Right of Entry by Landlord (LTB)

Sewch Investments v. Levert, 2019 ONSC 4411 (CanLII)

[2] First, he argues the Board failed to apply s. 27(1)4 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (the “RTA”) in that it failed to determine whether the entry on January 7, 2016 was reasonable. He submits that the entry was not reasonable, because the landlord chose a day for entry when the tenant had a Board hearing, knowing that the tenant wanted to be present for any inspection. As well, the entry was unreasonable because he was ill that day.

[3] This ground of appeal raises no question of law. The Board turned its mind to s. 27 and found the notice of entry was proper and that the entry was for a lawful purpose (see para. 19 of the Reasons). The tenant does not have a right to be present for the entry, so the fact that he was going to be elsewhere does not affect the lawfulness of the entry or its reasonableness.

[4] The Board also found that the tenant refused entry. The argument that he was ill, and that was the reason to refuse entry, does not appear to have been made to the Board in relation to s. 27. In any event, on the facts set out in the decision, the entry was reasonable, as shown by the statement of the Board at para. 30:

The Tenant gave no evidence to connect his disability or any of his other personal circumstances with the issue of his repeated refusals to allow the landlord’s agents entry into the rental unit.

[7] Moreover, as quoted above, there was no evidence to connect the tenant’s medical condition or personal circumstances with the repeated refusals of entry. Without such evidence, the Board could not determine whether there was a meaningful accommodation that would prevent further breaches of the mediated agreement.

[8] Accordingly, we find no error of law by the Board in refusing to exercise its discretion to set aside the eviction order.