Espey v. Kilius: Divisional Court Upholds LTB Eviction Order
Court upholds eviction of 70+ year tenants for landlord's personal use, clarifying post-eviction agreements don't create new tenancies
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
9520 Jane Street, Maple, ON
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Mar 2019
Order Date
Mar 27, 2019
Tenancy End Date
Apr 2019
Dispute Summary
The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy for personal use. The Landlord and Tenant Board granted the eviction. The tenants appealed the Board's decision to dismiss their request for review of the eviction order.
Determinations
- The Board's interpretation of section 45(b)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act was reasonable
- The agreement to extend the move-out date did not create a new tenancy
- The Board did not err in declining to decide on the alleged $10,000 payment
Case Study
The court found no legal error in the Board's review order. The Board reasonably interpreted section 45(b)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act and correctly determined that the agreement to extend the move-out date did not create a new tenancy. The Board also did not err in declining to decide on the alleged $10,000 payment, as it was not material to the eviction order's validity.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
The landlord argued that the agreement to extend the move-out date did not create a new tenancy and that the original eviction order remained valid.
Actions
The landlord applied for eviction based on personal use of the property. After obtaining the eviction order, the landlord agreed to extend the move-out date for the tenants.
Tenant
Arguments
The tenants argued that the agreement to extend the move-out date created a new tenancy, rendering the original eviction order ineffective.
Actions
The tenants entered into an agreement with the landlord to extend their move-out date to April 30, 2018, and claimed they paid an extra $10,000 to the landlord as part of this agreement.
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court dismissed the tenants' appeal of the Landlord and Tenant Board's decision to uphold the eviction order. The court found no legal errors in the Board's review order and confirmed that the tenants must vacate the rental unit by April 30, 2019.
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
Financial Details
Lawful Rent
$1,500
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.