Administrative Fines (LTB)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID:	1162
Page Categories:	Administrative Fines (LTB)
Citation:	Administrative Fines (LTB), CLNP 1162, <https://rvt.link/6n>, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2023/12/09

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

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

Board may refuse to proceed if money owing

196 (1) Upon receiving information that an applicant owes money to the Board as a result of having failed to pay any fine, fee or costs,

(a) if the information is received on or before the day the applicant submits an application, an employee in the Board shall, in such circumstances as may be specified in the Rules, refuse to allow the application to be filed;

(b) if the information is received after the application has been filed but before a hearing is held, the Board shall stay the proceeding until the fee, fine or costs have been paid and may discontinue the application in such circumstances as may be specified in the Rules;

(c) if the information is received after a hearing with respect to the application has begun, the Board shall not issue an order until the fine, fee or costs have been paid and may discontinue the application in such circumstances as may be specified in the Rules.

TST-90503-17 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87012 (ON LTB)

1. This application concerns three units in an eight-unit building. In 2016, the Landlord served N13 notices to terminate the Tenants’ tenancies pursuant to subsection 50(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘RTA’) because the Landlord intended to do renovations so extensive as to require vacant possession of the unit.

2. Section 53 of the RTA provides that when a tenancy is terminated under subsection 50(1)(c), once the renovations are complete the tenant has a right of first refusal to resume their tenancy in the unit, at the same rent as before the renovations.

3. The Tenants in this case did not believe that the Landlord intended to afford them their right of first refusal. They believed that the Landlord intended to rent the newly renovated units to new tenants at a higher rent. Nonetheless, the tenancies were terminated and the Tenants moved out pursuant to the N13 notices. They told the Landlord that they were exercising their rights of first refusal.

4. The Tenants’ fears proved to be well-founded. In November, 2017, the Landlord rented the units to new tenants at higher rents, without first offering them to the Tenants.

75. The Landlord is profiting enormously from its contraventions of the RTA. Before the tenancies were terminated, the rent for each of the three units was around $1,250. The Landlord has re-rented the units for $4,150.00, $4,200.00, and $4,200.00, respectively. This means that on each of the three contraventions, the Landlord is realizing a profit of over $2,900 monthly. In the first year alone, it will have profited by over $34,800 for each contravention. The Tenants testified that they all planned to keep living in the units for many years. Even if I estimate, conservatively, that the tenancies would only have continued for another two years, that is a profit of around $70,000 for each contravention.

76. The Tenants could have requested monetary remedies. However, even if they had each been awarded the Board’s maximum monetary jurisdiction of $25,000.00, those remedies would not have been sufficient to provide adequate deterrence and compliance in these circumstances. The profit the Landlord is realizing from its actions vastly exceeds $25,000.00 per rental unit.

77. In light of the above, I find that the appropriate fines in this case would be $45,000.00 per rental unit. Since those amounts exceed the maximum, fines of $25,000.00 will be awarded in respect of each unit, for a total of $75,000.00 in fines.

HOT-02167-17-IN4 (Re), 2018 CanLII 41845 (ON LTB)

14. At the hearing I held the matter down for approximately one hour to give the Tenant an opportunity to make arrangements for a mover to assist her with retrieving her belongings and to give the Landlord an opportunity to consider submissions that she may wish to make with respect to an administrative fine.

15. When the hearing resumed, the Landlord submitted that she should not be subject to an administrative fine because the Tenant had given notice to vacate the unit in December 2017. These submissions did not address why the Landlord breached interim order HOT-02167-17-IN-3 in January 2018. The Landlord also submitted that she had been given permission from the Board to change the locks. This is not the case; there is no Board order authorizing the Landlord to change the locks.

18. I believe that this is an appropriate case in which to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00. The Landlord not only blatantly disregarded the Act but also disregarded an order putting the Tenant back in possession. The Landlord’s behaviour demonstrates a contempt for the Board and for the Act that must be addressed. I believe there are no other remedies that would provide adequate deterrence and compliance in these circumstances. It is particularly important to impose a fine at this time, to ensure compliance with the Landlord’s obligations under this order.

TNT-98923-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42639 (ON LTB)

13. The Tenants requested that the Board impose an administrative fine on the Landlord because the Landlord has a history of violating tenants’ rights. The evidence shows that the Landlord owns up to 11 residential properties through numbered companies and rents them under the banner of “Russian Rental.” The Landlord tendered documents showing the sale or transfer of various properties by the Landlord to various numbered companies to avoid creditors and thwart orders or judgements. The Landlord’s conduct in this case is egregious. It illustrates the Landlord’s woeful disregard of the statutory scheme governing landlord-tenant relationship and the lengths to which she would go to avoid enforcement of the Act. It is pertinent to note that on two previous occasions the Board imposed an administrative fine on the Landlord’s numbered company ($3,500.00, pursuant to order TNL-28299-12, issued on August 1, 2012, and $2,500.00 pursuant to order TNT-87345-16, issued on March 23, 2017). The fines have not been paid and have not deterred the Landlord from engaging in conduct prohibited under the Act. Thus, a higher fine is appropriate. The Landlord must pay to the Board an administrative fine in the amount of $7,500.00.

