Landlord Wins Dispute Over Air Conditioner Use: Arnold v M&K Construction Company
Landlord wins dispute over tenant's use of oversized air conditioner in East York rental unit
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: October 13, 2024
Case Summary
Unit ****, 69 Gamble Ave, East York, ON M4K2H4
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Aug 2023
Hearing Date
Apr 2024
Order Date
Aug 28, 2024
Dispute Summary
Tenant applied for orders related to substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment, withholding of vital services, and illegal rent charges. The Landlord and Tenant attended the hearing.
Determinations
- Tenant did not prove allegations on a balance of probabilities
- Tenant responsible for damages caused by air conditioner exceeding agreement
- Landlord entitled to charge additional fee for air conditioner use
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Procedural Errors
Landlord erred in adding the air conditioning charges to the pre-authorized payment amount without specific authorization to do so.
Tenant
Actions
Tenant says he can't spread out the appliances without putting the microwave and the rice cooker in the bedroom. He testified that he has never tried using the appliances on a different circuit. He never tried unplugging the air conditioner before turning on the microwave or rice cooker.
Decision Summary
The Tenant's applications were dismissed. The Landlord was entitled to charge the additional fee for the air conditioner use, and the Tenant was responsible for any damages caused by the air conditioner exceeding the agreement.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
58
Landlord Favorable
77.6%
Tenant Favorable
12.1%
Mutual Agreement
10.3%
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.