Landlord Wins Eviction Case: Ullah v Douglass 2022

Dispute Summary

The Tenants requested a review of the order seeking additional time to vacate the rental unit. The order was sent to review because the Member believed there may have been an error with the naming of the Landlord on the N12 notice served on the Tenants by the Landlord, an issue that was not raised at the hearing by the legal representatives nor in the request to review. At the review hearing, the Landlord and Tenants' representative confirmed that the sale of the property closed on March 15, 2022, well after the Landlord served the notice of termination as the Landlord of the property. Therefore, there is no serious error with the naming of the Landlord on the N12 notice.

Determinations

• The Landlord and Tenants' representative confirmed that the sale of the property closed on March 15, 2022, well after the Landlord served the notice of termination as the Landlord of the property. Therefore, there is no serious error with the naming of the Landlord on the N12 notice.
• The Member took a balanced and thoughtful approach to the decision and the order addresses the Tenants' personal circumstances as well as the fact the Tenants owed more than $30,000.00 representing more than one year of rent.
• The Member took into account all the circumstances as required under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act when the order was issued terminating the tenancy.
• The Tenants requested a review of the order seeking additional time to vacate the rental unit.
• The order was sent to review because the Member believed there may have been an error with the naming of the Landlord on the N12 notice served on the Tenants by the Landlord, an issue that was not raised at the hearing by the legal representatives nor in the request to review.