Illegal Entry (Rooming House)

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

2 (1) In this Act,

...

“rental unit” means any living accommodation used or intended for use as rented residential premises, and “rental unit” includes,

(a) a site for a mobile home or site on which there is a land lease home used or intended for use as rented residential premises, and

(b) a room in a boarding house, rooming house or lodging house and a unit in a care home; (“logement locatif”)

“residential complex”, except in Part V.1, means,

(a) a building or related group of buildings in which one or more rental units are located,

(b) a mobile home park or land lease community,

(c) a site that is a rental unit,

(d) a care home, and,

includes all common areas and services and facilities available for the use of its residents; (“ensemble d’habitation”)

“residential unit” means any living accommodation used or intended for use as residential premises, and “residential unit” includes,

(a) a site for a mobile home or on which there is a land lease home used or intended for use as a residential premises, and

(b) a room in a boarding house, rooming house or lodging house and a unit in a care home; (“habitation”)

...

Privacy

25 A landlord may enter a rental unit only in accordance with section 26 or 27. 2006, c. 17, s. 25.

Entry without notice

Entry without notice, emergency, consent

26 (1) A landlord may enter a rental unit at any time without written notice,

(a) in cases of emergency; or

(b) if the tenant consents to the entry at the time of entry. 2006, c. 17, s. 26 (1).

Same, housekeeping

(2) A landlord may enter a rental unit without written notice to clean it if the tenancy agreement requires the landlord to clean the rental unit at regular intervals and,

(a) the landlord enters the unit at the times specified in the tenancy agreement; or

(b) if no times are specified, the landlord enters the unit between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. 2006, c. 17, s. 26 (2).

Entry to show rental unit to prospective tenants

(3) A landlord may enter the rental unit without written notice to show the unit to prospective tenants if,

(a) the landlord and tenant have agreed that the tenancy will be terminated or one of them has given notice of termination to the other;

(b) the landlord enters the unit between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.; and

(c) before entering, the landlord informs or makes a reasonable effort to inform the tenant of the intention to do so. 2006, c. 17, s. 26 (3).

Entry with notice

27 (1) A landlord may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry under the following circumstances:

1. To carry out a repair or replacement or do work in the rental unit.

2. To allow a potential mortgagee or insurer of the residential complex to view the rental unit.

3. To allow a person who holds a certificate of authorization within the meaning of the Professional Engineers Act or a certificate of practice within the meaning of the Architects Act or another qualified person to make a physical inspection of the rental unit to satisfy a requirement imposed under subsection 9 (4) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

4. To carry out an inspection of the rental unit, if,

i. the inspection is for the purpose of determining whether or not the rental unit is in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and complies with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards, consistent with the landlord’s obligations under subsection 20 (1) or section 161, and

ii. it is reasonable to carry out the inspection.

5. For any other reasonable reason for entry specified in the tenancy agreement. 2006, c. 17, s. 27 (1).

Same

(2) A landlord or, with the written authorization of a landlord, a broker or salesperson registered under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, 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. 2006, c. 17, s. 27 (2).

Contents of notice

(3) The written notice under subsection (1) or (2) shall 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. 2006, c. 17, s. 27 (3).

TST-44891-13 (Re)

Illegal Entry:

18. Subsection 27(1) of the Act provides that a landlord may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry. In accordance with subsection 27(3):

The written notice under subsection (1) or (2) shall 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.

19. There is no dispute that on five occasions (September 30, 2012, October 8, 2012, December 27, 2012, January 5, 2013, and April 15, 2013) the Landlord entered the Tenant’s unit. It was the Landlords’ practice to write the “notice” on a white eraser board located in the kitchen. With the exception of the notice of entry for September 30, 2012, the Landlord did not specify a time of entry or merely indicated “10am - 4pm”.

20. I am not satisfied that placing a notice on a white eraser board located in a common area kitchen would satisfy the written notice requirements as set out in subsection 27(3) of the Act. In addition, four of the notices were also defective because there was no time specified or the duration period in which the Landlords could enter was unreasonable in the circumstances.

