Tenants Named Incorrectly (LTB)

🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 ©
Date Retrieved:	2025-04-01
CLNP Page ID:	1176
Page Categories:	[Defective Notice (LTB)]
Citation:	Tenants Named Incorrectly (LTB), CLNP 1176, <https://rvt.link/et>, retrieved on 2025-04-01
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2025/01/10

SWT-09323-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42486 (ON LTB)

21. Although the Landlord served the Tenant a first N5 Notice, which I found to be flawed because he failed to name all of the Tenants and failed to provide sufficient details or give enough time between the date of service and the termination date, the Landlord said he served the notice after speaking with the police and other tenants. In any event, the Tenant had the opportunity to void that notice. Further, it was the Tenant who contacted the Landlord on October 11, 2017, 8 days after receiving the N5 Notice saying she was moving October 15, 2017 and wanted her portion of the rent as well as her portion of the last month's rent deposit returned to her. More interestingly, the Tenant testified she moved because the other girls made her feel unsafe.

Sandhu v Collet, 2022 CanLII 86529 (ON LTB)

Navdeep Sandhu and Ranjeet Sandhu (the 'Landlords') applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict Jenna Collet (the 'Tenant') and Aniyah Francis because the Tenant did not pay the rent that the Tenants owe (the L1 application).

...

Determinations:

It is undisputed that the notice of termination for each application names the Tenant’s four year old daughter, Aniyah Francis, as a tenant; and that Aniyah Francis, is not, in fact, a tenant. As such, I determined the notices are fatally defective. I orally ruled to dismiss the L2 application, at which time Mr. Naqvi requested that the L1 application be withdrawn, I granted this request.

It is ordered that:

The Landlord’s applications are dismissed without consideration of their merits.

SWL-41006-12 (Re), 2012 CanLII 89293 (ON LTB)

3. In my respectful view, a plain reading of section 65(1) requires the L2 application to be dismissed as the Tenants were not served with the appropriate notice of termination. The word “reside” in section 65(1) does not include the operation of a business from the building in which the rental unit is located. Had the Legislature intended to include business operations within the ambit of section 65(1), it must be presumed that it would have done so. I appreciate the submission of the Landlord that, operating a restaurant from the main floor of this building, in which they work every day and which, they submit, has been affected by the conduct of the Tenants, their circumstances should fall within the ambit of section 65. But, that provision of the Act clear on its face: an N7 termination notice may only be served upon a tenant by a landlord who actually resides in the building where the rental unit is located. These Landlords reside elsewhere. As the only remedy sought in that case was eviction pursuant to the defective N7 Notice, the L2 application must, therefore, be dismissed.

NOL-16865-14-RV (Re), 2014 CanLII 78539 (ON LTB)

31. MJW did not enter into new tenancy agreement with CV after the tenancy with SV and DV ended.

32. CV was never a ‘Tenant’ under any agreement with either RW or with MJW.

33. The Landlord has improperly named CV as a ‘Tenant’ in the Notice to Terminate a Tenancy at the End of the Term for Landlord’s or Purchaser’s Own Use Form N12. Accordingly, the Landlord’s notice of termination is defective.

34. CV is currently an unauthorized occupant of the rental unit.