Landlord Loses Smoking Violation Case: Faryna v Todaro 2021
Landlord's application to evict tenant for smoking violations dismissed due to lack of admissible evidence
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: July 26, 2024
Case Summary
Unit ****, 82 Fourth Street, Toronto, ON M8V2Y5
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Nov 2019
Order Date
Sep 22, 2021
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenant because the Tenant failed to meet a condition specified in a previous order issued by the Board, which prohibited the Tenant from smoking inside the rental unit or the residential complex.
Determinations
- Landlord served valid N4 Notice
- Tenants did not void notice by paying arrears
- Tenants in possession on application date
- Tenants vacated on 2022-09-08
- Lawful rent due on 1st of each month
- No payments made since application filed
Case Study
The Landlord's application was dismissed because the Landlord did not provide any admissible evidence to prove that the Tenant had smoked in the residential complex, as alleged. The Landlord's evidence was based on hearsay, which was found to be inadmissible. The Tenant had the right to cross-examine the witnesses, but was deprived of that right because the Landlord chose not to bring her witnesses to the hearing.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Actions
The Landlord relied on affidavits from other residents and her own testimony that those residents made complaints to her about the Tenant's smoking.
Tenant
Actions
The Tenant denies smoking in the residential complex.
Decision Summary
The Landlord's application was dismissed because the Landlord did not provide any admissible evidence to prove that the Tenant had smoked in the residential complex, as alleged. The Landlord's evidence was based on hearsay, which was found to be inadmissible.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
367
Landlord Favorable
88.6%
Tenant Favorable
4.1%
Mutual Agreement
7.4%
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.