Lopera v. Margosutjahjo: Tenant's Appeal Dismissed in $92070 Rent Arrears Case
Court upholds $25000 rent arrears order despite landlord's 6-year absence, affirming no time limit on such claims
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed to Landlord
$25,000
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Nov 2020
Order Date
Dec 3, 2020
Dispute Summary
The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy for non-payment of rent. The Landlord and Tenant Board ordered the tenant to pay $25,000 in arrears within 11 days or face eviction. The tenant appealed this decision to the Divisional Court, arguing that the landlord had abandoned the property for six years and failed to maintain it, thus relieving the tenant of the obligation to pay rent.
Determinations
- The Landlord and Tenant Board's decision was correct in law
- There is no limitation period for claims of rent arrears under the Residential Tenancies Act
- The doctrine of laches does not apply to statutory claims for rent arrears
- The tenant's obligation to pay rent was not nullified by the landlord's absence or failure to maintain the property
- The Board correctly limited consideration of repair issues to the past year as per the Act
Case Study
The Divisional Court dismissed the tenant's appeal, finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board made no error of law in its decision. The court affirmed that there is no limitation period for claims of rent arrears under the Residential Tenancies Act, and that the doctrine of laches does not apply to such statutory claims. The court also noted that the tenant had not pursued any remedies for repairs during the landlord's absence, and that the Board had correctly limited consideration of repair issues to the past year as per the Act.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord argued for the collection of rent arrears, relying on the absence of a limitation period in the Residential Tenancies Act for such claims.
Actions
Landlord was absent and unreachable for six years but continued to pay property taxes.
Aggravating Factors
Landlord was absent and unreachable for six years, failing to maintain the property during this time.
Tenant
Arguments
Tenant claimed that the doctrine of laches should apply to the landlord's claim for rent arrears and that the landlord's breach of material covenants relieved the tenant of the obligation to pay rent.
Actions
Tenant argued that the landlord had disappeared for six years and abandoned the property, failing to comply with the obligation to keep the rental premises in good repair and interfering with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment.
Procedural Errors
Tenant failed to pursue remedies for repairs or bring an application to the Board regarding the landlord's absence and lack of maintenance over the six-year period.
Aggravating Factors
Tenant accumulated significant rent arrears over several years without pursuing legal remedies for the landlord's absence or lack of maintenance.
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court dismissed the tenant's appeal of the Landlord and Tenant Board's decision. The court upheld the Board's order for the tenant to pay $25,000 in rent arrears, finding no error of law in the Board's decision. The court affirmed that there is no limitation period for rent arrears claims under the Residential Tenancies Act and that the doctrine of laches does not apply to such statutory claims.
Adjudicator Details
Divisional Court
Total Orders
21
Landlord Favorable
71.4%
Tenant Favorable
28.6%
Mutual Agreement
0.0%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Rent Arrears
$92,070
Total Owing
$25,000 (Owed to Landlord)
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.