Tenant Changed the Lock (RTA)

TEL-88821-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 111746 (ON LTB)

25. Although the notice implies that the Tenant changed the locks to stop the Landlord from entering to inspect or do the necessary repairs that is not what actually happened.

26. Both parties acknowledge the locks were changed many years ago and the Landlord was fully aware of it and had no problem with that until the floor damage occurred.

27. But no evidence was led that the locks were changed with the Landlord’s consent, and no evidence was led that the Tenant provided the Landlord with a replacement key after the notice of termination was issued.

28. Pursuant to s. 35(1) of the Act:

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.

29. So regardless of when the locks were changed or why, I am satisfied the Tenant changed the lock in contravention of the Act. As the Landlord needs the key to enter the unit to do repairs and inspections, that behaviour substantially interferes with a lawful right of the Landlord.

30. That being said, pursuant to s. 83(1) of the Act, I am not prepared to issue an eviction order on this basis. The Landlord has known for years the Tenant changed the lock and was content to let her do so. It could at any time over the years have brought the appropriate application to obtain a key, or change the lock back to ensure it had access as needed. In other words, the Landlord’s acquiescence to the Tenant’s behaviour indicates it was not a serious issue for the Landlord until the floor damage appeared.

TSL-68541-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 39895 (ON LTB)

1. All of the allegations in the N5 notice of termination preceding the application alleged substantial interference because the Tenant was not allowing access to the rental unit on proper notice. It alleged the Tenant has a secondary lock installed on the rental unit door and required the Tenant to provide the Landlord a key.

2. The N5 notice of termination listed a number of dates the Landlord was unable to enter the rental unit on proper notice, yet almost all of the evidence at the second hearing addressed attempts to enter made after the N5 was served, not before.

3. Specifically, Witness 2 testified she was unable to access the rental unit on notice on November 10, 2015 to treat the unit for pests when the N5 was sent by mail on October 28, 2015, deemed served on November 2, 2015. Otherwise Witness 2’s testimony was that she did access the rental unit on two occasions in 2014 and, after repeated questioning, on April 10, 2015. These were not dates when access could not be gained, the allegation in the N5. Witnesses 3 and 4 only confirmed that evidence, providing none of the particulars to support any of the remaining allegations in the N5.

8. The Tenant further argued she effectively voided the N5 because no attempt to access the rental unit was made during the voiding period: November 3, 2015 (the day after deemed service) to November 9, 2015 (the seventh day following). It is clear and obvious however that the Tenant did not void the N5 because the lock impeding the access was not changed, nor was the Landlord given a key. The Tenant was made aware of the issue where the Landlord was unable to gain the access it was entitled to which substantially interfered with the Landlord’s reasonable enjoyment and lawful rights. It was then up to the Tenant to do something to remedy the situation and mitigate her damages. The very simple resolution to the problem would have been to give the Landlord a copy of the key.

TEL-18848-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 71498 (ON LTB)

L8 Application:

16. The Landlord claimed that she planned to list the house for sale, but did not have a key/security code for entry to the unit, and repeated requests of the Tenants to this effect have been to no avail.

17. The Tenant gave evidence that when they assumed possession of the rental unit under the previous landlord, there was a dysfunctional key pad. With the previous landlord’s permission, they replaced the key pad at their own expense; and the previous landlord at no time requested that they provide him with the entry code.

Analysis/Conclusion:

18. The issue to be determined is whether the Tenants altered the locking system on a door giving entry to the rental unit without the Landlord's consent.

19. The Landlord assumed the role from the previous landlord, who, according to the Tenant’s undisputed evidence, gave them permission to change the locking system. The previous landlord lived elsewhere, as the Landlord indicated, and likely did not pursue securing a means of entry to the rental unit.

20. While it is no doubt in the interest of both parties that they all have a means of entry to the rental unit, especially in the case of emergency on the Landlord’s part, I find no wrong doing on the Tenants’ part in this case, since they did have permission of the previous landlord to change the dysfunctional locking system.

21. Therefore, while I have no grounds for allowing the Landlord’s application, the Tenants are not prevented from providing the Landlord with the entry code to the unit; nor is the Landlord prohibited from initiating the necessary steps to ensure that she has a means of entry to the rental unit.

22. For the above reasons, the Landlord’s L8 application will be dismissed.