Tenants Named Incorrectly (LTB): Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Citation: | {{Citation: | ||
| categories = [Defective Notice (LTB)] | | categories = [Defective Notice (LTB)] | ||
| shortlink = | | shortlink = https://rvt.link/et | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:29, 10 January 2025
| 🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2025-04-19 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 1176 |
| Page Categories: | [Defective Notice (LTB)] |
| Citation: | Tenants Named Incorrectly (LTB), CLNP 1176, <https://rvt.link/et>, retrieved on 2025-04-19 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2025/01/10 |
SWT-09323-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42486 (ON LTB)[1]
21. Although the Landlord served the Tenant a first N5 Notice, which I found to be flawed because he failed to name all of the Tenants and failed to provide sufficient details or give enough time between the date of service and the termination date, the Landlord said he served the notice after speaking with the police and other tenants. In any event, the Tenant had the opportunity to void that notice. Further, it was the Tenant who contacted the Landlord on October 11, 2017, 8 days after receiving the N5 Notice saying she was moving October 15, 2017 and wanted her portion of the rent as well as her portion of the last month's rent deposit returned to her. More interestingly, the Tenant testified she moved because the other girls made her feel unsafe.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 SWT-09323-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42486 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/hs07t>, retrieved on 2021-03-18
