Tenants Win Personal Use Eviction Case: Miller v Morozov 2024
Tenants successfully defend against landlord's personal use eviction due to temporary occupation intent
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: November 14, 2024
Case Summary
Unit ****, 465 Woolwich Street North, Waterloo, ON N1R5X9
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed to Landlord
$1,460
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Subsections of RTA Quoted
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
May 2024
Order Date
Sep 4, 2024
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict Tenants for personal use, claiming they require the rental unit for their spouse's residential occupation. The application was dismissed due to the temporary nature of the intended occupation.
Determinations
- Landlord's intended use is temporary
- No evidence of permanent separation
- Goal is marriage reconciliation
- Temporary occupation does not meet legal requirements
Case Study
The Board found that the landlord's intended use of the rental unit was temporary and did not constitute residential occupation as per subsection 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord claimed good faith requirement for personal use
Actions
Landlord testified about marital difficulties and desire to create space for reconciliation
Tenant
Arguments
Tenants argued against the temporary nature of the landlord's intended occupation
Decision Summary
The Landlord's application is dismissed. The Tenant must return the $1,460.00 compensation paid by the Landlord. If not paid by September 30, 2024, interest will accrue at 7% annually.
Reason for Eviction Relief
Temporary occupation does not meet legal requirements for personal use eviction
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
100
Landlord Favorable
85.0%
Tenant Favorable
11.0%
Mutual Agreement
4.0%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Lawful Rent
$1,460
Other Owed Amount
$1,460
Compensation paid by Landlord to be returned
Total Owing
$1,460 (Owed to Landlord)
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.