Landlord's Eviction Application Stayed Due to Tenant's Consumer Proposal - Haufe v Shultz 2024
LTB stays landlord's eviction application after tenant files consumer proposal under Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: November 3, 2024
Case Summary
4200 654 HWY RR 1, NIPISSING, ON P0H1W0
Dispute resolved in
agreement
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Subsections of RTA Quoted
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Mar 2023
Hearing Date
Apr 2024
Order Date
Apr 18, 2024
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict Tenants due to failure to pay rent. The Tenants had vacated the rental unit on June 23, 2023, prior to the hearing date. One of the Tenants, Karl Lewis, had filed a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
Determinations
- Tenants were in possession when application filed, but vacated on 2023-06-23
- Tenant Karl Lewis filed consumer proposal under Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in May 2023
- BIA Section 69.2 stay applies to this application, LTB has no jurisdiction to lift stay
- Landlord can file separate application under RTA Section 87 to recover rent owed after consumer proposal filing
Case Study
The Landlord's application is stayed due to the consumer proposal filed by Tenant Karl Lewis under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The LTB does not have jurisdiction to lift the stay or amend the application to allow an order for rent owed prior to the consumer proposal filing. The Landlord can file a separate application under Section 87 of the Residential Tenancies Act to recover any rent owed for the period after the consumer proposal was filed.
Decision Summary
This application is stayed due to the consumer proposal filed by Tenant Karl Lewis under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The LTB does not have jurisdiction to lift the stay or amend the application to allow an order for rent owed prior to the consumer proposal filing. The Landlord can file a separate application under Section 87 of the Residential Tenancies Act to recover any rent owed for the period after the consumer proposal was filed.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
140
Landlord Favorable
69.3%
Tenant Favorable
17.9%
Mutual Agreement
12.9%
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.