Landlord Wins Interference and Illegal Act Case: Marda Management Inc. v Berlasty 2023
Windsor tenant avoids eviction but must follow conditions after threatening landlord's staff and interfering with security cameras
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: September 12, 2024
Case Summary
Unit ****, 315 Detroit St, Windsor, ON N9C2P4
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed to Landlord
$186
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Dec 2021
Hearing Date
Sep 2022
Order Date
Apr 13, 2023
Dispute Summary
The landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict the tenant due to allegations of substantial interference, illegal acts, and threats of harm against the landlord's employees and contractors.
Determinations
- Landlord served valid N6 and N7 Notices
- Tenant was in possession on application date
- Tenant threatened contractor on 2021-10-18
- Tenant interfered with camera system on 2021-02-16
Case Study
The landlord has proven on a balance of probabilities the grounds for termination of the tenancy. The tenant threatened the landlord's contractor and interfered with the landlord's camera system, but the landlord's claim for compensation was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Arguments and Actions
Tenant
Arguments
Tenant argued the camera was pointing directly into his front door.
Actions
Tenant covered up the landlord's security camera with a piece of tape.
Decision Summary
The tenancy will continue if the tenant meets the conditions set out in the order, including not engaging in threatening behavior towards the landlord or its employees/contractors. The tenant must pay the $186 application fee by April 30, 2023, or start accruing interest.
Reason for Eviction Relief
This is a long-standing tenancy and one that I believe can be maintained if the Tenant follows the conditions set out in this order.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
470
Landlord Favorable
96.2%
Tenant Favorable
3.2%
Mutual Agreement
0.6%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Application Fee
$186
Total Owing
$186 (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.