Expedited Enforcement (LTB)

O. Reg. 13/21: RESIDENTIAL EVICTIONS

1. (1) No person shall attend at a residential premises for the purpose of enforcing any of the following:

1. An order evicting a tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

2. A writ of possession issued by the Superior Court of Justice removing a person from their place of residence.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if,

(a) in respect of an order described in paragraph 1 of subsection (1), the Landlord and Tenant Board requests that the sheriff expedite the enforcement of the order; or

(b) in respect of a writ of possession described in paragraph 2 of subsection (1), a judge of the Superior Court of Justice orders that the sheriff expedite the enforcement of the writ.

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

61 (1) A landlord may give a tenant notice of termination of the tenancy if the tenant or another occupant of the rental unit commits an illegal act or carries on an illegal trade, business or occupation or permits a person to do so in the rental unit or the residential complex. 2006, c. 17, s. 61 (1).

(2) A notice of termination under this section shall set out the grounds for termination and shall provide a termination date not earlier than,

(a) the 10th day after the notice is given, in the case of a notice grounded on an illegal act, trade, business or occupation involving,

(i) the production of an illegal drug,

(ii) the trafficking in an illegal drug, or

(iii) the possession of an illegal drug for the purposes of trafficking; or

...

63 (1) Despite section 62, a landlord may give a tenant notice of termination of the tenancy that provides a termination date not earlier than the 10th day after the notice is given if the tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person whom the tenant permits in the residential complex,

(a) wilfully causes undue damage to the rental unit or the residential complex; or

(b) uses the rental unit or the residential complex in a manner that is inconsistent with use as residential premises and that causes or can reasonably be expected to cause damage that is significantly greater than the damage that is required in order to give a notice of termination under clause (a) or subsection 62 (1). 2006, c. 17, s. 63 (1).

65 (1) Despite section 64, a landlord who resides in a building containing not more than three residential units may give a tenant of a rental unit in the building notice of termination of the tenancy that provides a termination date not earlier than the 10th day after the notice is given if the conduct of the tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted in the building by the tenant is such that it substantially interferes with the reasonable enjoyment of the building for all usual purposes by the landlord or substantially interferes with another lawful right, privilege or interest of the landlord. 2006, c. 17, s. 65 (1).

66 (1) A landlord may give a tenant notice of termination of the tenancy if,

(a) an act or omission of the tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted in the residential complex by the tenant seriously impairs or has seriously impaired the safety of any person; and

(b) the act or omission occurs in the residential complex. 2006, c. 17, s. 66 (1).

83 (1) Upon an application for an order evicting a tenant, the Board may, despite any other provision of this Act or the tenancy agreement,

(a) refuse to grant the application unless satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be unfair to refuse; or

(b) order that the enforcement of the eviction order be postponed for a period of time. 2006, c. 17, s. 83 (1).

84 Subject to clause 83 (1) (b), the Board shall, in an order made under section 69 based on a notice given under subsection 61 (1) that involves an illegal act, trade, business or occupation described in clause 61 (2) (a) or based on a notice given under section 63, 65 or 66, request that the sheriff expedite the enforcement of the order. 2006, c. 17, s. 84.

TSL-61628-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 36936 (ON LTB)

15. Based on the impact that the Tenant’s cigarette smoking is having on other tenants, the Landlord’s representative requested that I request, in this Order, that the Sheriff expedite the enforcement of this Order.

It is ordered that:

8. If, on or before May 12, 2015, the Tenant pays the amount of $5,070.00** to the Landlord or to the Board in trust, this order for eviction will be void. This means that the tenancy would not be terminated and the Tenant could remain in the unit. If this payment is not made in full and on time, the Landlord may file this order with the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) so that the eviction may be enforced. The Sheriff is requested to expedite the enforcement of this order.

HOL-01640-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 70503 (ON LTB)

1. The Landlord served the Tenant with an N6 and two N7 notices on July 12, 2017. The notices clearly identify that the Landlord is seeking the immediate termination of the tenancy because: (i) on July 5, 2017, the police searched the rental unit to uncover a “semi-automatic hand gun” and a “large quantity of cocaine and heroin”, which resulted in the Tenant being arrested; and (ii) the Tenant changed the locks to the main entry door.

8. HL also requested that due to prima facie illegal and serious nature of the Tenant’s actions, the Landlord is seeking that the Sheriff be requested to expedite the enforcement of an eviction order pursuant to section 84 of the Act.

It is ordered that:

6. Upon receipt of this order, the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) is directed to give vacant possession of the unit to the Landlord on or after August 22, 2017. The Sheriff is requested to expedite the enforcement of this order.

TEL-71918-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88401 (ON LTB)

1. The Landlord says that the Tenant is responsible for numerous acts of gratuitous graffiti in the elevators, stairwells and halls of the residential complex.

2. The Landlord and the Landlord’s witness testified that the graffiti included extremely foul language, swearing, racially discriminatory language, sexually harassing language, anti-police sentiments as well as death threats against 3 staff members and another tenant.

7. As a result of the video footage, the still photos as well as the testimony from the Landlord and the Landlord’s witness, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Tenant is responsible for the graffiti in and around the residential complex. The Tenant has committed wilful damage to the residential complex and has engaged in the illegal acts of vandalism, mischief and threatening.

