Partly Vague (Notice of Termination)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-05-19
CLNP Page ID:	1787
Page Categories:	Defective Notice (LTB)
Citation:	Partly Vague (Notice of Termination), CLNP 1787, <4Q>, retrieved on 2024-05-19
Editor:	P08916
Last Updated:	2021/10/25

SWL-16024-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88648 (ON LTB)

4. In response to the complaints received, on March 9, 2018, the Landlord served the Tenant with a first N5 Notice of termination (the ‘first N5 Notice’) pursuant to subsection 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’). The first N5 Notice lists four dates for the allegations. The first two entries, January 8 and March 7, 2018 list only the dates when the Tenant was issued written notices with respect to earlier incidents, but offer no references to when these events were alleged to have occurred.

5. With respect to the first two entries, I find that the first N5 Notice is unduly vague and lacks necessary references to specific dates and times for the incidents alleged. While the Landlord’s Agents may well have intended to lead direct evidence of the Tenant’s alleged misconduct at the hearing that prompted them to serve the written warnings, the problem lies in the actual text of the originating document – the first N5 Notice – which is the document against which the respondent Tenant must craft her answer. I find on the balance of probabilities that the vague allegations contained in first two entries of the first N5 Notice frustrated his ability to fully and properly respond to the application. If the Tenant is deprived of the ability to know the precise dates of various allegations prior to the hearing, the missing information necessarily compromises his defence.

6. According to the Ontario Divisional Court’s decisions in both Kuzyk v. S.K. Properties and Ball v. Metro Capital Property and Lockhurst, if a Notice of termination issued by a landlord is confusing to the degree that a reasonable person could not understand the precise actions or omissions that caused the landlord to pursue eviction, a Member would find it defective. Specifically, the Court in Ball stated that “particulars should include dates and times of the alleged offensive conduct, together with a detailed description of the alleged conduct engaged in by the tenant.”

7. In the present case, I find that the first N5 Notice is defective with respect to the first two entries marked January 8, 2018 and March 7, 2018 since these descriptions are excessively vague and devoid of necessary details with respect to the allegations that provide the basis for the application. The Landlord may not rely upon these portions of the notice to terminate the tenancy.