Landlord Wins Substantial Interference Case: Lopes v Da Silva
LTB Dismisses Tenants' Application in Lopes v Da Silva Case
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: July 22, 2024
Case Summary
Unit ****, 103 Back Street, Bradford, ON L3Z1W8
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Jun 2020
Hearing Date
Dec 2021
Order Date
Feb 28, 2022
Dispute Summary
Tenants applied for an order determining that the Landlord substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex. The application was based on allegations of noise, harassment, drugs, violent activity, and smoking by the basement tenants, and the Landlord's failure to properly respond to the Tenants' complaints.
Determinations
- Landlord would have experienced significant prejudice if expected to defend against unknown and unspecified allegations
- Tenants did not address the lack of specificity in their application when invited to do so
- Tenants' application is vague and lacks context in terms of dates and details
Case Study
The Tenants' application lacked specificity in terms of dates and details of the alleged incidents, which prejudiced the Landlord's ability to present a meaningful defense. The Landlord's right to a fair hearing must be balanced against the Tenants' allegations.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord argued that the Tenants' application lacked sufficient details to allow the Landlord to know the case being made against them.
Tenant
Actions
Tenants alleged noise, harassment, drugs, violent activity, and smoking by the basement tenants, and the Landlord's failure to properly respond to their complaints.
Procedural Errors
Tenants did not address the lack of specificity in their application when invited to do so.
Decision Summary
The Tenants' application is dismissed due to the lack of specificity in the allegations, which prejudiced the Landlord's ability to present a meaningful defense.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
338
Landlord Favorable
84.6%
Tenant Favorable
9.8%
Mutual Agreement
5.6%
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.