Illegal Lockout (Failure to Grant Initial Possession)

🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 ©
Date Retrieved:	2025-10-17
CLNP Page ID:	2531
Page Categories:	[Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)]
Citation:	Illegal Lockout (Failure to Grant Initial Possession), CLNP 2531, <>, retrieved on 2025-10-17
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2025/10/14

TET-10839-20 (Re), 2020 CanLII 61322 (ON LTB)

1. The rental unit is a single-family home.

2. The Tenants first viewed the rental unit online on or about April 21, 2020. On or about April 25, 2020 the Tenants provided the Landlord with first and last month’s rent deposit in the amount of $4,000.00 and entered into a lease agreement. The tenancy was to commence on May 1, 2020.

3. The Tenants came to view the rental unit on April 27, 2020 in person and saw what they considered to be serious disrepair issues (including alleged black mould, broken cupboards, rodent debris).

4. As the Tenants required a home within a few days and had thought that there was not enough time for the Landlord to address the alleged shortcomings of the home, the Tenants decided to repudiate the lease agreement. On or about April 28, 2020 the Tenants requested that the Landlord return their first and last month’s rent deposit.

5. The Landlord refused to return the monies.

6. According to the Landlord, the repairs to the unit were done before May 1, 2020, and the unit was in a move in condition on the day the Tenants were to take possession of the rental unit.

7. The Tenants came to check upon the rental unit on May 1st, 2020 the day they were entitled to occupy the rental unit; however, they were unable to access the rental unit as the access code to the lock box was changed. The Landlord did not provide the Tenants with the access code.

8. When the Tenants advised the Landlord that they did not wish to move in, the Landlord immediately began to advertise the rental unit for lease. The Landlord was able to re-rent the unit as of June 1, 2020. The Landlord returned to the Tenant’s $2,000.00 the rent for June 2020. The Tenants seek the remaining $2,000.00 they paid to the Landlord.

9. Section 24 of the Act states:

A landlord shall not alter the locking system on a door giving entry to a rental unit or residential complex or cause the locking system to be altered during the tenant’s occupancy of the rental unit without giving the tenant replacement keys.

10. Although the Tenants did not occupy the rental unit, they were entitled to occupy the rental unit as of May 1, 2020. I say this because when the Landlord refused to return the first and last month’s rent deposit to the Tenants, the Landlord had an obligation to provide vacant possession of the rental unit to the Tenants as of May 1, 2020. By changing the access code to the unit without providing the code to the Tenants, the Landlord failed to provide vacant possession of the unit to the Tenants, effectively locking the Tenants out of the rental unit.

11. The Landlord cannot keep the Tenants’ monies and at the same time deny them access to the rental unit.

12. Based on the above, I find that the Landlord altered the locking system to the rental unit contrary to section 24 of the Act. As a result, the Landlord shall return to the Tenants $2,000.00. which represents the rent for May 2020.

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

13 (1) The term or period of a tenancy begins on the day the tenant is entitled to occupy the rental unit under the tenancy agreement. 2006, c. 17, s. 13 (1).

(2) A tenancy agreement takes effect when the tenant is entitled to occupy the rental unit, whether or not the tenant actually occupies it. 2006, c. 17, s. 13 (2).

...

22 A landlord shall not at any time during a tenant’s occupancy of a rental unit and before the day on which an order evicting the tenant is executed substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or the residential complex in which it is located for all usual purposes by a tenant or members of his or her household.

...

24 A landlord shall not alter the locking system on a door giving entry to a rental unit or residential complex or cause the locking system to be altered during the tenant’s occupancy of the rental unit without giving the tenant replacement keys.

...

31 (1) If the Board determines that a landlord, a superintendent or an agent of a landlord has done one or more of the activities set out in paragraphs 2 to 6 of subsection 29 (1), the Board may,

...

(3) If the Board determines, in an application under paragraph 5 of subsection 29 (1), that the landlord, superintendent or agent of the landlord has altered the locking system on a door giving entry to the rental unit or the residential complex, or caused the locking system to be altered, during the tenant’s occupancy of the rental unit without giving the tenant replacement keys, and if the Board is satisfied that the rental unit is vacant, the Board may, in addition to the remedies set out in subsections (1) and (2), order that the landlord allow the tenant to recover possession of the rental unit and that the landlord refrain from renting the unit to anyone else.

(4) An order under subsection (3) shall have the same effect, and shall be enforced in the same manner, as a writ of possession.

...

37 (1) A tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with this Act.

...

39 A landlord shall not recover possession of a rental unit subject to a tenancy unless,

(a) the tenant has vacated or abandoned the unit; or

(b) an order of the Board evicting the tenant has authorized the possession.

...

40 No landlord shall, without legal process, seize a tenant’s property for default in the payment of rent or for the breach of any other obligation of the tenant.