Landlord Wins Assignment Dispute: R.H. v [Numbered Company] 2017
Tenant's application to assign lease dismissed despite landlord's delayed response
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
Mar 2017
Tenancy End Date
May 2017
Hearing Date
Jun 2017
Order Date
Jul 14, 2017
Dispute Summary
Tenant applied for an order determining that the Landlord arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld consent to assign the rental unit.
Determinations
- Landlord is a corporation, not the individual agent
- Tenant requested consent to assign lease to potential assignee on March 22, 2017
- Landlord did not respond with approval or denial within 7 days
- Tenant served N9 notice to terminate tenancy effective May 31, 2017
- Landlord refused to accept Tenant's N9 notice as valid
Case Study
The key issue is whether the phrase 'the landlord does not respond within seven days' in s. 95(4)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 means the landlord must approve or deny the assignment request within seven days, or whether simply acknowledging the request is sufficient. The Adjudicator found that the landlord must respond with an approval or denial within seven days.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord argued that 'the landlord does not respond within seven days' means the landlord cannot ignore the request and must respond within seven days, but the actual approval or denial may take longer than the seven days.
Actions
Landlord's agent said he would look over the application but first wanted to inform the potential assignee about previous bed bug issues in the building. The potential assignee did not follow up.
Tenant
Arguments
Tenant argued that 'the landlord does not respond within seven days' means the landlord must say yes or no to the potential assignment within the seven day period.
Actions
Tenant moved out of rental unit to ensure potential assignee could move in right away.
Decision Summary
The Tenant's application is dismissed. While the Landlord failed to respond to the Tenant's request to assign the lease within 7 days as required by the Act, the evidence did not justify the abatement of rent remedy sought by the Tenant.
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.