Landlord Wins Personal Use Case: Jaikarran v Eddin 2024
Etobicoke landlord wins personal use eviction to allow his daughters to occupy the rental unit
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: October 13, 2024
Case Summary
48 Viewcrest Cir, Etobicoke, ON M9W7G6
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Jul 2023
Hearing Date
Feb 2024
Order Date
Mar 19, 2024
Tenancy End Date
Jul 2024
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenant because the Landlord in good faith requires possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation for at least one year by his two daughters.
Determinations
- Landlord served valid N12 Notice
- Landlord has proven on a balance of probabilities the grounds for termination of the tenancy
- Landlord has proven in good faith requires possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation for a period of at least one year by his two daughters
- Tenant was in possession of the rental unit on the date the application was filed
Case Study
The relevant case law is clear that the test of good faith is genuine intention to occupy the residential unit. The Landlord provided Declarations from his two daughters and testified that they wish to live on their own and have their own private living accommodations while they attend university. The daughters provided sworn testimony as to their intentions of moving into the rental unit. I found the daughters to be credible witnesses and their testimony remained consistent and held up under cross-examination. No evidence was presented to sufficiently challenge their intentions to move into the rental unit.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Actions
The Landlord testified he wants his two daughters to move into the rental unit so they can have their own space and privacy. The Landlord testified that in 2021 served a N13 because he wanted to do repairs to the rental unit and retracted it because at the time, the Tenant had personal issues and was sick.
Tenant
Arguments
The Tenant's legal representative Maria Sturino believes the Landlord's application should be dismissed because the two Declarations made by Tashena Jaikarran and Anjali Jaikarran were not signed and do not state that "intends to occupy for at least one year".
Actions
The Tenant argues that the Landlord is acting in bad faith because prior to being served the N12 he first told the Tenant he was moving in then was asked to pay $2,800.00 in rent. The Landlord also gave the Tenant a N13 because he wanted to renovate the rental unit.
Decision Summary
The tenancy is terminated effective July 31, 2024. The Tenant must move out of the rental unit on or before July 31, 2024. If the unit is not vacated by July 31, 2024, then starting August 1, 2024 the Landlord may file this order with the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) so that the eviction can be enforced.
Reason for Eviction Relief
I have considered all of the disclosed circumstances in accordance with subsection 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'), and find that it would not be unfair to postpone the eviction until July 31, 2024 pursuant to subsection 83(1)(b) of the Act. This will give the Tenant sufficient time to get his affairs in order and find accommodation suitable to him.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
190
Landlord Favorable
93.2%
Tenant Favorable
4.2%
Mutual Agreement
2.6%
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.