Ecuhome Corp v. Darkwa: Tenant's Appeal for Possession Denied
Divisional Court denies tenant's motion to regain possession after eviction, citing lack of serious issue and jurisdictional limitations
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Tenancy End Date
Dec 2018
Hearing Date
Jun 2019
Order Date
Jun 6, 2019
Dispute Summary
Tenant appealed LTB orders dated November 23, 2018 and April 30, 2019 which terminated his tenancy due to an illegal act (assaulting another resident). Tenant sought to be restored to possession of the unit after being evicted.
Determinations
- Tenant failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried in his appeal
- Court lacked jurisdiction to restore possession after lawful eviction was enforced
- Tenant's motion to be restored to possession was dismissed
Case Study
The court found that the tenant did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory injunction to be restored to possession. The tenant could not demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, as he had left both the original LTB hearing and the review hearing. The court also ruled it lacked jurisdiction to restore possession after a lawful eviction order had already been enforced.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord argued that its obligation to ensure the safe occupation of other tenants should be considered in the balance of convenience.
Actions
Landlord took possession of the unit on Friday, May 24, 2019.
Tenant
Arguments
Tenant argued he was denied the opportunity to participate in the November 23, 2018 hearing and denied committing the alleged assault in September 2017.
Actions
Tenant became visibly irate and exclaimed that the representative did not speak for him. The Tenant left the hearing room abruptly.
Procedural Errors
Tenant left both the original LTB hearing and the review hearing before they concluded.
Aggravating Factors
Tenant left both the original LTB hearing and the review hearing before they concluded.
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court dismissed the tenant's motion to be restored to possession of the rental unit. The court found that the tenant failed to meet the criteria for an interlocutory injunction, particularly in demonstrating a serious issue to be tried. Additionally, the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to restore possession after a lawful eviction order had already been enforced.
Adjudicator Details
Divisional Court
Total Orders
12
Landlord Favorable
66.7%
Tenant Favorable
25.0%
Mutual Agreement
8.3%
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.