LTB Review Denied: Hoenow v Murray Personal Use Eviction Case
LTB denies tenant's review request in Toronto personal use eviction case, upholding original order
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 27, 2024
Case Summary
Unit ****, 28 Freeland St, Toronto, ON M5E0E3
Decision in favor of
landlord
Previous Order
Upheld
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Order Date
Aug 26, 2024
Dispute Summary
Landlords applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenant because the Landlords in good faith require possession of the rental unit for residential occupation for at least one year. The Tenant requested a review of the original order, citing conflicts with another order, calculation errors, and unaddressed evidence.
Determinations
- No conflict between orders regarding daily compensation charges
- The order under review is not a voidable order
- The issue of serious breach was already decided in a previous final order
- The doctrine of res judicata (issue estoppel) applies to the serious breach claim
- No reason to exercise discretion to override issue estoppel
Case Study
The review request was denied as the alleged conflicts between orders were not substantiated, the order in question was not voidable, and the issue of serious breach had already been decided in a previous final order (res judicata). The Board found no serious error in the original order or proceedings.
Arguments and Actions
Tenant
Arguments
Tenant argued that the order fails to address evidence of theft and s.82 arguments, referring to 'serious breaches' under subs. 83(3)(a) of the Act.
Actions
Tenant alleged that the Landlords stole his belongings in December 2023, which was claimed to constitute a serious breach.
Decision Summary
The request to review order LTB-L-020243-24 issued on August 13, 2024, is denied. The original order is confirmed and remains unchanged.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
366
Landlord Favorable
77.9%
Tenant Favorable
13.7%
Mutual Agreement
8.5%
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.