Landlord Wins Eviction Case for Tenant Tampering with Fire Alarm: Durham Regional Local Housing Corp. v Bergsma 2021
Tenant ordered to pay $792 for damaging fire alarm, faces possible eviction if further violations
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: July 26, 2024
Case Summary
Unit ****, 342 Main Street E, Beaverton, ON L0K1A0
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed to Landlord
$792
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Mar 2020
Hearing Date
Mar 2021
Order Date
Mar 17, 2021
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenant due to the Tenant willfully damaging the fire detection system in the rental unit, which seriously impaired the safety of the Tenant and other residents in the building.
Determinations
- Tenant is in possession of the rental unit
- Residential complex is a 2-story walk-up building with 32 units, all occupied by seniors aged 60 and over
- Landlord served Tenant with N7 Notice of Termination on March 17, 2020
- Issue is a single incident on March 4, 2020 where Tenant allegedly willfully damaged the fire detection system in the rental unit, resulting in serious impairment of safety
- Landlord must establish that the Tenant's conduct threatened the well-being of an individual to such a degree that termination of the tenancy is reasonable to ensure the safety of others
- Landlord's witness testified that the fire detection system inside the Tenant's unit was the source of the problem, with the smoke detector and fire horn removed and wires cut, posing a serious risk of fire or electrocution
- Tenant testified he does not know how the fire detection system was damaged and was not home at the time, but is willing to reimburse the Landlord for the repair costs
Case Study
The Landlord established that the Tenant willfully damaged the fire detection system in the rental unit, which posed a serious risk to the safety of the Tenant and other residents in the building. However, considering the Tenant's personal circumstances and the isolated nature of the incident, a conditional order is appropriate to preserve the tenancy while providing recourse to the Landlord if the Tenant's behavior continues to seriously impair the safety of others.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord's Representative submitted that the Tenant willfully damaged the fire detection system inside his rental unit which seriously impaired the safety of himself and all the other seniors residing in the residential unit, and as such, the tenancy should be terminated.
Actions
Landlord's witness testified that the fire detection system inside the Tenant's unit was the source of the problem, with the smoke detector and fire horn removed and wires cut, posing a serious risk of fire or electrocution.
Tenant
Actions
Tenant testified he does not know how the fire detection system was damaged and was not home at the time, but is willing to reimburse the Landlord for the repair costs.
Decision Summary
The Landlord's application to evict the Tenant is denied, subject to conditions. The Tenant must not tamper with the smoke detector or fire horn in the rental unit for 12 months. If the Tenant fails to comply, the Landlord may apply for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the Tenant. The Tenant is ordered to pay the Landlord $792 for the cost of repairing the damaged property, in monthly installments of $50 over 14 months.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
558
Landlord Favorable
92.3%
Tenant Favorable
3.9%
Mutual Agreement
3.8%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Damages
$792
Total Owing
$792 (Owed to Landlord)
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.