TST-91350-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 123289 (ON LTB)

20. The total of the remedies awarded to the Tenant in this order is $7,806.28 (including $50.00 for the cost of filing this application). Taking into account the Landlord’s expected benefit from breaching the Act, the Landlord’s actual cost is $1,506.28. I do not believe this amount is a sufficient deterrent, even to an individual landlord. Accordingly, the Landlord will be ordered to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 as a deterrent and to encourage future compliance.

TST-95702-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 123308 (ON LTB)

16. The Board's authority to order an administrative fine is set out in the Act under sections 31(1)(d), 41(6), 57(3) paragraph 3, and 115(3) respectively. To quote from the Board’s Guideline 16: “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.”

17. The Landlord’s agents acted deliberately and highhandedly when they forcefully and painfully physically escorted the Tenant out of, and away from the residential complex. They unashamedly made a show of placing all of his personal belongings on the lawn in front of the building, kept him away so that he could not retrieve any personal or work related items, not caring whether they were depriving him of a livelihood and driving him into a shelter without colour of right. I find the behaviour of the Landlord’s agents egregious in its violation of the Act and inhumane. Therefore, I will order the Landlord to pay a $10,000 administrative fine as requested in the application.

TET-94108-18 (Re), 2019 CanLII 86962 (ON LTB)

13. The Landlords never in fact served an N12 notice to terminate on the Tenants but the Tenants accepted the demands they move, so they moved out of the rental unit on or about July 31, 2018. They did so because they believed the second-name Landlord was being truthful and if they had to move, they wanted to get settled into a new home before the school year started in September.

41. Here, the impact on the Tenants was particularly harsh given that they were expecting a baby. He was born on July 26, 2018, which was essentially in the middle of their move. I have also considered the fact that although the Tenants did not rent a comparable unit, they are now paying $800.00 more a month in rent that they would not be paying but for the Landlords’ actions. This kind of behaviour on the part of landlords, particularly in the City of Toronto’s current real estate market, must be strongly condemned. A substantial fine is necessary for its general deterrence effect.

42. Given all of the above and my knowledge of like similar cases before the Board it seems to me a reasonable administrative fine in all of the circumstances here would be $5,000.00.

HOT-01509-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 60816 (ON LTB)

J.Y (the 'Tenant') applied for an order determining that K.T (the 'Landlord'), or the Landlord’s superintendent, or the Landlord's agent harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the Tenant, entered the rental unit illegally, altered the locking system on a door giving entry to the rental unit or residential complex without giving the Tenant replacement keys and substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenant or by a member of the Tenant's household, sold, retained or otherwise disposed of the Tenant's property before 72 hours had elapsed after the Tenant was evicted and the Landlord did not make the Tenant's property available to be retrieved at a location close to the rental unit during within 72 hours after the Tenant was evicted.

9. An administrative fine is a remedy used by the Board to encourage compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'). A fine is also a remedy to deter landlords from engaging in similar activity in the future. A fine can be imposed when a landlord has shown a blatant disregard from the Act.

10. I find that an administrative fine of $5,000.00 is appropriate in these circumstances to deter the Landlord from similar conduct in the future. I am of the view that the Landlord has shown a blatant disregard for the Act. The Landlord knows or ought to have known that she cannot arbitrarily decide to terminate a tenancy and lock the Tenant out of the unit.

TET-67870-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 52832 (ON LTB)

63. I would also observe that this Landlord has been ordered to pay an administrative fine before. In Board order TET-69273-16-IN issued on June 27, 2016, the Landlord was ordered to pay an administrative fine of $5,000.00. That application involves the same building as this one but the sole issue considered in the order is the Landlord’s attempt to force the tenants to pay for hydro. When those tenants refused, the Landlord either directed the hydro provider to disconnect service or it stopped paying the bill; so they went without hydro for a considerable period of time but they were not driven out of the unit.

67. Given all of the above a substantial administrative fine is warranted as a deterrent. This Landlord must stop cavalierly breaching the Act and harassing tenants in a campaign to get what it wants in terms of illegal rent increases and charges. The Landlord shall be ordered to pay to the Board an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000.00.

