Landlords' Appeal Dismissed in Illegal Eviction Case: Minas v. Adler 2022
Divisional Court upholds LTB decision, affirming tenant rights in high-profile illegal eviction case involving $18000/month Toronto luxury home
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
20 Sandringham Drive, Toronto, ON
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Nov 2022
Order Date
Dec 2, 2022
Dispute Summary
Landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that ordered them to allow Tenants to recover possession of a rental unit. The Landlords had illegally evicted the Tenants and moved back into the property without obtaining an LTB order. The main issues were whether the LTB had jurisdiction to hear the matter, whether the LTB application was an abuse of process, whether the rental unit was still subject to the Residential Tenancies Act, and whether the unit could be considered 'vacant' under the Act.
Determinations
- LTB had jurisdiction to hear the matter
- LTB application was not an abuse of process
- Rental unit was still subject to the RTA
- Unit could be considered 'vacant' under s. 31(3) of RTA despite Landlords occupying it
Case Study
The court found that: 1) The LTB had jurisdiction to hear the matter concurrently with the Superior Court. 2) The LTB application was not an abuse of process as it was the most efficient use of time and resources. 3) The LTB Member correctly determined that the rental unit was still subject to the RTA based on the Tenants' intention to return. 4) The term 'vacant' in s. 31(3) of the RTA must be interpreted to exclude situations where a landlord illegally terminates a tenancy and moves in, otherwise it would undermine the purpose of the Act to protect tenants from unlawful evictions.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlords argued that the LTB did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, the LTB application was an abuse of process, the rental unit was no longer subject to the RTA, and the unit could not be considered 'vacant' under s. 31(3) of the RTA because they were occupying it.
Actions
Landlords terminated the tenancy and took possession of the house in August 2021 without obtaining an order from the Landlord and Tenant Board. Landlords changed the locks on the residence.
Procedural Errors
Landlords illegally evicted Tenants without obtaining an LTB order
Aggravating Factors
Landlords illegally evicted Tenants and moved back into the property without obtaining an LTB order
Tenant
Arguments
Tenants argued that the LTB had jurisdiction to hear the matter, the LTB application was not an abuse of process, the rental unit was still subject to the RTA, and the unit could be considered 'vacant' under s. 31(3) of the RTA despite Landlords occupying it.
Actions
Tenants moved to Dubai in December 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic but continued to pay rent. Tenant intended to return to Toronto to facilitate his child's attendance at a private school.
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court dismissed the Landlords' appeal of the LTB decision. The court upheld the LTB's jurisdiction to hear the matter, found that the LTB application was not an abuse of process, confirmed that the rental unit was still subject to the RTA, and agreed with the LTB's interpretation of 'vacant' in s. 31(3) of the RTA. The Landlords were ordered to pay $9,000 in costs to the Tenants.
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
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.