Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Board: Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "Category:Landlord Tenant ===[http://canlii.ca/t/j3g30 Kiselman v. Klerer, 2019 ONSC 6668 (CanLII)]=== [13] The landlord brought a claim in Small Claims Court fo...")
 
(Blanked the page)
Tag: Blanking
 
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:Landlord Tenant]]
===[http://canlii.ca/t/j3g30 Kiselman v. Klerer, 2019 ONSC 6668 (CanLII)]===


[13]          The landlord brought a claim in Small Claims Court for rent arrears and damage to the property.  The claim was brought after the tenant had vacated the property.  The amount of the claim did not exceed the $25,000 cap, then in place under s. 207(1) of the Act.  It is plain and obvious that s. 168(2) of the Act gives the Board exclusive jurisdiction to determine claims of this type between landlord and tenant.  The parties had a landlord and tenant relationship, and in my view, nothing turns on the fact that the action was started after the tenant was no longer in possession.  It is clear that disputes of this sort are the daily fare of the Landlord and Tenant Board.  When assessing claims, the Board is in the best position to determine whether claims for rent arrears and allegations of damage to property against the tenant amount to “undue damage” or simply wear and tear as a result of the normal occupancy of a residential unit.

Latest revision as of 00:45, 2 January 2020