TET-78411-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 48809 (ON LTB)

47. This is the kind of situation where an administrative fine is appropriate. The Landlords here have blatantly ignored multiple provisions of the Act and deliberately violated this Tenant’s rights. In addition, the Landlords’ agent claims to be an experienced landlord with many tenants and properties. As a result, a fine is necessarily in this instance to ensure that these Landlords are deterred from engaging in this behaviour with any other tenants.

51. Given all of the above a substantial administrative fine is warranted as a deterrent. This Landlords’ agent must stop cavalierly breaching the Act without consequence when he is obviously engaging in a course of conduct that has severely affected this Tenant. The Landlord shall be ordered to pay to the Board an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00.

TNT-15777-19 (Re), 2020 CanLII 30954 (ON LTB)

26. An administrative fine is a remedy used by the Board to encourage compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'). A fine is also a remedy to deter landlords from engaging in similar activity in the future. A fine can be imposed when a landlord has shown a blatant disregard from the Act.

27. I find that an administrative fine of $5,000.00 is appropriate in these circumstances. I am of the view that the Landlord has shown a blatant disregard for the Act. I say this because the Landlord gave the Form N12 Notice of Termination in bad faith and no one mentioned in the Form N12 moved into the unit, and instead, the Landlord re-rented the unit.

TET-86252-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42859 (ON LTB)

1. Never in the 10+ years that I have been hearing cases for this Board have I ever seen a Landlord who so blatantly ignored all the Laws and made up his own rules as he went along feeling that he was ultimately right and that the laws are of no use to him.

2. There is no doubt that the Landlord intentionally attempted to thwart the Act by having the Tenant sign a commercial lease knowing full well it was a residential property.

3. It is hard to believe that the Landlord did not know that in this day and age he did not have the power to simply enter a rental unit, whether he owned it or not and physically remove the persons living there because he felt it was the right thing to do.

4. There can be no action worse taken by a Landlord to a Tenant than to physically grab them and remove them for reasons not before the law.

5. For these reasons I have chosen to take several actions against this Landlord.

6. The first is a $5,000.00 fine to be paid to the Province of Ontario for his egregious actions in defying a verbal ruling that had just been made against him along with the rest of the direct disregard that the Landlord has shown of the laws of this Province.

EAT-00915-09 (Re), 2010 CanLII 79586 (ON LTB)

5. The most disturbing conduct of the Landlord for the Tenants has been his harassment of them. Prior to the hearing in May 2010 the Landlord was bad mouthing one Tenant, DC, in particular and her family, both verbally and in writing to other tenants in the park. The Landlord did not deny that it was his signature on a letter addressed to all the tenants wherein he targeted DC and her family, with negative comments. In the Interim Order I ordered the Landlord to stop harassing the tenants. DC testified that since the hearing in May 2010 the harassment has increased. Her testimony was corroborated by LC and LL. The Landlord also tried to bribe a few tenants to support him in his attempts to get rid of DC. The Ministry’s Investigation and Enforcement Unit is investigating this particular allegation; therefore, it was not dealt with at the hearing. The Landlord has now served notice to every fulltime tenant in the park that he is evicting them. It was confirmed by the Landlord’s representative, CB, that FY has made the “business decision” to no longer have fulltime tenants in the park – only seasonal tenants. So now all of the tenants are feeling great stress because they are under threat of eviction by FY. The tenants are not aware if FY has applied yet to the Board for an eviction order, but they are certainly feeling the pressure to move away from their homes. These are mostly retired or semi-retired people, with limited income, who cannot afford necessarily to move their mobile homes etc. This stress is taking a toll on their health. Based on the evidence presented at the hearings, I find on a balance of probabilities, that the Landlord has harassed and threatened the Tenants, and that this conduct has continued in spite of an Interim Order requiring the Landlord to stop the harassment.

6. I further find that the failure of the Landlord to maintain the roads in a good state of repair and keeping the dust under control, plus the harassment and threats by the Landlord have substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit and residential complex by the Tenants, as claimed in their application.

7. The Tenants are seeking a rent abatement, and they requested that the Board also fine the Landlord. In view of the length of time that these issues have existed, and the fact that the harassment and threats by the Landlord actually increased after the Interim Order was issued on May 14, 2010, I am awarding each Tenant in this application with a lump sum rent abatement of $500.00. I am also fining the Landlord $5,000.00 for harassing and threatening vulnerable Tenants.

NOT-26090-16-AM (Re), 2017 CanLII 48740 (ON LTB)

28. Section 196(1) allows the Board to refuse to allow an application to be filed or to stay an application already filed by an applicant who owes money to the Board until any amount owed to the Board is paid.

==TNT-28299-12 (Re), 2012 CanLII 46625 (ON LTB)