Tenant Wins Substantial Interference Case Against Landlord in Red Rock, ON: De Lorenzi v Greenstone Asset Management 2021
Tenant awarded $3203 after landlord fails to follow proper procedures for major renovations in Red Rock, ON
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: July 26, 2024
Case Summary
Unit ****, 30 Frost Street, Red Rock, ON P0T2P0
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed to Tenant
$3,203
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Oct 2020
Hearing Date
Oct 2021
Order Date
Dec 16, 2021
Dispute Summary
Tenant applied for an order determining that the Landlords substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenant. The Landlords required the Tenant to vacate the rental unit for renovations without following the proper process as required under the legislation.
Determinations
- Landlords substantially interfered with the Tenant's reasonable enjoyment
- Landlords did not follow the proper N13 process
- Landlords improperly resorted to threats of monetary costs and legal action against the Tenant
- Tenant would not have moved when she did if not for the Landlord's email
Case Study
The Landlord did not follow the proper process under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 to acquire vacant possession of the rental unit for major repairs and/or renovations. This resulted in the Tenant moving within a shortened time frame, which substantially interfered with her reasonable enjoyment.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord argued Tenant gave notice she was moving and he was helping her move, so he should not have to pay compensation
Actions
Landlord sent email on October 13, 2020 requiring Tenant to vacate by October 30, 2020 for renovations, and later served invalid N13 notice
Procedural Errors
Landlord did not follow the proper N13 process, only gave 17 days notice instead of minimum 120 days
Aggravating Factors
Landlord improperly resorted to threats of monetary costs and legal action against the Tenant
Tenant
Arguments
Tenant was not being unreasonable in declining to move to Baker Street as it was shared facilities, not comparable to her 3-bedroom unit
Actions
Tenant looked for new accommodations and moved out in December 2020, about 25 minutes away for $825 per month
Decision Summary
The Landlords substantially interfered with the Tenant's reasonable enjoyment by requiring her to vacate the rental unit for renovations without following the proper process under the Residential Tenancies Act. The Tenant is entitled to $2,475 in compensation, $280.47 in moving expenses, and the $48 application filing fee.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
120
Landlord Favorable
90.0%
Tenant Favorable
7.5%
Mutual Agreement
2.5%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Lawful Rent
$625
Application Fee
$48
Total Owing
$3,203 (Owed to Tenant)
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.