Fire Pit in Yard (LTB): Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Szeto v Bernard, 2022 CanLII 127337 (ON LTB)<ref name="Szeto"/>== | |||
6. <b><u>The Landlord’s representative spoke to the damage the</b></u> pool and <b><u>fire pit will cause to the grass.</b></u> The notice served on the Tenants is not for damage. <b><u>The representative also argues that these items constitute a breach of the tenancy agreement because the Tenants are not authorized to make changes to the rental unit.</b></u> | |||
7. The legal test for the N5 notice an interference with a landlord’s lawful rights and privileges must be substantial. <b><u>I find that the Tenant’s having these items in the yard does not constitute substantial interference as required under the Residential Tenancies Act.</b></u> | |||
8. The request to terminate the tenancy based on the N5 notice is denied. | |||
<ref name="Szeto">Szeto v Bernard, 2022 CanLII 127337 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jv07b>, retrieved on 2024-02-07</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 06:01, 7 February 2024
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-05-18 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2340 |
| Page Categories: | Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB) |
| Citation: | Fire Pit in Yard (LTB), CLNP 2340, <https://rvt.link/am>, retrieved on 2024-05-18 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2024/02/07 |
Szeto v Bernard, 2022 CanLII 127337 (ON LTB)[1]
6. The Landlord’s representative spoke to the damage the pool and fire pit will cause to the grass. The notice served on the Tenants is not for damage. The representative also argues that these items constitute a breach of the tenancy agreement because the Tenants are not authorized to make changes to the rental unit.
7. The legal test for the N5 notice an interference with a landlord’s lawful rights and privileges must be substantial. I find that the Tenant’s having these items in the yard does not constitute substantial interference as required under the Residential Tenancies Act.
8. The request to terminate the tenancy based on the N5 notice is denied.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Szeto v Bernard, 2022 CanLII 127337 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jv07b>, retrieved on 2024-02-07
