Excessive Visits from Real Estate Agents

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-24
CLNP Page ID:	1830
Page Categories:	[Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)]
Citation:	Excessive Visits from Real Estate Agents, CLNP 1830, <5E>, retrieved on 2024-11-24
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2021/12/17

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

CET-64293-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28748 (ON LTB)

18. The Tenant claims substantial interference or harassment because there are excessive visits from the Landlords’ real estate agent.

19. She testified that the Landlords informed her they had decided to sell the home.

20. Subsection 27(2) of the Act specifies that a landlord or with written authorization of the landlord a real estate broker or salesperson 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. Subsection 27(3) of the Act requires the notice to 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.

21. The first undated text message from the Landlords fails to comply with section 27 of the Act. The message does not specify a time of entry between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. and since it states the entry is “this evening” fails to provide 24 hours notice.

22. Entry by a real estate agent was attempted on February 28th without proper notice and another entry was requested by phone at an unknown date.

23. During the first week of March, the Tenant received a message from the Landlords’ real estate agent stating that he intends to show the property every weekend from 1 to 4 p.m.

24. The notice submitted into evidence dated March 4th only partially complies with section 27 of the Act. The Landlords provided 24 hours notice for the March 5th entry however merely stating “he will be visiting during week days too this week” does not comply with the Act.

25. I am awarding the Tenant a rent abatement of $25.00 for each of the five attempts at entry described above. The total amount awarded to the Tenant for substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment because the Landlords failed to comply with the entry provisions under the Act is $125.00.

TST-94251-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 111712 (ON LTB)

10. It seems to me that the Landlords had a duty to take reasonable steps to minimize the impact the viewings would have on the Tenants. On the evidence before me the Landlords did what they could. When the Tenants complained to E.W. about the way viewings were being conducted, E.W. took steps to ensure that potential purchasers’ realtors were informed in advance of the Tenants’ needs. I do not see what more the Landlords could reasonably have done.

TNT-07149-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113851 (ON LTB)

5. In February and March 2018 the rental unit was for sale. S. 27(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) permits a real estate broker or sales person, with the Landlord’s authorization, to enter a rental unit 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.

6. The Landlord and her agent insisted that all showings were done with proper notice. This is incorrect. The Tenant produced 17 e-mails in which showings were demanded with less than 24 hours’ notice. The agents entered the unit with the use of a key left in a lockbox at the property.

7. These persistent showings on short (or no) notice seriously interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit. In all there were about 60 showings of the rental unit before it was sold, which was a serious disruption to the Tenant.

...

It is ordered that:

1. The Landlord shall pay to the Tenant $339.50 for interest on the last month rent deposit and the return of the key deposit.

2. The Landlord shall also pay to the Tenant $103.61 for the cost of the parts used by him to repair the leak in the kitchen sink.

3. The Landlord shall also pay the Tenant an abatement of rent in the amount of $1,500.00 for interference with his reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit and illegally entering the unit.

CET-13651-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 50514 (ON LTB)

Determinations:

1. The Landlord’s agent illegally entered the rental unit on April 21, 2011. This entry by a real estate agent to show the unit to a potential purchaser occurred without the consent of the Tenants or the required notice to the Tenants.

2. The Tenants are entitled to a rent abatement of $36.16, which is equal to the full day’s rent for the day that the illegal entry occurred ($1,100.00 monthly rent x 12 months, divided by 365 days = $36.16 per day).

CET-77573-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141486 (ON LTB)

3. The Tenant testified that the Landlord or her agents illegally entered the unit. He said the entries occurred four to five times in a two month period with not notice. The Tenant said a contractor hired by the Landlord walks into the unit at any time. The Tenant also said the house is for sale and in July there were several visits by real estate agents and prospective buyers without any notice. The Tenant submitted a log he kept for the visits in July 2018.

4. The Landlord denies entering the unit and said no contractor she hired entered the unit. The Landlord said she asked her real estate agent to provide the Tenant with proper notice and he said that he did.

5. The Landlord breached subsection 27(2) of the Act by failing to provide the Tenant with written notice to allow potential purchasers to view the unit. The Tenant provided a detailed written log which identifies six entries without notice between July 7th and July 31, 2018. The Landlord did not provide sufficient evidence that her real estate agent gave notice to the Tenant in accordance with the Act. The Tenant is entitled to $87.50 representing a 25% abatement for July 2018. The impact to the Tenant of the illegal entries was amplified because it was prospective buyers and real estate agents who entered unannounced and almost daily during the week of July 20th. The Tenant did not provide sufficient details regarding other illegal entries such as dates and times.