Tenant Privacy Rights Upheld in Juhasz v. Hymas 2016 ONSC 1650: Juhasz v. Hymas 2016
Court rules landlords need tenant consent or lease provision to take marketing photos, overturning eviction order
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Mar 2016
Order Date
Mar 7, 2016
Dispute Summary
The landlord sought to evict the tenant for repeatedly denying access to the rental unit for the purpose of taking photographs for sale. The tenant appealed the Landlord and Tenant Board's eviction order to the Divisional Court.
Determinations
- Board erred in interpreting section 27(1)(5) of RTA
- Lease did not permit entry 'in any circumstance'
- Taking photographs for sale without consent infringes privacy
- Refusal to allow entry for marketing photos not grounds for eviction
Case Study
The court found that the Landlord and Tenant Board erred in law by concluding that section 27(1)(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act allowed the landlord to enter the unit to take photographs for sale purposes. The court ruled that absent a specific lease term or tenant consent, there is no authority under section 27 to require entry for taking marketing photographs, and refusal to allow such entry is not grounds for eviction.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
The landlord argued that if landlords are not permitted to send in realtors to inspect and take photographs when a property is rented, there will be a serious chilling effect in the rental market.
Actions
The landlord sought to enter the rental unit to take photographs for the purpose of selling the property.
Tenant
Arguments
The tenant argued that taking and disseminating photographs of her home and personal belongings without consent infringed on her privacy rights.
Actions
The tenant objected to photographs being taken of her and her children's personal belongings that would be disseminated to the public via the internet to advance the sale of the property.
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court allowed the tenant's appeal and set aside the Landlord and Tenant Board's eviction order. The court ruled that the Board erred in law by finding that the Residential Tenancies Act permitted the landlord to enter the unit to take photographs for marketing purposes without the tenant's consent or a specific lease provision.
Adjudicator Details
Divisional Court
Total Orders
2
Landlord Favorable
0.0%
Tenant Favorable
50.0%
Mutual Agreement
50.0%
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.