Tenant Wins Appeal Reinstatement: Fiorelli v. Walton Holdings Inc., 2020 ONSC 5537
Tenant's appeal of eviction order for installing unauthorized cameras reinstated by Divisional Court
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Sep 2020
Order Date
Sep 16, 2020
Dispute Summary
Tenant appealed LTB decision terminating tenancy due to substantial interference with other tenants' enjoyment and landlord's right of entry. Tenant installed video cameras in common areas without consent and refused landlord entry to unit.
Determinations
- Administrative dismissal of appeal set aside
- Appeal restored
- Motion for security for costs dismissed
- Parties directed to seek case management conference to set appeal schedule
Case Study
The court considered whether to set aside the administrative dismissal of the tenant's appeal, examining factors such as intention to appeal, length and explanation of delay, prejudice to the landlord, and merits of the appeal. The court found the tenant had an arguable case on whether the LTB erred in applying the legal test for substantial interference.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord argues that the appeal is frivolous and vexatious, seeking security for costs.
Actions
Landlord requested removal of cameras and served notice of entry to inspect the rental unit regarding the exterior camera.
Tenant
Arguments
Tenant argues that the LTB erred in law by concluding his actions substantially interfered with other tenants' enjoyment and landlord's rights without properly applying the legal test for substantial interference.
Actions
Tenant installed a video camera above his unit door to monitor the common hallway and another on the exterior of the building directed at the parking lot, both without landlord consent. Tenant refused to remove cameras or allow landlord entry to inspect.
Procedural Errors
Tenant failed to perfect appeal within prescribed time, leading to administrative dismissal.
Aggravating Factors
Installed video cameras in common areas without consent, refused landlord entry to unit
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court allowed the tenant's motion to set aside the administrative dismissal of his appeal of the LTB's eviction order. The court found the tenant had an arguable case that the LTB erred in law when applying the test for substantial interference. The landlord's motion for security for costs was dismissed.
Adjudicator Details
Divisional Court
Total Orders
2
Landlord Favorable
50.0%
Tenant Favorable
50.0%
Mutual Agreement
0.0%
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.