21. Based on the evidence before me, I find that by failing to provide the Tenant proper notice prior to entering the Tenant’s rental unit, the Landlords have entered his unit illegally on five occasions.

22. The Tenant is seeking the following abatements for each illegal entry and breach of privacy; $500.00 on September 30, 2012, $100.00 on October 8, 2012, $1,000.00 on December 27, 2012, $700.00 on January 5, 2013 and finally $1,200.00 on April 15, 2013. The Tenant is relying on Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corp. [2007] O.J. No. 423 (Ont. Div. Crt.) as his authority in justifying the quantum of the rent abatement. In Wrona, the court awarded the tenant $1,000.00 for an illegal entry.

23. Wrona is distinguishable from the case before the Board. In Wrona the tenant was a vulnerable person and there was also a long history of discussions between the tenant and the landlord regarding the notices of entries and the impact that those entries had on her mental health. Those same issues do not exist with the parties before the Board on this case.

24. Having regard for the impact statement of the Tenant and the reasons for the entries, I am of a view that an appropriate rent abatement in this instance to be $500.00 or $100.00 for each occurrence.

TST-00531-18 (Re)

3. The Tenant’s application focuses on events that took place on four days in October, 2018. The Tenant claims that on these days, the Landlord, JD, entered his unit illegally. At the hearing, the Tenant clarified that JD did not enter his room but he entered the common areas he shares with the other tenants who live in unit 2.

4. In addressing this claim, I must determine which part of unit 2 is the rental unit – is it the entire unit, including common arrears or the Tenant’s room only. This determination is important because, in general, an illegal entry involves a landlord’s entry into a rental unit. Sections 26 and 27 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the “Act”), which establish what constitutes illegal entry, set out when a landlord can enter a rental unit.

5. The parties do not dispute that unit 2 of the residential complex includes four bedrooms that are rented under separate tenancy agreements to different tenants and all the tenants share an entrance to unit 2, hallways, a kitchen and a bathroom. The Tenant’s position is that the rental unit includes his bedroom and the common areas he shares with the other tenants. The Landlords’ position is that the rental unit is the Tenant’s room only and they let the Tenant use the common areas.

6. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the rental unit includes the Tenant’s room only. One of the first things the Tenant said in his testimony is that the residential complex is a rooming house and his unit is a room in the house. Section 2(1) of the Act defines “rental unit” to include a room in a rooming house. This is different from the definition of “residential complex”, which means a building or related group of buildings in which one or more rental units are located and it includes all common areas and facilities available for the use of its residents. I find that the common areas the tenants of unit 2 share are part of the residential complex but they are not part of the rental unit. I note that the parties did not have the tenancy agreement with them at the hearing, so I was unable to review it and determine if it defines the rental unit in a way that differs from their testimonies. I make this finding based on the only evidence before me.

7. Since the Tenant’s evidence was that the Landlords never entered his room, I find that the Landlords did not enter the rental unit illegally. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

TET-59931-15-RV

108. I would also point out at this juncture that the tenancy agreement between the parties was for shared common areas. The privacy provisions of the Act apply to the “rental unit” which in this case is the Tenant’s room. They do not apply to shared common areas like hallways in apartment buildings or kitchens in rooming houses. So even if it were true that the Landlords entered the kitchen of the residential complex after the Tenant left, that is not a breach of s. 25 of the Act.

SWT-35919-12 (Re)

21. No illegal entry was proven. As I stated at the hearing, the living room incident would not constitute illegal entry because the living room in a rooming house would qualify as a common area for which the Landlord is not required to serve notice, or obtain consent, prior to entry. As there are other tenants in the house, it is also not a practical place for such intimate acts. For reasons stated above, I also did not find the evidence with respect to the bedroom incident to be credible.

TST-95288-18 (Re)

Illegal entries

9. The Tenant testified that the Landlord C K. would enter and use the common areas on the main floor without providing 24-hour-notice on multiple occasions. The Landlord C K. told the Tenant she could do so as the house is owner occupied. The Tenant disagrees with this position because C K. occupies the third floor unit which has its own bathroom and kitchen. As I have already found, section 5 (i) of the Act does not apply to exclude this application from the Act.

