Landlord Wins Personal Use Case: Butera v Gomes 2023
Landlord wins personal use case, Etobicoke tenant must vacate by September 30, 2023
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: September 12, 2024
Case Summary
Unit ****, 4 Chapel Rd, Etobicoke, ON M8W1G1
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Dec 2022
Hearing Date
Apr 2023
Order Date
Aug 11, 2023
Tenancy End Date
Sep 2023
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenant because the Landlord in good faith requires possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation for at least one year. The Landlord also claimed compensation for each day the Tenant remained in the unit after the termination date.
Determinations
- This is an L2 application based on an N12 to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenant because the Landlord requires possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation.
- The Tenant has lived in the rental unit since 2006.
- The Landlord collected a rent deposit of $500.00 from the Tenant and this deposit is still being held by the Landlord. Interest on the rent deposit, in the amount of $141.25 is owing to the Tenant.
- The last month's rent deposit shall be applied to the rent for the last month of the tenancy.
- The Landlords compensated the Tenants an amount equal to one month's rent by September 30, 2022 as required by the Act.
Case Study
The Landlord demonstrated a genuine intention to occupy the premises and the Board found no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the Landlord's testimony or their good faith intentions. The Tenant's submissions did not provide any evidence to the contrary or contradict the Landlord's evidence.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Actions
The Landlord testified that they want to downsize; to do this, they want to move into the rental home and sell their own property. The Landlord explained that they want to move into this triplex unit to accommodate their two adult children, a 30-year-old son and a 29-year-old daughter, who live with them. Additionally, the son's girlfriend also resides with them, and it is deemed more suitable for everyone since each individual has their own space. This decision was due to financial constraints, as the children could not afford rent. The Landlord testified that he took a mortgage to purchase the rental and still has a mortgage on his current home. The Landlord claims he overspends about $5,000 monthly and must move into the rental unit immediately. The Landlord explained that he had listed the existing house for $1.5 million and provided a copy of the listing as evidence to show his home is up for sale.
Tenant
Arguments
The Tenant claims he has resided in the unit since 2006. The Tenant claims that the Landlord had discussed with him about continuing to use this property rental unit before purchasing the unit. The Landlord changed his mind about moving into the rental unit with him and his spouse occupying the upper floor, the daughter occupying the main floor, and the son occupying the basement. The Tenant alleges that the Landlord's inconsistent actions indicate a desire to force them to vacate the unit to re-rent it at a higher price, reflecting the current housing market and the debt acquired to purchase the rental property. The Tenant also claims that he occupies the upper unit with one student in room # 2 and the occupant in room # 3, who is not a student, as claimed by the Landlord. The Tenant claims the Landlord's daughter did not sign the affidavit, as the Act requires.
Decision Summary
The tenancy between the Landlord and the Tenant is terminated. The Tenant must move out of the rental unit on or before September 30, 2023. If the unit is not vacated on or before September 30, 2023, then starting October 1, 2023, the Landlord may file this order with the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) so that the eviction may be enforced. The Tenant shall also pay the Landlord compensation of $8.88 per day for the use of the unit starting October 01, 2023 until the date the Tenant moves out of the unit.
Reason for Eviction Relief
to give the Tenant sufficient time to find alternative housing as the Landlord demonstrated an urgency take possession of the unit
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
384
Landlord Favorable
95.3%
Tenant Favorable
2.3%
Mutual Agreement
2.3%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Rent Deposit
$500
Deposit Interest
$141
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.