Tenant's Substantial Interference Claim Dismissed: Aidak v Sankarsingh 2024
Tenant's claim of substantial interference and harassment by Peterborough landlords dismissed by LTB
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: November 14, 2024
Case Summary
788 Broadway Boulevard, Peterborough, ON K9H0H7
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Subsections of RTA Quoted
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Aug 2022
Hearing Date
May 2024
Order Date
Aug 23, 2024
Dispute Summary
Tenant applied for an order determining that Landlords substantially interfered with reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit and harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the Tenant.
Determinations
- Tenant did not prove allegations on balance of probabilities
- Application dismissed
- Landlord did not substantially interfere with reasonable enjoyment
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Basement was never included in tenant's lease agreement, and renovation plans were abandoned after tenant's objection.
Actions
Landlord wanted to renovate basement for daughter, requested removal of tenant's belongings, and limited laundry and parking access.
Tenant
Arguments
Landlord cannot force tenants to sign new lease agreements every year and cannot demand post-dated cheques.
Actions
Tenant refused to sign new lease agreements, stopped providing post-dated cheques, and objected to basement renovation plans.
Decision Summary
The Tenant's application is dismissed as he did not prove the allegations of substantial interference and harassment on a balance of probabilities.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
20
Landlord Favorable
10.0%
Tenant Favorable
85.0%
Mutual Agreement
5.0%
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.