10. Sections 26 and 27 of the “Act” require that, other than in the case of an emergency, or with the tenants’ consent, or for cleaning if required by the tenancy agreement, a landlord is required to provide a tenant with 24 hours written notice, indicating when between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM and for what reason the landlord intends to enter the “rental unit”. There is no requirement that the Landlord provide a notice of entry to the common areas.

11. In order to assess whether there was illegal entry, I need to examine what the rental unit consisted of in this case. To do that, I turn to the definition of a rental unit.

12. Section 2(1) of the Act defines “rental unit” as follows:

““rental unit” means any living accommodation used or intended for use as rented residential premises, and “rental unit” includes,

(a) A site for a mobile home or site on which there is a land lease home used or intended for use as rented residential premises, and

(b) A room in a boarding house, rooming house or lodging house and a unit in a care home.” [Emphasis added]

13. Based on the uncontested evidence before me, I am satisfied that this is a rooming house and the “rental units” are only the rooms occupied by the individual tenants.

14. On a balance of probabilities, I find that the Landlord C K. only entered the common areas and not the “rental unit”. As such, the requirement for notice to enter the “rental unit” under sections 26 and 27 does not apply and there is no requirement for the Landlord to give notice for these entries.

15. While the Landlord C K. does not require notice to enter the common areas, if she was in there frequently or engaged in conduct that would be disruptive or disturbing to the Tenant, it could amount to substantial interference of her right to quiet enjoyment in the residential complex, which includes the common areas. This leads me to the inquiry of whether the behaviour of the Landlord, C K, amounts to substantial interference in this case.

TST-95401-18 (Re)

18. On a balance of probabilities, I find that the Landlord only entered the common area and not the “rental unit” on June 22, 2017 and February 5, 2018. As such, the requirement for notice to enter the “rental unit” under sections 26 and 27 does not apply and there is no requirement for the Landlord to give notice for these entries.

19. While the Landlord does not require notice to enter the common areas, if he was in there frequently or engaged in conduct that would be disruptive or disturbing to the Tenant, it could amount to substantial interference of her right to quiet enjoyment in the residential complex, which includes the common areas. I find the facts in this case do not support such a finding.

TNT-73996-15 (Re)

Remedy: illegal entry

10. In tenant applications the most common remedy awarded is abatement of the rent. Abatement is a contractual remedy which is designed to address the idea that if a tenant is paying rent for a bundle of goods and services and not receiving them, then the rent

should be abated in an amount proportional to the difference between what is being paid for and what is being received.

11. The difficulty that arises in the context of a breach of privacy rights under the Act is that abatement of the rent is not a good fit as a remedy. I say this because a single breach such as the one here may only deprive the tenant of his or her right to privacy for one day, which given what abatement represents, would seem to limit the available remedy to abatement of the rent for one day. In an average tenancy such a remedy results in an amount that seems to me to be woefully inadequate. For example, in the case here an abatement of one day would be only $29.92. Furthermore, awarding abatement for breach of privacy fails to get at the full impact of the breach, which often results in lingering feelings of violation that can continue indefinitely into the future.

12. However, the Divisional Court in Mejia v. Cargini, [2007] O.J. No. 437, found that the phrase “any other order that it considers appropriate” in the remedies section of the Act (which is now found in paragraph 31(1)(f)) means that the Board has the power to award “damages for the breach of contract of lease”. For the reasons stated above it seems to me that in breach of privacy cases, approaching remedy as a matter of damages arising from a breach of the tenancy agreement is more logical and appropriate than describing the remedy as abatement of the rent.

13. The leading case with respect to breach of privacy is Wronav. Toronto Community Housing Corp., [2007] O.J. No. 423 (Ont. Div. Ct.). In that case the Tenant was provided with notice but the notice failed to meet the mandatory requirements of what is now section 27 in that the time of entry was a window of several hours rather than a specific time. The Court awarded the tenant $1,000.00 for a single illegal entry. As Wronais the leading case from the higher courts of Ontario with respect to privacy rights, I believe the remedy awarded by the Court in that case is the starting point for determining the appropriate amount to award the Tenant in this case.