20. 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. Pursuant to section 84 of the Act the Board shall request that the Sheriff expedite the enforcement of the order.

It is ordered that:

8. Upon receipt of this order, the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) is directed to give vacant possession of the unit to the Landlord on or after November 5, 2016. The Sheriff is requested to expedite the enforcement of this order.

SOL-80689-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 48970 (ON LTB)

SPI (the 'Landlord') applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict PJC and MWF (the 'Tenants') because they, another occupant of the rental unit or someone they permitted in the residential complex have wilfully caused undue damage to the premises; and because they, another occupant of the rental unit or a person the Tenants permitted in the residential complex have seriously impaired the safety of any person. The Landlord also claimed compensation for each day the Tenants remained in the unit after the termination date.

...

4. Section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the “Act”) sets out “serious impairment of safety” as a ground for termination of a tenancy. Section 66 allows a short 10-day notice, without opportunity to rectify the problem. An application under Section 66 can brought immediately and an eviction order based on serious impairment of safety notice shall request the Sheriff to expedite enforcement of the eviction order. Given the serious consequences attendant on this ground of termination, it is intended to be reserved for the most serious of situations.

...

16. The Landlord submitted that the use of the washer, and discharge of “contaminated” waste water onto the flower beds, also constitutes willful damage to the residential complex.

17. Section 63 of the Act sets out “wilful undue damage” as a ground for termination of a tenancy. Similar to Section 66, Section 63 allows a short 10-day notice, without opportunity to rectify the problem. An application under Section 63 can also be brought immediately and an eviction order shall request the Sheriff to expedite enforcement of the eviction order. Again, given the serious consequences attendant on this ground of termination, it is intended to address more serious and urgent damage related issues.

18. Firstly, the Landlord did not provide any direct and reliable evidence to establish that the Tenants discharged anything other than clean water onto the property. There was no evidence to support the claim that the Tenants drained 70 gallons of “contaminated waste water” onto the flower beds. Secondly, there was no evidence of undue damage to the rental unit or the residential complex. If the claim is that the grass, the plants or flowers have been destroyed, or the ground has been contaminated, there was no evidence provided to establish such damage. There was no evidence provided to establish that any remediation became necessary as a result of the Tenants’ use of the washer.

19. The Landlord did not meet the burden of proof. I am not satisfied that the Tenants seriously impaired the safety of another person or that they wilfully caused undue damage to the residential complex.

O’Connor v Tupper, 2021 CanLII 89714 (ON LTB)

Gillian Oconnor (the 'Landlord') applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict Bobbi Tupper and Ciara Morris (the 'Tenants') because they, another occupant of the rental unit or someone they permitted in the residential complex have wilfully or negligently caused undue damage to the premises. The Landlord has also applied for an order requiring the Tenants to compensate the Landlord for the damage; because they, another occupant of the rental unit or someone they permitted in the residential complex have wilfully caused undue damage to the rental unit. The Landlord has also applied for an order requiring the Tenants to compensate the Landlord for the damage; because they, another occupant of the rental unit or a person the Tenants permitted in the residential complex have seriously impaired the safety of any person.

...

19. The Landlord testified that on May 13, 2020, neighbours complained to the city of Hamilton about the extensive garbage and debris strewn about the property. The city contacted the Landlord to have the property cleaned up. The Landlord attended with a handy man to remove the garbage, however the Tenants’ continued to use the front porch and lawn area as a dumping site for household garbage and broken items. The Landlord entered into evidence pictures showing mounds of debris and garbage on the front porch, between the house and the fence, and on the front lawn. The Landlord also

testified to the stench of the garbage and how the state of the yard attracted rats and mice.

20. The Landlord also testified that the Hamilton Public Works Department removed garbage and debris from the property on June 16, 2020 and July 15, 2020, and charged her

$64.25 and $56.60, respectively. These bills were entered into evidence.

21. Also entered into evidence were two fines the Landlord received on February 24, 2021 and March 25, 2021 for $155.00 each. The first fine indicated “Fail to keep yard/porch free and clear of all waste” and the second fine noted that the yard and property was being used “for depositing waste”. Both fines were due to the Landlord’s failure to have the property cleaned to by-law standards by February 11, 2021.

22. The Landlord testified that she could not comply with the city’s order to clean the property because the Tenants’ kept using the outside like a dump. Plus, the Tenant BT would physically block her and/or any workers from entering the lawn; the Tenant BT was very aggressive and verbally abusive.

23. The Landlord testified that she felt the Tenant BT’s behaviour fit the definition of impaired safety because she feared for her safety during such incidents. Further, the Tenants impaired the safety of anyone walking by the property because they threw breakable objects, such as plates, over the staircase. Also, the property being strewn with household waste and broken debris was a safety issue which also impaired the safety of anyone entering the property, including herself and contractors.

...

38. The Landlord asked that I include in the order a request to the Sheriff to expedite enforcement. I am granting this request because the evidence establishes that Tenants’ have no regard for the rental property of those affected by their conduct; due to the Tenants’ conduct, he state of the rental unit is deplorable, both inside and out. Further, it is highly likely that the Landlord will be exposed to more fines if vacant possession is not given on an expedited basis so the property can be cleaned pursuant to by-law standards.