Tenant Changed the Lock (RTA)

TEL-88821-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 111746 (ON LTB)

25. Although the notice implies that the Tenant changed the locks to stop the Landlord from entering to inspect or do the necessary repairs that is not what actually happened.

26. Both parties acknowledge the locks were changed many years ago and the Landlord was fully aware of it and had no problem with that until the floor damage occurred.

27. But no evidence was led that the locks were changed with the Landlord’s consent, and no evidence was led that the Tenant provided the Landlord with a replacement key after the notice of termination was issued.

28. Pursuant to s. 35(1) of the Act:

A tenant 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 the consent of the landlord.

29. So regardless of when the locks were changed or why, I am satisfied the Tenant changed the lock in contravention of the Act. As the Landlord needs the key to enter the unit to do repairs and inspections, that behaviour substantially interferes with a lawful right of the Landlord.

30. That being said, pursuant to s. 83(1) of the Act, I am not prepared to issue an eviction order on this basis. The Landlord has known for years the Tenant changed the lock and was content to let her do so. It could at any time over the years have brought the appropriate application to obtain a key, or change the lock back to ensure it had access as needed. In other words, the Landlord’s acquiescence to the Tenant’s behaviour indicates it was not a serious issue for the Landlord until the floor damage appeared.

TSL-68541-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 39895 (ON LTB)

1. All of the allegations in the N5 notice of termination preceding the application alleged substantial interference because the Tenant was not allowing access to the rental unit on proper notice. It alleged the Tenant has a secondary lock installed on the rental unit door and required the Tenant to provide the Landlord a key.

2. The N5 notice of termination listed a number of dates the Landlord was unable to enter the rental unit on proper notice, yet almost all of the evidence at the second hearing addressed attempts to enter made after the N5 was served, not before.

3. Specifically, Witness 2 testified she was unable to access the rental unit on notice on November 10, 2015 to treat the unit for pests when the N5 was sent by mail on October 28, 2015, deemed served on November 2, 2015. Otherwise Witness 2’s testimony was that she did access the rental unit on two occasions in 2014 and, after repeated questioning, on April 10, 2015. These were not dates when access could not be gained, the allegation in the N5. Witnesses 3 and 4 only confirmed that evidence, providing none of the particulars to support any of the remaining allegations in the N5.

4. It was only on cross-examination that Witness 4 mentioned another incident listed in the N5: her attempt on April 7, 2015 to enter the unit to install pigeon netting which was thwarted because of the second lock.

5. It was argued that the Landlord brought the wrong application. Although unidentified, presumably it was suggested the Landlord should have filed an L8 application which has, as its statutory underpinning, subsection 35(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’). That says that “a tenant shall not alter the locking system on a door giving entry to a rental unit…or cause the locking system to be altered during the tenant’s occupancy of the rental unit without the consent of the landlord.” Following that is subsection 35(2) of the Act set out the mechanism for an L8 application “if a tenant alters a locking system.” It was not seriously alleged that is what the Tenant did where she testified the lock was there was she moved in nearly thirty years ago.

6. The Landlord could not, therefore, have proceeded by way of an L8 application and no other alternative was suggested.