Landlord Loses Demolition Case: Executive Property Management v Gil
Scarborough tenants evicted for non-payment of rent, owe $5822 to landlord
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: July 22, 2024
Case Summary
1 Kenilworth Avenue S, Hamilton, ON L8K2T1
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Sep 2021
Order Date
Feb 9, 2022
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenant due to plans to demolish the rental unit. The Landlord intended to lower the basement floor and deconvert the residential complex from four to two dwelling units to comply with an Order to Comply issued by the City of Hamilton.
Determinations
- N13 notice was defective as it was not served on all tenants
- Proposed work does not constitute a demolition
- Tenant would be able to exercise right of first refusal
Case Study
The N13 notice was defective as it was not served on all tenants. The proposed work does not constitute a demolition as the Tenant's unit will not be irrevocably destroyed or significantly changed, and the Tenant would be able to exercise a right of first refusal to move back into the unit.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord was not required to name or serve the N13 notice on a tenant who was not in possession of the rental unit.
Procedural Errors
N13 notice was defective as it was not served on all tenants.
Tenant
Arguments
N13 notice was defective as it was not served on all tenants.
Actions
Tenant viewed the unit prior to moving in and was told the basement would be a separate apartment. Tenant believes Landlord wanted to construct 4 units illegally and is now trying to evict Tenant to re-rent the combined unit for a greater amount.
Decision Summary
The Landlord's application is dismissed. The N13 notice was defective as it was not served on all tenants, and the proposed work does not constitute a demolition as the Tenant's unit will not be irrevocably destroyed or significantly changed, and the Tenant would be able to exercise a right of first refusal.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
721
Landlord Favorable
93.2%
Tenant Favorable
4.4%
Mutual Agreement
2.4%
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.