Mann v Singhera: Eviction Application Dismissed Due to Defective Notice
Eviction Case Dismissed: The Crucial Role of Proper Notices in Tenancy Disputes
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: July 22, 2024
Case Summary
36 Sledman Street, Mississauga, ON L4T1K5
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Jan 2022
Order Date
Jan 31, 2022
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict Tenant, claiming substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment and serious impairment of safety. The application was dismissed due to a defective notice that did not include the unit number as required by law.
Determinations
- Landlord's representative acknowledged the error in the notice
- Notice served on Tenant found defective
- Tenancy cannot be terminated based on the defective notice
- Tenant's representative argued the notice lacked unit number
Case Study
The Landlord's application was dismissed due to a procedural error in the notice served to the Tenant. To succeed in future applications, the Landlord should ensure all notices comply with section 43.1(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, including specifying the unit number in multi-unit residential complexes.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Actions
Landlord's representative acknowledged the error in the notice served to the Tenant.
Procedural Errors
Landlord failed to include the unit number in the notice served to the Tenant, as required by section 43.1(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act for multi-unit residential complexes.
Tenant
Arguments
Tenant's representative cited section 43.1(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, which requires the unit number to be included in notices for multi-unit residential complexes.
Actions
Tenant's representative argued that the notice served did not include the unit number as required by law.
Decision Summary
The Landlord's application for termination of tenancy and eviction was dismissed due to a defective notice that did not include the unit number as required by section 43.1(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
775
Landlord Favorable
77.2%
Tenant Favorable
10.3%
Mutual Agreement
12.5%
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.