DiCiccio v Aljerjawi and 14053834 Canada Inc
Last updated: October 12, 2026
Order
Dispute resolved in
Agreement
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Subsections of RTA Quoted
Agree with the ruling?
PDF provided by the Ontario LTB Order Catalogue
Citation: DiCiccio v Aljerjawi and 14053834 Canada Inc, LTB-T-003259-26-IN (2026 ONLTB 57542)
File Number: LTB-T-003259-26
Timeline
Hearing Date
Jun 2026
Order Date
Jul 31, 2026
Decision
The Tenant's application alleging failure to restore possession after an N13 notice was adjourned to a date to be set by the Board. An interim order was issued prohibiting the Landlords from re-renting or occupying the rental unit until the application is heard or the Board orders otherwise, in order to preserve the Tenant's right of return.
Dispute
The Tenant applied for an order determining that the Landlords failed to allow the Tenant to move back into the unit under section 53 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 after vacating pursuant to an N13 notice for renovations. The Tenant filed the application prematurely to preserve the right of return before the limitation period expired, as renovations had not yet commenced. The Board issued an interim order barring the Landlords from re-renting the unit and adjourned the matter.
Determinations
- The Tenant's application is brought pursuant to s. 57.1 of the Act and alleges that the Landlord has failed to restore the Tenant to possession as required after vacating pursuant to an N13 notice.
- The application may be premature as no renovations appear to have commenced, but the Tenant filed it in advance of the two-year limitation period to preserve the right of return.
- An interim order pursuant to s. 204(1) is necessary to preserve the Tenant's right to go back into possession by barring the Landlords from re-renting the unit.
Landlord's Arguments
Considerations
Tenant's Arguments
Actions and Evidence
The Tenant vacated the unit pursuant to an N13 notice for extraordinary renovation and repairs, and filed an application under section 57.1 prematurely to preserve the two-year limitation period and right of return because no renovations had commenced.
Considerations
Similar Cases
Click to switch between order outcomes
Toronto Community Housing Corporation v Godson
The LTB terminated the tenancy and ordered eviction due to substantial interference, property damage, and safety impairment, while granting a delayed eviction date under s. 83(1)(b).
Kapun v Urisha Investments Inc and Greenwin Corp
The Tenant's application alleging tenant rights violations was dismissed because the conduct occurred outside the one-year limitation period set out in subsection 29(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
Maisuradze v Farag
A tenant application alleging substantial interference and harassment was dismissed as withdrawn at the hearing, and the landlord's request for costs was denied.
Branco v Shirley
A tenant's T2 application alleging substantial interference was dismissed because the tenant failed to comply with interim order requirements to amend the application and disclose evidence.
Toronto Community Housing Corporation v Godson
The LTB terminated the tenancy and ordered eviction due to substantial interference, property damage, and safety impairment, while granting a delayed eviction date under s. 83(1)(b).
Kapun v Urisha Investments Inc and Greenwin Corp
The Tenant's application alleging tenant rights violations was dismissed because the conduct occurred outside the one-year limitation period set out in subsection 29(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
Maisuradze v Farag
A tenant application alleging substantial interference and harassment was dismissed as withdrawn at the hearing, and the landlord's request for costs was denied.
Branco v Shirley
A tenant's T2 application alleging substantial interference was dismissed because the tenant failed to comply with interim order requirements to amend the application and disclose evidence.
Toronto Community Housing Corporation v Godson
The LTB terminated the tenancy and ordered eviction due to substantial interference, property damage, and safety impairment, while granting a delayed eviction date under s. 83(1)(b).
Kapun v Urisha Investments Inc and Greenwin Corp
The Tenant's application alleging tenant rights violations was dismissed because the conduct occurred outside the one-year limitation period set out in subsection 29(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
Maisuradze v Farag
A tenant application alleging substantial interference and harassment was dismissed as withdrawn at the hearing, and the landlord's request for costs was denied.
Branco v Shirley
A tenant's T2 application alleging substantial interference was dismissed because the tenant failed to comply with interim order requirements to amend the application and disclose evidence.
Toronto Community Housing Corporation v Godson
The LTB terminated the tenancy and ordered eviction due to substantial interference, property damage, and safety impairment, while granting a delayed eviction date under s. 83(1)(b).
Kapun v Urisha Investments Inc and Greenwin Corp
The Tenant's application alleging tenant rights violations was dismissed because the conduct occurred outside the one-year limitation period set out in subsection 29(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
Maisuradze v Farag
A tenant application alleging substantial interference and harassment was dismissed as withdrawn at the hearing, and the landlord's request for costs was denied.
Branco v Shirley
A tenant's T2 application alleging substantial interference was dismissed because the tenant failed to comply with interim order requirements to amend the application and disclose evidence.
Desjardins v Carey
The LTB dismissed a tenant's T2 application for substantial interference, harassment, and illegal entry, finding the claims unsupported by sufficient evidence and partly out of time.
The Tenant's application alleging illegal entries and withholding of vital services was dismissed because the illegal entry claims lacked particulars and the vital service interruptions resulted from unpaid utility bills rather than deliberate landlord interference.
Cusson v Qiu
The tenant's application regarding tenant rights and maintenance was withdrawn without prejudice at the hearing, and the landlord's request for costs was denied.
The Tenant's application alleging harassment and interference was dismissed as it was an improper attempt to relitigate previously concluded Board proceedings.
Latest Insights from Our Blog
Stay informed with expert analysis on rental law, tenant rights, and LTB decisions
The Appeal Process Decoded: When and How to Challenge LTB Decisions at the Divisional Court
Navigate the complex world of appealing Landlord and Tenant Board decisions to Ontario's Divisional Court. Learn the strict requirements, common pitfalls, and strategies for successful appeals.
The N8 Notice Deep Dive: Persistent Late Payment and How It Differs from Non-Payment Cases in Ontario
Understanding the critical differences between N4 and N8 notices, common pitfalls that invalidate N8 notices, and the unique legal standards for persistent late payment cases.
Top Tenant Mistakes in LTB Applications (And How to Avoid Them)
Learn from real LTB cases why tenant applications fail. Discover the most common mistakes that lead to dismissed applications and practical strategies to strengthen your case and protect your rights as a tenant.
Need Legal Help? We've Got You Covered
Whether you need to find qualified legal professionals or post your specific legal needs to get competitive quotes, our platform connects you with the right help.
Find Legal Professionals
Browse our directory of verified paralegals and lawyers specializing in Ontario rental law and LTB matters.
Browse ProfessionalsPost Your Legal Needs
Describe your legal situation and receive competitive quotes from qualified professionals in our marketplace.
Post a BountyJoin thousands of Ontarians who have found legal help through our platform