M.P.C.G.I. v H.S.

Last updated: July 26, 2024

Order

Ordered by Kimberly Parish,Tribunals Ontario  under Section 69, Residential Tenancies Act 2006

Order Date: October 29, 2021
*** Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, ON M1K2M7
Contested Dispute

Decision in favor of

Landlord

ContentionLow

Agree with the ruling?

Citation: M.P.C.G.I. v H.S., 2021 CanLII 143669 (ON LTB)

File Number: TEL-03943-19

Timeline

Application Date

Aug 2019

15 months

Hearing Date

Nov 2020

12 months

Order Date

Oct 29, 2021

Decision

The Landlord is granted an above guideline rent increase of 0.61% for the capital expenditures on the front access ramp and exterior waterproofing repairs. The increase can be applied to the affected units, excluding those that were not properly served with the application.

Unlock Order Content

Dispute

Landlord applied for an order to increase the rent charged by more than the guideline due to capital expenditures. The Landlord justified the rent increase above the guideline for the front access ramp and exterior waterproofing repairs. The Board found the capital expenditures met the requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act and granted the above guideline increase.

Unlock Order Content

Determinations

  • Landlord justified above guideline increase for capital expenditures
  • Capital expenditures met requirements under the Act
  • Landlord served some tenants but not all with the application
  • Board amended application to remove units not properly served
  • Unlock Order Content

Landlord's Arguments

Arguments

Landlord argued that the capital expenditures met the requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act and that the Landlord is required to comply with the applicable requirements under the AODA and property standards bylaws.

Unlock Order Content

Actions and Evidence

Landlord submitted that the supporting documents were available on site for viewing by the tenants. Landlord also submitted that the capital expenditures were necessary to comply with housing standards and property standards bylaws.

Unlock Order Content

Procedural Errors

Landlord did not serve some of the rental units with the application and notice of hearing.

Unlock Order Content

Tenant's Arguments

Arguments

Tenant argued that due to the pandemic, the provincial government stipulated that Landlords cannot apply rent increases until 2022. Tenant also argued that the tenants should not have to pay the costs for the capital expenditure because all establishments are required to provide proper accessibility in accordance with the Access for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Unlock Order Content

Actions and Evidence

Tenant submitted that due to the pandemic, she was unable to view the documents referenced in the Notice of Hearing.

Unlock Order Content

Need assistance from an expert?

Professional business person

Reach Landlords & Tenants

Advertise your legal or rental services to our audience

Sponsored

Similar Cases

Loading similar cases...
Share:

Latest Insights from Our Blog

Stay informed with expert analysis on rental law, tenant rights, and LTB decisions

Need Legal Help? We've Got You Covered

Whether you need to find qualified legal professionals or post your specific legal needs to get competitive quotes, our platform connects you with the right help.

Find Legal Professionals

Browse our directory of verified paralegals and lawyers specializing in Ontario rental law and LTB matters.

Browse Professionals

Post Your Legal Needs

Describe your legal situation and receive competitive quotes from qualified professionals in our marketplace.

Post a Bounty

Join thousands of Ontarians who have found legal help through our platform