14. In Wrona there had been at least one previous application brought to the Tribunal by the tenant about the same issue. In other words, there was a history of dispute between the parties about what constituted a legal entry. Here there was no prior application between the parties. The other significant difference between the two cases is that in Wrona the tenant was not in the middle of moving out. Clearly, if one is mostly moved out and has only a few more items to collect from a rental unit, then one’s attachment to that unit is less and presumably the impact of an illegal entry will also be less.

15. Another difference between the two cases is that in the case at bar, there is no issue as to the timing of the entry; the issue is that the Landlord served a notice that is for a purpose not permitted in the Act. I have considered that although the Landlord’s purpose for the entry is not one permitted in the Act, it is one that is reasonable.

16. Based on the precedent established by Wrona, the differences between the two cases, my knowledge of previous applications before the Board, and the evidence of impact on the Tenant of the Landlord’s actions, I am of the view that a reasonable amount for damages arising from the Landlord’s illegal entry of the rental unit is $100.00.

EAL-27132-12-RV (Re)

7. The parties agreed that the residential complex is a rooming house.

8. The Tenant’s rental unit is the room he occupies in the rooming house. The Landlord’s presence in the common areas is not an illegal entry into the Tenant’s rental unit.

9. The Landlord is not required to give the Tenant a notice when he comes to the common areas of the residential complex to clean or take care of any other related matters.

TST-78044-16 (Re)

Illegal Entry

18. The Tenant testified that Landlord illegally entered the unit on August 2, 2016. The Tenant believes that the Landlord, or an agent of the Landlord, illegally entered the unit on that date because some furniture in the unit was moved and “shoes and a shirt” not belonging to the Tenant were left near the front door to the unit. When the Tenant confronted the Landlord about the issue, the Landlord did not deny the illegal entry and stated that, as the complex is a rooming house, this allows him “free range of the common areas and the right to enter when he so pleases.”

19. Based on the evidence presented I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Landlord illegally entered the unit on the date alleged by the Tenant. The evidence reveals that the said illegal entry appears to be an isolated incident. Indeed, the Tenant did not claim additional illegal entries. As well, the Tenant was away from the complex and living with relatives when the entry occurred and, further, the Tenant did not claim missing or damaged belongings and did not express anything beyond a general feeling of a violation of her right to privacy arising out of this illegal entry. Be that as it may, there was, nonetheless, a breach of the Tenant’s right to privacy and the Landlord was extremely casual about the incident. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that an appropriate lump sum award for the illegal entry would be $70.00 and an order shall issue accordingly.

SWT-38614-19 (Re)

Illegal Entry

2. The Tenant says that the Landlord repeatedly entered the bedroom he was renting without notice both when he was present and when he was not home. The Tenant says he personally witnessed the Landlord entering his room without notice on September 23, 2019, while he was home sick from work. He was undressed during this visit, yet the Landlord insisted on staying in the room and discussing various topics including the internet and the laundry room. The Tenant says he was extremely distressed by this visit particularly because the Landlord is female.

3. The Tenant says the Landlord entered his room once again in October and he knows this because he returned to his room to find the blinds open and his personal belongings rearranged.

4. The Tenant also says that one of the other tenants, who remains at home throughout the day, confirmed to him that the Landlord frequently enters the bedrooms and moves things, adjusts the heat or simply checks on the tenants.

5. The Tenant says that these illegal entries continued into October when the Landlord repeatedly brought prospective buyers to the residential complex and showed them the common areas and the individual bedrooms.

6. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Landlord entered the rental unit without notice to the Tenant on at least two occasions. These entries were not done in accordance with sections 25, 26 or 27 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, (the “Act”). A remedy for these illegal entries will be discussed below.

...

18. Abatement represents the difference between what is being paid for and what is being received. Here, the Tenant had his privacy violated when his room was entered illegally, the Landlord’s demands he leave violated his right to security of tenure, and he was prevented from using the laundry facilities which he was paying for.

19. For the reasons already stated, I find that the Tenant moved out of the rental unit because of the Landlord’s actions and he is entitled to receive a 60% abatement in the amount of $616.32. An order will issue accordingly.

...

