Lykourezos v Johnson - Tenants Awarded Rent Reduction for Discontinued Parking
Tenants awarded $3347 rent rebate after landlord loses two driveway parking spots due to township sidewalk installation
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: November 3, 2024
Case Summary
83 Dass Drive West, Fergus, ON N1M0H9
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed to Tenant
$3,347
Dispute Categories
Subsections of RTA Quoted
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Dec 2023
Hearing Date
May 2024
Order Date
Jun 11, 2024
Dispute Summary
Tenants applied for a rent reduction due to a reduction or discontinuance of services or facilities provided in respect of the rental unit or the residential complex. Specifically, the tenants claimed that the landlord discontinued two of the four parking spots on the driveway due to the installation of sidewalks by the township.
Determinations
- Tenancy commenced on 2023-05-15
- Tenancy ended on 2024-01-14
- Rental agreement included 6 parking spots (2 in garage, 4 on driveway)
- Sidewalks installed by township in August 2023 eliminated 2 of the 4 driveway parking spots
- Discontinuance of service was reasonable as it was not the landlord's fault
- Tenant incurred $600/month in additional parking costs
Decision Summary
The Landlord is ordered to pay the Tenant $3,294.25 as a rent rebate for the discontinuance of two parking spots on the driveway, plus $53.00 for the cost of filing the application, for a total of $3,347.25. The Landlord must pay the full amount by June 22, 2024, and will owe interest at 7% annually on any outstanding balance after that date.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
71
Landlord Favorable
80.3%
Tenant Favorable
11.3%
Mutual Agreement
8.4%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Application Fee
$53
Total Owing
$3,347 (Owed to Tenant)
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.