Tenant in accordance with the Act. The Tenant is entitled to $87.50 representing a 25% abatement for July 2018. The impact to the Tenant of the illegal entries was amplified because it was prospective buyers and real estate agents who entered unannounced and almost daily during the week of July 20th. The Tenant did not provide sufficient details regarding other illegal entries such as dates and times.

TET-69036-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 49115 (ON LTB)

27. At some point in time the Landlords decided they wanted to put the residential complex up for sale. The Tenant says that right before Christmas, 2015 the first-named Landlord told her a realtor was coming to appraise the property. After two such appraisals the property was listed for sale and real estate agents started coming to the rental unit to show the house to prospective purchasers.

28. Between January 15 and March 15, 2016, there were showings of the rental unit to prospective purchasers almost every day and often multiple times per day.

29. One day in January the Tenant returned home to find six people in her home without having received any notice. On or about February 12, 2016, again without notice, an agent entered the unit to show it to a family at about 5 p.m. and discovered the Tenant was having a bath. She met them wrapped in a towel and asked them to leave. As a result of that incident the Landlord’s realtor promised to send text messages consistently 24 hours in advance of the planned showing.

30. The realtor did not want the family to be home when showings were happening and the Tenant has very young children. She says she would sometimes take the children out for dinner rather than be home during showings and there was one incident where her children were asleep in bed when prospective purchasers walked in on them in their bedroom.

31. For the most part the Tenant did not complain about what was happening until the end of February, 2016. On February 28, 2016 she refused a showing the realtor wanted to do because the text message was sent less than 24 hours prior to the planned showing. On February 29, 2016, she complained directly to the first-named Landlord about entries by the second-named Landlord that she believed were occurring without her knowledge when she was not at home.

32. Neither party was aware at the time of their rights and obligations with respect to entry into the rental unit.

33. The privacy provisions in the Act are set out in sections 25, 26 and 27. Section 25 says a landlord shall not enter a rental unit except in accordance with the Act. Section 26 is about entries that are permitted without notice. Section 27 is about entry on notice.

34. The right to enter on notice is restricted to one of the listed purposes for notice set out in ss. 27(1) and (2). Parties can add to the list of permitted purposes by setting out additional reasonable reasons for entry in their tenancy agreement but otherwise, the purpose of the entry must be listed in section 27.

35. Here, the tenancy agreement between the parties did not add additional reasonable grounds of entry so the Landlords were restricted in their right to serve notice to enter in that entry had to be for one of the listed purposes in s. 27.

36. Although s. 27(2) permits a landlord or an authorised real estate agent to enter to show the rental unit to prospective purchasers, it does not include agents coming to appraise the property. That is not a permitted purpose.

37. Further, s. 27(2) specifically says that to show the unit to prospective purchasers the landlord or real estate agent must give a minimum of 24 hours advance written notice to the tenant.

38. What this means is that when the Landlord’s realtor telephoned the Tenant to tell her about a showing - that was not permissible notice because s. 27(2) says notice must be in writing.

39. In addition, section 191 sets out the permissible methods of giving written notice. E-mail and text are not permissible methods of service. That being said, s. 191(2) says that if a notice is served by a different method, then it will be deemed to have been validly given if it can be proven it came to the recipient’s attention within the required time period.

40. So this also means that all of the texts or e-mails sent to the Tenant by the realtor with respect to showings were not proper notice unless the Landlords can prove the Tenant received the texts and e-mails at least 24 hours prior to the showing itself. As the Landlords pretty much have no way of knowing when the Tenant actually looked at her texts or e-mails, the evidence supports the conclusion that between mid-December, 2015 and mid-March, 2016 there were at least 80 illegal entries into the rental unit.

41. What remedy if any the Tenant is entitled to as a result of these illegal entries is discussed below under the hearing “Remedies”.

...

101. Having considered all of the above, I am of the view that a reasonable abatement of the rent would be $5,005.00. This amount represents about 5% of the rent charged for the period up to December 31, 2015 for the Landlords’ failure to respond to the disrepair issues; approximately 80% of the rent charged for the three month period when the real estate showings were on-going; and about 35% of the rent charged for the balance of the tenancy because of the additional entry breaches, the harassment over entry conflicts including the egregious incident with the police, and the on-going lack of repair and maintenance up to the termination date of the tenancy.