Mazzuca v Wierzbicki - LTB Ruling on Tenant Changing Locks
LTB dismisses landlord's eviction application but orders tenant to provide access code for new locks
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: October 13, 2024
Case Summary
40 Stirton St, Hamilton, ON L8L6E8
Dispute resolved in
agreement
Balance Owed to Landlord
$636
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Dec 2022
Hearing Date
Jan 2024
Order Date
Mar 28, 2024
Dispute Summary
Landlords applied to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenant due to the Tenant, another occupant, or someone the Tenant permitted causing undue damage to the rental unit or residential complex. The Landlords also applied for an order requiring the Tenant to pay the Landlords' reasonable out-of-pocket costs to repair or replace the damage, and to pay the Landlords' reasonable out-of-pocket expenses resulting from the Tenant's conduct that substantially interfered with the Landlords' reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex.
Determinations
- Landlords did not prove grounds for termination of tenancy
- Tenant was in possession on application date
- Landlords gave N5 notice on 2022-09-18
- Tenant replaced locking system, but this does not constitute undue damage
- Tenant's replacement of locks without permission substantially interfered with Landlords' access
- Landlords incurred $450 to replace locks if Tenant does not provide access code
- Landlords incurred $186 application filing fee
Arguments and Actions
Tenant
Actions
Tenant replaced locking system without permission and did not provide Landlords with access code.
Decision Summary
The application for eviction is dismissed as the Landlords did not prove the grounds for termination. However, the Tenant is ordered to provide the Landlords with an access code for the new locking system by April 4, 2024. If the Tenant fails to do so, the Landlords may apply to terminate the tenancy. The Tenant is also ordered to pay the Landlords' $186 application filing fee.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
58
Landlord Favorable
77.6%
Tenant Favorable
12.1%
Mutual Agreement
10.3%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Application Fee
$186
Damages
$450
Total Owing
$636 (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.