23. Finally, the Tenant is asking that the Landlord be ordered to pay an administrative fine in order to deter the Landlord from future breaches of the Act.

24. The Board’s Guideline 16 clearly sets out the purpose of an administrative fine and states:

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.

25. While I recognize that I am not strictly bound by the Board’s Guidelines, they are a useful tool when determining the intent and purpose of various sections of the Act. Based on the evidence before me, I find that an administrative fine is appropriate in the circumstances.

26. The Landlord in this instance has shown blatant disregard for the requirements of the Act. The Landlord has repeatedly ignored the legal requirements for entering a rental unit, she has served a notice of termination that does not comply with the requirements of the Act in either form or content and her actions demonstrate that she does not take her legal obligations seriously. For these reasons, an administrative fine of $400.00 should act as a deterrent to the Landlord and be an incentive to adhere to the requirements of the Act. This amount recognises the egregiousness of the behaviour complained of but also takes into account the nature and brevity of the tenancy.

TST-32865-12 (Re)

BACKGROUND:

1. The issues to be determined by the Board are whether the Landlord’s entered the Tenant’s unit illegally, whether the Landlord seriously interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the unit and whether the Landlord harassed the Tenant.

2. The Tenant moved into the residential property on October 1, 2011. The residential property is a rooming house containing six rooms. The Tenant rents a room and shares the kitchen and bathroom.

DETERMINATIONS and EVIDENCE:

Illegal Entry:

3. In accordance with section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) a, Landlord may enter a rental unit only in accordance with section 26 or 27 of the Act.

4. Section 26 of the Act, states that a Landlord may enter a rental unit at any time without written notice, in cases of emergency or if the tenant consents to the entry at the time of entry. Section 27 of the Act, states that a Landlord may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry.

5. Based on the evidence before me, I find that the Landlord or the Landlord’s brother, acting as an agent for the Landlord, entered the common areas of the residential property on September 3, 4, 10, 28, 2012, and October 5, 2012 illegally. It was the evidence before me that the Landlord did not give any notice to enter the common area on the days mentioned above.

6. It was the evidence before me that on or about October 7, 2012 at 6:36 p.m. the Tenant saw the Landlord’s letter on the door downstairs. The Landlord was notice to the tenants that the Landlord would enter the common area on October 8, 2012. The Tenant claimed that this was not 24 hours notice and it was notice of entry on a holiday. It was the Tenant’s evidence that the Landlord entered the unit on October 8, 2012.

7. Based on my review, the Tenant led insufficient evidence as to when the Landlord posted the letter on the door. There was only evidence as to when the Tenant saw the notice. Therefore, I cannot find that the Landlord entered the unit illegally on October 8, 2012.

Cui v Fadeeff, 2021 CanLII 115469 (ON LTB)

3. A generous interpretation of item ii is that the Tenant alleges illegal entries. The residential complex is a rooming house with several common areas. The Tenant testified that the Landlord illegally entered the common areas of the residential complex because no notice was given under s.27 of the Act. No notice is required to be given when a landlord enters a common area and so these were not illegal entries.

TET-88502-18 (Re)

1. By way of background, the residential complex is a rooming house. The Landlord lives in the downstairs unit and the Tenant rented one bedroom in the upstairs unit. The Tenant moved into the unit on January 6, 2018, and moved out on January 21, 2018. The Tenant says that the Landlord’s conduct made the rental unit uninhabitable for her.

Illegal Entry

2. The Tenant says that, on at least two occasions during the two weeks of her tenancy, the Landlord entered her room without her knowledge or permission. The Tenant says she returned from school on at least two occasions and discovered her door open and her thermostat lowered to zero.

3. The Tenant says that she lowered the thermostat to a lower temperature while she was away at school for the day, but she denies lowering the temperature to zero. The Tenant points out that it was the middle of winter and lowering the thermostat that far would not be advisable.

4. In support of her testimony, the Tenant showed the Board a picture of the thermostat in her room which had been lowered to zero as well as a picture of a large footprint on her bedroom floor.

5. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Landlord entered the rental unit without notice to the Tenant on at least two occasions. These entries were not done in accordance with section 25, 26 and 27 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, (the “Act”) and are illegal. A remedy for these illegal entries will be discussed below.

