Gandolf v Patel
Last updated: August 9, 2026
Order
Decision in favor of
Landlord
Previous Order
Upheld
Dispute Categories
Subsections of RTA Quoted
Agree with the ruling?
Citation: Gandolf v Patel, LTB-T-001483-25-RV, 2026 ONLTB 43238
File Number: LTB-T-001483-25
Timeline
Order Date
May 29, 2026
Decision
The Tenant's request for a review of the previous order is denied because the Tenant failed to show reasonable inability to attend the original hearing, having instead demonstrated a lack of due diligence regarding the hearing schedule.
Dispute
Tenant requested a review of an order due to inability to participate in the original hearing because of a self-inflicted error regarding time zones.
Determinations
- The request for review is denied as the Tenant failed to demonstrate they were reasonably unable to participate in the original proceedings.
- The Tenant's failure to attend due to a calculation error regarding time zones does not constitute a reasonable basis for a rehearing.
- Parties are required to exercise due diligence in legal proceedings.
Landlord's Arguments
Considerations
Tenant's Arguments
Arguments
The Tenant argued they were unable to participate due to being in a different time zone.
Actions and Evidence
The Tenant missed the hearing due to a self-admitted time zone calculation error.
Procedural Errors
Failure to exercise due diligence in attending the hearing.
Considerations
Need assistance from an expert?
Similar Cases
Click to switch between order outcomes
Marcocchio v Livyy
The LTB terminated the tenancy for non-payment of rent and determined the lawful rent after a dispute over rent increases.
The Tenant's application claiming illegal rent increases was dismissed because they had paid the increased rent for over 12 months, validating the increases under the RTA.
Marcocchio v Livyy
The tenancy was terminated for non-payment of rent, and the rent amount was adjusted due to an invalid rent increase notice.
Giglia v DMS Property Management
The Tenant's application concerning alleged lock changes and harassment was withdrawn by request.
Marcocchio v Livyy
The LTB terminated the tenancy for non-payment of rent and determined the lawful rent after a dispute over rent increases.
The Tenant's application claiming illegal rent increases was dismissed because they had paid the increased rent for over 12 months, validating the increases under the RTA.
Marcocchio v Livyy
The tenancy was terminated for non-payment of rent, and the rent amount was adjusted due to an invalid rent increase notice.
Giglia v DMS Property Management
The Tenant's application concerning alleged lock changes and harassment was withdrawn by request.
Marcocchio v Livyy
The LTB terminated the tenancy for non-payment of rent and determined the lawful rent after a dispute over rent increases.
The Tenant's application claiming illegal rent increases was dismissed because they had paid the increased rent for over 12 months, validating the increases under the RTA.
Marcocchio v Livyy
The tenancy was terminated for non-payment of rent, and the rent amount was adjusted due to an invalid rent increase notice.
Giglia v DMS Property Management
The Tenant's application concerning alleged lock changes and harassment was withdrawn by request.
Marcocchio v Livyy
The LTB terminated the tenancy for non-payment of rent and determined the lawful rent after a dispute over rent increases.
The Tenant's application claiming illegal rent increases was dismissed because they had paid the increased rent for over 12 months, validating the increases under the RTA.
Marcocchio v Livyy
The tenancy was terminated for non-payment of rent, and the rent amount was adjusted due to an invalid rent increase notice.
Giglia v DMS Property Management
The Tenant's application concerning alleged lock changes and harassment was withdrawn by request.
The Tenant's application for the return of a rent deposit was dismissed because the Tenant failed to provide required notice to terminate the tenancy.
The Landlord and Tenant Board dismissed the tenants' application for a rent reduction regarding the temporary unavailability of recreational facilities and storage lockers.
Asim and Bardan v Mahmud
The Tenant withdrew their application regarding the illegal collection or retention of money at the hearing.
The Tenant's application claiming the Landlord unreasonably refused consent to sublet was dismissed because the Tenant failed to prove the refusal was arbitrary and the meeting was cut short due to the Tenant's behaviour.
Latest Insights from Our Blog
Stay informed with expert analysis on rental law, tenant rights, and LTB decisions
Ontario Tenant vs. Landlord at the LTB: Your Complete Complaint Roadmap (2026)
Ontario tenants: learn how to take a landlord complaint from first notice to LTB order — choosing T2 or T6 forms, beating the one-year deadline, drafting your narrative, navigating case conferences, and assembling evidence that tribunals accept.
Brampton Tenant Paralegals: How to Find LTB Representation and Defend Your Rights (2026)
Facing eviction or landlord harassment in Brampton? Learn what tenant paralegals do at the LTB, when to hire one, and meet Peel Region advocates ranked by real tribunal records.
LTB Review vs. Divisional Court Appeal in Ontario: Which Path Should You Take? (2026)
Lost at the Landlord and Tenant Board? Compare LTB internal review and Divisional Court appeal—deadlines, grounds, stays, Bill 60 changes, costs, and when to use each path before going to court.
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