Landlord Wins Rent Increase Case: JPE v Tenants 2021
Landlord granted 0.51% rent increase due to municipal tax hike, portion of application during rent freeze period dismissed
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: July 26, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Order Date
Oct 8, 2021
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to increase the rent by more than the guideline due to an extraordinary increase in municipal taxes and charges. The Board accepted the Landlord's amended application and removed certain units from the application. The Board considered the Tenants' submissions on maintenance issues and financial impact, but determined they were not relevant to the application under section 126 of the Residential Tenancies Act. The Board ordered a 0.51% rent increase for the eligible units, effective March 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, but dismissed the portion of the application seeking an increase during the rent freeze period of January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021.
Determinations
- Landlord justified rent increase above guideline due to extraordinary increase in municipal taxes and charges
- Board accepted Landlord's amended application and removed certain units
- Tenant submissions on maintenance and financial impact not relevant under section 126
- Board ordered 0.51% rent increase effective March 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020
- Portion of application seeking increase during rent freeze period dismissed
Case Study
The Board determined that the Landlord justified a rent increase above the guideline due to an extraordinary increase in municipal taxes and charges. The Board dismissed the portion of the application seeking an increase during the rent freeze period, as it is not permitted under the Residential Tenancies Act.
Decision Summary
The Landlord may increase the rents charged by 0.51% for the eligible units, effective March 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. The portion of the application seeking an increase during the rent freeze period of January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 is dismissed.
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.