...

7. In addition to these incidents, the Tenant says the Landlord often had guests to the house and he would bring those guests into the upstairs common area where the Tenant lives. The Landlord and his guests would make comments about drugs and drug trafficking, and he would introduce his friends to the Tenant which made her uncomfortable. The Tenant says the Landlord would enter the upstairs common area often, and these visits would be completely unannounced. During these visits, the Landlord would sometimes be drunk and would behave in an inappropriate manner.

8. The Tenant says she has an anxiety condition and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. These conditions were exacerbated considerably by the Landlord’s conduct.

9. Ultimately, the Tenant felt so uncomfortable, afraid and anxious that she informed the Landlord she could no longer stay in the rental unit. The Tenant says the Landlord was quite interested in having her vacate the unit and he wrote her a letter informing her that she would need to move out by February 6, 2018. At the hearing, the Tenant provided the Board with a copy of this letter.

10. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Landlord’s behavior substantially interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit. The Tenant was unable to enjoy the common areas of the apartment because she never knew when to expect an unannounced visit from the Landlord and his friends. When the Tenant had her own guests over, she was subjected to harassing messages and aggressive behavior from the Landlord.

...

13. Abatement represents the difference between what is being paid for and what is being received. Here, the Tenant had her privacy violated when her room was entered illegally, she was unable to fully enjoy the common areas of the complex for fear that the Landlord would arrive unannounced, she was subjected to constant harassment and when she had guests visit the unit, this harassment increased.

TST-81468-17 (Re)

Illegal Entry:

4. It was the evidence of the Tenant that the Landlord and the owners of the house (the Landlord’s parents) came into the house without notice on October 1 and 20, 2016, November 3, and 16, 2016, and December 12, 2016. The Tenant says that during these times, the Landlord and the owners were in the kitchen area, the living room, the bathroom and around the laundry area.

5. It was the evidence of the Landlord that they did not enter the Tenant’s unit. Rather, they entered into the common areas of the house. The Landlord stated that they would not enter the Tenant’s unit without proper notice.

6. The Tenant also says that he thinks the Landlord entered his unit on September 3, 2016 because they knew he had a fridge in his unit. I note that the particulars of this alleged illegal entry was not in the Tenant’s application. Notwithstanding, the Landlord says that her mother saw the fridge when she passed by the Tenant’s room; and the Landlord’s parents are aware that they cannot enter the Tenant’s room without proper notice.

7. In accordance with section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act') a landlord may enter a rental unit only in accordance with section 26 or 27 of the Act.

8. Section 26 of the Act states that a landlord may enter a rental unit at any time without written notice, in cases of emergency or if the tenant consents to the entry at the time of entry. Section 27 of the Act states that a landlord may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry.

9. Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, I do not find that the Landlord illegally entered the unit. I say this because the Landlord entered the common areas, which is not part of the Tenant’s unit. The Landlord is not required to give notice to enter a common area of the residential complex. Also, I was not persuaded by the Tenant’s evidence that the Landlord illegally entered his unit on September 3, 2016.

TST-98163-18 (Re)

16. Pursuant to section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act') a landlord may enter a rental unit only in accordance with section 26 or 27 of the Act. Section 26 of the Act states that a landlord may enter a rental unit at any time without written notice, in cases of emergency or if the tenant consents to the entry at the time of entry. Section 27 of the Act states that a landlord may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry.

17. Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, I am not satisfied that the Landlord illegally entered the unit. The Landlord was invited to enter the common area by the other 2 tenants who share use of the common area. In addition, the common area is not part of the Tenant’s rental unit under his exclusive control, and the Landlord is not required to give notice to enter a common area of the residential complex: see TST-81468-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 60758 (ON LTB).Accordingly, this claim must be denied.

EAT-59054-16 (Re)

7. The term “rental unit” is defined in section 2 of the Act as “living accommodation used or intended for use as rented residential premises and “rental unit” includes … a room in a boarding house, rooming house or lodging house”. Based on that definition and the fact that there five other tenants in the house who each had separate lease agreement with the Landlords and who each occupied separate rooms, I have determined that the Tenant’s rental unit consisted of only one room in the house. Therefore, when the Landlords and their contractors entered the house, they were not required to provide notice to the Tenant. Notice would only have been required to enter the Tenant’s room.

