Landlord Wins Dispute Over Residential Tenancies Act Applicability - Winter v Fu
LTB dismisses tenant application, finds Residential Tenancies Act inapplicable based on prior order
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: July 26, 2024
Case Summary
1711 Markham Street, Toronto, ON M6G2M2
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Oct 2020
Hearing Date
Oct 2021
Order Date
Oct 27, 2021
Dispute Summary
Tenants applied for an order determining that the Landlord harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with them, entered the rental unit illegally, substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenants or by a member of their household and withheld or deliberately interfered with the reasonable supply of a vital service, care service, or food that the Landlord is obligated to supply under the tenancy agreement.
Determinations
- The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not apply to this rental unit
- The Board previously determined this in Order TSL-03851-19
- The Tenants did not appeal Order TSL-03851-19
- The doctrine of issue estoppel applies
Case Study
The Board previously determined in Order TSL-03851-19 that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not apply to this rental unit as the Landlord and Tenant are required to share a bathroom and kitchen. The Tenants did not appeal this order, and it remains a final determination of the Board. The doctrine of issue estoppel applies, and the Board cannot re-consider the question of whether the Act applies to this rental unit.
Arguments and Actions
Tenant
Actions
Tenant John Winter stated that he disagreed with the Member's findings in Order TSL-03851-19 and believed the Landlord lied to the Board at the hearing.
Decision Summary
The Tenants' application is dismissed as the Board has previously determined that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not apply to this rental unit, and the doctrine of issue estoppel applies.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
568
Landlord Favorable
87.3%
Tenant Favorable
9.7%
Mutual Agreement
3.0%
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.