Notice of Entry - Re: COVID-19

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID:	1831
Page Categories:	[Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)]
Citation:	Notice of Entry - Re: COVID-19, CLNP 1831, <5G>, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2022/01/24

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Chan v Smith, 2021 CanLII 138936 (ON LTB)

1. The application by the Landlord was based upon a N5 notice of termination given to the Tenants that alleges that the Tenant (MB) has on multiple occasions refused entry to the rental unit after the Landlord provided 24 hours written notice of entry as required by section 27 of the Residential Tenancies act, 2006 (the ‘Act’).

2. Section 27 of the Act states: “(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 for any reasonable reason.

3. Subsection 27(2) and (3) of the Act allows a landlord or a registered real estate broker or agent to enter a rental unit to allow a potential purchaser to view the rental unit, provided that 24 hours’ written notice has been provided for entry between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.

...

8. The N5 notice required the Tenant to refrain from refusing entry to the rental unit after the Landlord has given proper notice to enter.

9. The Tenant testified that she refused entry because of personal health problems and the risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. She provided no medical documentary evidence in support of her purported health condition during the period that the Landlord was seeking entry to the rental unit to show the unit to prospective buyers.

10. I find the conduct of the Tenant by refusing entry to the rental unit after receiving proper notice of entry by the Landlord has substantially interfered with the Landlords' lawful rights, privileges or interests.

Sterling Silver Development Corporation v Richardson, 2020 CanLII 120507 (ON LTB)

8. Eviction based on one occurrence of refused entry for treatment is too harsh in this case. I acknowledge SA testified the Tenant subsequently refused entry in April 2020 which is after the application was filed but I am mindful that the refusal was made during a pandemic where social isolation was encouraged. SA also indicated interaction with the Tenant was almost null due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition, SA stated the Tenant has not uttered further threats to staff since the January 31, 2020 incident. Given the amount of time that has lapsed, the Tenant’s offensive and inappropriate act was isolated to one occurrence and the lengthy tenure of the tenancy also militates in favour of relief.

Linton v Williams, 2021 CanLII 114615 (ON LTB)

11. On the evidence above, I find that the Tenant has harassed the Landlord and others at the residential complex and did not stop the harassment after the first N5 Notice was given. In addition, the Tenant refused entry to the residential unit even though proper notice was given. The Tenant also interfered with the Landlord’s right to sell the property.

12. I have considered all of the disclosed circumstances in accordance with subsection 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'), and find that it would be unfair to grant relief from eviction pursuant to subsection 83(1) of the Act. The Tenant states that the covid-19 pandemic will cause him issues but has no evidence to show that he has tried to find another unit, nor any reason why he cannot find another place to live. As such, I do not think it would be reasonable to grant any relief in the eviction given the on-going harassment of the Landlord and the other residents of the residential complex.

Lawrence v Woolstencroft, 2021 CanLII 88400 (ON LTB)

26. The Tenant requested an abatement of rent of $200.00. In support of this claim, the Tenant noted that this entry occurred nearing the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and that the Landlord and her companion should not have entered the Tenant’s rental unit without wearing appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (‘PPE’). Although the Tenant admitted that under normal circumstances the Landlord’s behaviour would not have been a big deal, the Tenant argued that the requested abatement of rent was appropriate because if the risk of a COVID-19 infection materialized the Tenant would have been required to take at least 1-day off of work.

27. In my view, the Tenant’s claim for an abatement of $200.00 is excessive given the minor breach of section 27 of the Act. Although the Landlord did breach the Tenant’s privacy the impact on the Tenant was minimal. The risk of COVID-19 infection did not materialize and the Tenant did not provide any other evidence about the impact of the Landlord’s entry. In the circumstances, I find that the Tenant is entitled to an abatement of rent of $50.00.