TST-18802-11

2. Although this application raises a number of issues, the primary dispute between the parties concerns whether or not the enclosed yard beside and behind the residential complex constitutes part of unit 1 or not. The Tenants take the position that these areas are part of the rental unit and therefore the Landlord cannot use them for its own purposes and must give proper notice of entry if it wishes to enter onto the grounds. The Landlord takes the position that the disputed areas should be considered analogous to exclusive use common areas as is the case in condominium complexes.

...

8. The definition of “rental unit” in subsection 2(1) of the Act “means any living accommodation used or intended for use as rented residential premise” and includes a site for a mobile home and a room in a rooming house. As the definition of rental unit includes a “site for a mobile home” it is not apparent or obvious that just because an area is outside walls rather than inside means that it is not a part of the rental unit. This distinguishes rental units from the normal situation in condominium complexes where there is a clear demarcation in ownership and rights based on what is inside the walls and what is outside. In condominium corporations it is not unusual for a roof deck or balcony to be for the “exclusive use” of an owner, but the area itself is actually owned by the condominium corporation which thereby has rights of access by virtue of being the owner of those areas.

9. Given the definition of “rental unit” in the Act, I do not believe the situation here is analogous to that of balconies or roof tops in condominium complexes. Rather what the definition means is that “rental unit” includes any areas intended by the parties to be used for residential purposes. As cooking, entertaining and relaxing are all normal parts of residential activities and those things can be done in a yard as well as inside, I see no immediate reason for accepting the Landlord’s proposition that the disputed area in question here should not be considered part of the rental unit.

10. In the Act the definition of “rental unit” is different from that of “residential complex”. “Residential complex” is the phrase used to describe the entire building and grounds including the rental units within it. Subsection 2(1) says “residential complex” “means a building or related group of buildings in which one or more rental units are located, a mobile home park or land lease community, a site that is a rental unit, a care home, and includes all common areas and services and facilities available for the use of its residents.” [Emphasis added.] In other words, all rental units are part of and included in the definition of residential complex, but something can be part of the residential complex and yet not a part of any rental unit. This is particularly important in the context of this application because the privacy provisions of the Act only refer to the “rental unit” but contain no restrictions with respect to a landlord’s right to access the “residential complex”.

11. One of the things that the Landlord’s Witness said during the hearing was that she had discussed the status of the disputed areas with the real estate agent who had represented the Landlord during the purchase and sale and that he had agreed with her that the proposition put forward by the Tenants was “silly”. I took this to be a submission that the Tenants’ position was so impractical in its implications that the Act should not be interpreted in a manner that created an absurdity. Now it seems to me that if the area in question had not been gated and locked as was the case here then that argument might have some merit. In that situation the area would probably constitute a common area or facility as anyone could access it at any time and it would be impractical for anyone to try and claim exclusive possession of it regardless of an agreement to the contrary. However, that is not the case here. As the area in question is securely locked it would not be absurd in any way for the Board to find that it constitutes part of the rental unit. In addition, in this case the Landlord and Tenants both agreed that the disputed areas were not “common areas…available for the use of residents” because only the occupants of unit 1 were supposed to have use of the yard.

12. As the disputed areas are not common areas, services or facilities but are indisputably part of the residential complex the logical result is that they must be part of the rental unit. As a result of all of the above, I accept the Tenants’ argument that the exterior areas like the back yard, walkway and shed were included in their tenancy agreement and comprised part of rental unit 1.

...

42. In terms of the illegal entries it was the evidence before me that dozens of illegal entries occurred during the period in question. As a result, the tenants are entitled to abatement of the rent. I say this because abatement is designed to address the idea that I a tenant is paying rent in exchange for a bundle of goods and services and does not receive everything being paid for then the tenant is entitled to rent abatement in proportion to the difference between what is being paid for and what is being received. Here the Tenants were paying for a private backyard and side entrance and were not getting it so abatement should be awarded.

==TET-98271-19 (Re)