Landlord Wins Storage Locker Dispute: O.D.C.L v Tenants
Landlord allowed to remove on-site storage lockers, but must reduce rent by 15% for affected tenants
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: July 30, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Jan 2017
Hearing Date
Oct 2017
Order Date
Jan 2, 2019
Dispute Summary
Tenants applied for an order determining that the Landlord substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex, and for a reduction in rent due to a reduction or discontinuance in services or facilities provided. The issues were whether the Landlord was entitled to reduce or eliminate the storage lockers, how the rent reduction should be quantified, and whether the Landlord substantially interfered with the Tenants' reasonable enjoyment.
Determinations
- Storage lockers were included in the tenancy agreement
- Landlord gave notice to Tenants about removing lockers
- Landlord offered replacement lockers in another building
- Some Tenants left belongings in old lockers after deadline
- Landlord moved those belongings to temporary onsite storage
- Landlord's actions in serving termination notices and filing eviction applications did not constitute substantial interference
Case Study
The Landlord was entitled to reduce or discontinue the storage locker facilities, and the appropriate remedy is a rent reduction. The reduction in service was found to be unreasonable, so the rent reduction must be calculated based on the value of the service and the effect on the Tenants. The Tenants' T2 application alleging substantial interference was dismissed.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord entitled to reduce or discontinue storage locker service
Tenant
Arguments
Landlord not entitled to remove storage lockers included in tenancy agreement
Actions
Tenants left belongings in old lockers after deadline, posted threatening notes on lockers
Decision Summary
The Tenants' T2 application was dismissed. The Tenants' lawful rent is reduced by 15% effective January 28, 2017. The Landlord must rebate the Tenants the amount owed due to the rent reduction by January 31, 2019. The Landlord must pay PK $195 for the cost of filing the application.
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.