Gao v Philips

Last updated: January 12, 2025

Order

Ordered by Vicky Liu,Tribunals Ontario  under Section 69, Residential Tenancies Act, 2006

Order Date: October 31, 2024
*** Townsend Dr, Breslau, ON N0B1M0
Uncontested Dispute

Decision in favor of

Landlord

Ordered Amount

$18,565

to Landlord

Notices Sent

Non-payment of rent (N4)Persistent late payment (N8)

Subsections of RTA Quoted

43(2)59(2)
ContentionModerate

Agree with the ruling?

Citation: Gao v Philips, 2024 ONLTB 80527

File Number: LTB-L-068638-24

Timeline

Application Date (Estimate)

May 2024

5 months

Hearing Date

Oct 2024

16 days

Order Date

Oct 31, 2024

We estimate Application Date using rent arrears.

Decision

The Landlord's L2 application based on the N8 Notice is dismissed as the notice did not provide sufficient details as required by the Act. The Landlord is awarded $15,098 in rent arrears and $3,467.35 in unpaid water costs. If the Tenants do not pay the full amount by November 11, 2024, they will owe interest at 6% annually on the outstanding balance.

Unlock Order Content

Dispute

Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict Tenants due to non-payment of rent and persistent late payment of rent. The Landlord also applied for an order requiring the Tenants to pay the Landlord's reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for unpaid utility costs.

Unlock Order Content

Determinations

  • N8 Notice is invalid for not providing sufficient details
  • Landlord incurred $3,467.35 in reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for unpaid water costs
  • N4 Notice is invalid due to incorrect monthly rent amount
  • Tenants owe $14,912 in rent arrears up to October 31, 2024
  • Tenants owe $186 for application filing costs
  • Unlock Order Content

Landlord's Arguments

Tenant's Arguments

Need assistance from an expert?

Financial Details

Lawful Rent

$2,767

Rent Arrears

$14,912

Application Fee

$186

Other Amount

$3,467

Unpaid water costs

Ordered Amount

$18,565 (to Landlord)

Similar Cases

Click to switch between order outcomes

Heubner v Dewe-Boucher

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins
March 12, 2025
Cornwall

Cornwall tenant faces eviction for $11,391 in non-payment of rent.

Section 82 Issues Raised and Denied
ContentionModerate

Zetchaku v Hazelview Property Services Inc

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins
March 5, 2025
Toronto

LTB dismisses tenant's maintenance complaint against Toronto landlord, finding reasonable response to issues.

ContentionLow

16127720 Canada Inc. v Stevens

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins

Landlord granted eviction order against tenant who caused damage and safety issues at residential complex.

Eviction Relief Granted
ContentionHigh

MM Nominee Corp. v Oba

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins
February 21, 2025
North York

Landlord wins non-payment case, but tenant granted conditional relief from eviction to repay $4,589.97 in arrears.

Eviction Relief Granted
Section 82 Issues Raised and Denied
ContentionModerate

Heubner v Dewe-Boucher

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins
March 12, 2025
Cornwall

Cornwall tenant faces eviction for $11,391 in non-payment of rent.

Section 82 Issues Raised and Denied
ContentionModerate

Zetchaku v Hazelview Property Services Inc

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins
March 5, 2025
Toronto

LTB dismisses tenant's maintenance complaint against Toronto landlord, finding reasonable response to issues.

ContentionLow

16127720 Canada Inc. v Stevens

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins

Landlord granted eviction order against tenant who caused damage and safety issues at residential complex.

Eviction Relief Granted
ContentionHigh

MM Nominee Corp. v Oba

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins
February 21, 2025
North York

Landlord wins non-payment case, but tenant granted conditional relief from eviction to repay $4,589.97 in arrears.

Eviction Relief Granted
Section 82 Issues Raised and Denied
ContentionModerate

Unlock More Similar Orders

Access our complete database of similar cases to make more informed decisions and better understand LTB rulings.

Compare outcomes of similar cases to assess your position

Analyze patterns in LTB decisions for your case type

Build stronger arguments with real case references

Share: