Burden of Proof (LTB): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/hwmbg TSL-96333-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 120833 (ON LTB)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/hwmbg TSL-96333-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 120833 (ON LTB)]== | ||
4. The Landlord bears the obligation to prove the good faith requirement [http://canlii.ca/t/g1g1d Feeney v. Noble, 1994 CanLII 10538 (ON SC), (1994) O.J. No. 2049], but is only required to establish that he genuinely intends to live in the rental unit for at least a year. The Landlord’s motives and the reasonableness of proposing the move into the subject unit and the availability of other alternatives are only relevant as circumstantial evidence from which inferences can be drawn when deciding whether a genuine or sincere intention to occupy the unit exists [Fava v. Harrison, [2014] O.J. No. 2678 (Div. Ct.); Clarke v. Bielak, [2003] O. J. No. 4479 (Div. Ct.); [http://canlii.ca/t/gbmx5 Salter v. Beljinac 2001 CanLII 40231 (ON SCDC), (2001) O. J. No. 2792 (Div. Ct.)]. | 4. <b><u>The Landlord bears the obligation to prove the good faith requirement</b></u> [http://canlii.ca/t/g1g1d Feeney v. Noble, 1994 CanLII 10538 (ON SC), (1994) O.J. No. 2049], but is only required to establish that he genuinely intends to live in the rental unit for at least a year. The Landlord’s motives and the reasonableness of proposing the move into the subject unit and the availability of other alternatives are only relevant as circumstantial evidence from which inferences can be drawn when deciding whether a genuine or sincere intention to occupy the unit exists [Fava v. Harrison, [2014] O.J. No. 2678 (Div. Ct.); Clarke v. Bielak, [2003] O. J. No. 4479 (Div. Ct.); [http://canlii.ca/t/gbmx5 Salter v. Beljinac 2001 CanLII 40231 (ON SCDC), (2001) O. J. No. 2792 (Div. Ct.)]. | ||
Revision as of 16:18, 16 February 2020
SWL-01205-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 93912 (ON LTB)
5. It is the Landlord’s obligation to prove on a balance of probabilities the damage was caused by the Tenant. I believe both parties equally and given there was no detailed written incoming inspection signed by the parties to establish the condition of the rental unit, I find on a balance of probabilities the Landlord has failed to prove the Tenant damaged the cupboards.
8. It is the Landlord’s obligation to prove the damage was wilful or negligent. There was no evidence presented to support the damage to the blinds was anything other than normal wear and tear. Although the blinds were bent, in the absence of any explanation from the Landlord as to how the damage occurred, I accept the Tenant’s version of events and deny the Landlord’s claim for the blinds.
TSL-96333-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 120833 (ON LTB)
4. The Landlord bears the obligation to prove the good faith requirement Feeney v. Noble, 1994 CanLII 10538 (ON SC), (1994) O.J. No. 2049, but is only required to establish that he genuinely intends to live in the rental unit for at least a year. The Landlord’s motives and the reasonableness of proposing the move into the subject unit and the availability of other alternatives are only relevant as circumstantial evidence from which inferences can be drawn when deciding whether a genuine or sincere intention to occupy the unit exists [Fava v. Harrison, [2014] O.J. No. 2678 (Div. Ct.); Clarke v. Bielak, [2003] O. J. No. 4479 (Div. Ct.); Salter v. Beljinac 2001 CanLII 40231 (ON SCDC), (2001) O. J. No. 2792 (Div. Ct.).
