Landlord Wins Rent Increase Above Guideline for Elevator Modernization: Danton Place Apartments Limited v Tenants 2021
Landlord granted 1.79% rent increase to cover elevator modernization costs in Toronto apartment building
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: July 26, 2024
Case Summary
1299 Danforth Road, Toronto, ON M1J1G6
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Order Date
Sep 16, 2021
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order permitting the rent charged to be increased by more than the guideline for one or more of the rental units in the residential complex. The application was resolved by written hearing.
Determinations
- Landlord justified a rent increase above the guideline because of capital expenditures
- Maximum rent increase above the guideline because of capital expenditures is 1.79%
- Capital expenditure was for Elevator Modernization
- Some rental units listed in the application were not served with the application and notice of hearing, so they are removed from the order
- The work being claimed is not routine maintenance, but the scope of the work that was required to modernize the elevators meets the definition of capital expenditure under the Act
- The weighted useful life for the capital expenditure is 15 years
- The first effective date of the increase above the guideline is August 1, 2019
Case Study
The Landlord justified a rent increase above the guideline because of capital expenditures. The maximum rent increase above the guideline because of capital expenditures is 1.79%. The Tenant's submissions regarding financial considerations cannot be considered as the Act does not provide the Board with the ability to consider the financial impact on the Tenant of an above guideline increase.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
The Landlord responded that the annual rent increase only covers inflationary increases in building operating costs. This limits the amount of fund a landlord can put aside for major capital expenditures. The Landlord submits that it relies on section 126 of the Act in order to apply for the above guideline increase for incurred major capital expenditures.
Tenant
Arguments
The Tenant submits that the elevators are essential for multi-storey buildings and therefore the Landlord should have put aside funds for the modernization of the elevators. The Tenant also submits that, as a low-income senior, she should not be burdened with the expense of the above guideline increase due to the costs of the elevator modernization.
Decision Summary
The Landlord may increase the rents charged by 1.79% for the units set out in Schedule 1. The percentage increase may be taken within the time period of August 1, 2019 to July 31, 2020, and in addition to the annual guideline in effect on the increase date for the unit. If the Tenant's rent is increased pursuant to the percentage increase ordered for capital expenditures and the same Tenant remains in the unit after the expiration of the weighted useful life for capital expenditures, then the rent will be reduced.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
81
Landlord Favorable
92.6%
Tenant Favorable
2.5%
Mutual Agreement
4.9%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
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.