Last Month's Rent Deposit (LTB): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
* [[Notice_of_Rent_Increase_(N1)#Guide_Line_Increase]] | * [[Notice_of_Rent_Increase_(N1)#Guide_Line_Increase | Rent Increase Guidelines]] | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/25tsd SWT-00924 (Re), 2008 CanLII 82447 (ON LTB)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/25tsd SWT-00924 (Re), 2008 CanLII 82447 (ON LTB)]== | ||
9. In the current case, I believe that the Tenant is partially statute barred in his claim. The Tenant vacated the unit on September 20, 2007 and waited until December 14, 2007 to file his application. As in Vander Heide, the Tenant is no longer in possession of the rental unit. I find that the Tenant is therefore only entitled to recover for the period from December 14, 2006 to December 14, 2007. As well, in both the Vander Heide and [https://caselaw.ninja/img_auth.php/a/a9/Dollimore_v._Azuria_Group_Inc.pdf Dollimore] cases the landlord had illegally retained money. <b><u>The act of “retaining”, as pointed out in Dollimore, is an ongoing act. In those cases the landlords were under a positive obligation to pay out the funds. In this case, the Landlord has illegally collected money. The act of collecting is a discreet act. Each month after July 1, 2003 this Landlord collected from the Tenant an amount that was not the lawful rent. Each collection could result in its own cause of action with the limitation period re-starting with each collection.</b></u> | 9. In the current case, I believe that the Tenant is partially statute barred in his claim. The Tenant vacated the unit on September 20, 2007 and waited until December 14, 2007 to file his application. As in Vander Heide, the Tenant is no longer in possession of the rental unit. I find that the Tenant is therefore only entitled to recover for the period from December 14, 2006 to December 14, 2007. As well, in both the Vander Heide and [https://caselaw.ninja/img_auth.php/a/a9/Dollimore_v._Azuria_Group_Inc.pdf Dollimore] cases the landlord had illegally retained money. <b><u>The act of “retaining”, as pointed out in Dollimore, is an ongoing act. In those cases the landlords were under a positive obligation to pay out the funds. In this case, the Landlord has illegally collected money. The act of collecting is a discreet act. Each month after July 1, 2003 this Landlord collected from the Tenant an amount that was not the lawful rent. Each collection could result in its own cause of action with the limitation period re-starting with each collection.</b></u> | ||
Revision as of 14:50, 29 April 2020
See Also
SWT-00924 (Re), 2008 CanLII 82447 (ON LTB)
9. In the current case, I believe that the Tenant is partially statute barred in his claim. The Tenant vacated the unit on September 20, 2007 and waited until December 14, 2007 to file his application. As in Vander Heide, the Tenant is no longer in possession of the rental unit. I find that the Tenant is therefore only entitled to recover for the period from December 14, 2006 to December 14, 2007. As well, in both the Vander Heide and Dollimore cases the landlord had illegally retained money. The act of “retaining”, as pointed out in Dollimore, is an ongoing act. In those cases the landlords were under a positive obligation to pay out the funds. In this case, the Landlord has illegally collected money. The act of collecting is a discreet act. Each month after July 1, 2003 this Landlord collected from the Tenant an amount that was not the lawful rent. Each collection could result in its own cause of action with the limitation period re-starting with each collection.
