Brudny v Moon - Landlord's Application Dismissed Due to Defective N5 Notice
Landlord's eviction application dismissed due to defective N5 notice in Aurora rental dispute
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: September 12, 2024
Case Summary
16 Jones Court, Aurora, ON L4G2B8
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Dec 2022
Hearing Date
Mar 2023
Order Date
Jul 25, 2023
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict Tenants due to substantial interference with the reasonable enjoyment or lawful right, privilege or interest of the Landlord or another tenant.
Determinations
- Landlord's application is dismissed
- First N5 Notice is invalid and confusing
- Landlord cannot rely on second N5 notice
Case Study
The Landlord's application is dismissed as the first N5 Notice of Termination is found to be invalid and confusing, failing to provide sufficient details to the Tenants about the specific allegations being made. The Landlord cannot rely on a second N5 notice to correct the shortfall in the first notice.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord submitted that the notice is clear and that at least one of the dates on the notice can be justified and therefore the application should proceed. The Landlord also asserts that they have the evidence to support their allegations.
Tenant
Arguments
Tenants argued that the first N5 Notice is confusing and too onerous for them to understand what is necessary in order to void the notice and therefore the notice should be considered defective.
Decision Summary
The Landlord's application is dismissed as the first N5 Notice of Termination is found to be invalid and confusing, failing to provide sufficient details to the Tenants about the specific allegations being made. The Landlord cannot rely on a second N5 notice to correct the shortfall in the first notice.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
536
Landlord Favorable
91.2%
Tenant Favorable
5.4%
Mutual Agreement
3.4%
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.