Landlord Wins Noise Violation Case: City of Brantford, Housing v Scott 2023
Brantford tenant evicted for breaching previous LTB order to not make excessive noise
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: July 22, 2024
Case Summary
Unit ****, 124 Sherwood Dr, Brantford, ON N3T1N9
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
May 2023
Order Date
May 19, 2023
Tenancy End Date
Jun 2023
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict Tenant because the Tenant did not meet a condition specified in the order issued by the LTB on June 3, 2022 with respect to application SOL-24940-21. The application was resolved by order LTB-L-000610-23 issued on March 21, 2023. On April 11, 2023, the Tenant filed a motion to set-aside order LTB-L-000610-23 along with a request to extend time to file the motion which was granted.
Determinations
- The Landlord provided the Tenant with some resources for housing options and resources for alternative housing.
- The Tenant continues to make excessive noise, which is a breach of the order.
- The Tenant has lived in the rental unit for about six and a half years and is on subsidized housing. An eviction could mean that she would be homeless and without support.
- The Tenant has not met the following condition specified in the order: The Tenant made excessive noise on December 31, 2022 which required police attendance to the residence. As part of the original order, the Tenant was not to make excessive noise for a period of 12 months from January 5, 2022 to January 4, 2023.
- The order provides that the Landlord can apply to the LTB under section 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act') without notice to the Tenant to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenant if the Tenant does not meet certain condition(s) in the order.
Case Study
The order provides that the Landlord can apply to the LTB under section 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act') without notice to the Tenant to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenant if the Tenant does not meet certain condition(s) in the order. This application was filed within 30 days of the breach. The Tenant has not met the condition specified in the order, which was not to make excessive noise for a period of 12 months from January 5, 2022 to January 4, 2023. The Tenant's testimony and the testimony of the Landlord's witness, JH, indicate that the Tenant made excessive noise on December 31, 2022, which required police attendance. The Tenant continues to make excessive noise, which is a breach of the order. Although the Tenant has lived in the rental unit for about six and a half years and is on subsidized housing, the Landlord provided the Tenant with some resources for housing options and resources for alternative housing. Given the length of time the Tenant has resided in the unit and based on other housing availability, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to give the Tenant more time to move out of the unit and will provide additional time before the stay is lifted.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Actions
JH testified that the noise started on December 30, 2022 with constant loud music and banging onwards to December 31, 2022 until about 2 or 3am and that they called the police because of the ongoing noise. The police did not attend the unit until around 9am on December 31st. JH further testified that the police told him that he was charging the Tenant with mischief and that the Tenant was uncooperative when the police spoke to them. JH further testified that the issue with the noise is unrelenting and has been going on for several months. The most recent incident being the day before the hearing between 8pm and into the morning until 3am with loud music playing and persistent banging on the walls to their unit. JH has a child and family and the noise often disturbs them. The music is loud enough that they can clearly hear which song is playing at any given time.
Tenant
Arguments
The Tenant further stated that she is often disturbed by someone's CPAP machine and that the sound of it makes her turn her music up in order to drown out the noise of it. The Tenant further indicated that she would like to maintain her tenancy because she has a homeless brother that she looks out for and she often goes to visit her mother to care for her on the other side of town. That if she were to become homeless, she would no longer be able to provide the ongoing support her family requires.
Actions
The Tenant testified that they were not aware of any excessive noise on December 31, 2022 and suggested that it may have been the result of her moving items from her unit to the basement and using the stairs. The Tenant had been cleaning her unit by sorting and cleaning and donating items she no longer needed. The Tenant suggested that the music likely came from her television while she was playing her Queen CD. The Tenant confirmed that police attended her unit at around 9am on December 31st.
Decision Summary
The motion to set aside Order LTB-L-000610-23 is denied. The order remains unchanged. The stay of Order LTB-L-000610-23 is lifted on June 30, 2023.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
536
Landlord Favorable
91.2%
Tenant Favorable
5.4%
Mutual Agreement
3.4%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Source
Similar Cases
Click to switch between case outcomes
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Goklani v Cannata
Toronto tenants' maintenance dispute against landlord dismissed by LTB
Jeff v Ferguson
Woodstock landlords awarded $35,186 in rent arrears, tenants face eviction for non-payment.
Oxford Properties Group v Benjamin
Tenant ordered to pay $22,461.70 for flood damage with conditional tenancy preservation
Sufi Properties Ltd v Nieman
Tenants ordered to pay $16,866 in rent arrears to Former Landlord after complex dispute.