Gill v Tong - Tenant Wins Dispute Over Residential Tenancies Act Application
Tenant successfully challenges landlord's claim that Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to shared rental unit
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: November 3, 2024
Case Summary
128 Grandravine Drive, Toronto, ON M3J1B4
Decision in favor of
tenant
Previous Order
Overturned
Dispute Categories
Subsections of RTA Quoted
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Dec 2023
Hearing Date
Jun 2024
Order Date
Jun 13, 2024
Dispute Summary
Tenant applied for an order to determine whether the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 applies to her tenancy. The original order found that the Act did not apply, and the Tenant requested a review of that order.
Determinations
- The Tenant's request to review the original order is granted.
- The interim order issued on February 9, 2024 is cancelled.
- The rental unit is identified as the 'Left back room facing backyard'.
- The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 applies to this tenancy.
Case Study
The Tenant argued that the burden of proof was on the Landlord to show that the exemption in the Act applies, not on the Tenant to disprove the Landlord's claim. The Adjudicator agreed with the Tenant and found that the original order contained a serious error in placing the burden of proof on the Tenant.
Arguments and Actions
Tenant
Arguments
The Tenant argued that the burden of proof was on the Landlord to show that the exemption in the Act applies, not on the Tenant to disprove the Landlord's claim.
Actions
The Tenant testified that she found the rental unit through an ad on Kijiji, met the Landlord, and was shown the basement unit. However, since the basement tenants did not move out in time, she rented the room upstairs instead. The Tenant paid first and last month's rent, was provided a key, and moved in. The Tenant testified that she did not share the kitchen and bathroom with the Landlord, and that the Landlord only attended the premises to clean common areas and address maintenance issues, but did not reside there.
Decision Summary
The Adjudicator found that the evidence presented did not support the Landlord's claim that the exemption in the Act for shared accommodations applied. Therefore, the Adjudicator determined that the Act applies to this tenancy.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
948
Landlord Favorable
86.0%
Tenant Favorable
8.3%
Mutual Agreement
5.7%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Lawful Rent
$750
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.