Newman v Jagersma

Last updated: February 7, 2026

Order

Ordered by Rema El-Tawil,Tribunals Ontario  under Section 87, Residential Tenancies Act, 2006

Order Date: November 21, 2025
Unit ***, 271 Perth St, Brockville, ON K6V5G4
Contested Dispute

Dispute resolved in

Agreement

Subsections of RTA Quoted

89(1)(a)
ContentionHigh

Agree with the ruling?

Citation: Newman v Jagersma, 2025 ONLTB 72719

File Number: LTB-L-054352-23

Timeline

Tenancy End Date

Sep 2022

14 months

Application Date

Nov 2023

22 months

Hearing Date

Sep 2025

2 months

Order Date

Nov 21, 2025

Decision

The Former Tenant is ordered to pay the Landlord $1,236.30 for damages to the bathroom and kitchen. The Landlord's claim for rent arrears was dismissed because the Landlord had previously agreed to the tenant's deduction for work performed. Several other damage claims were dismissed due to insufficient evidence or lack of financial loss.

Unlock Order Content

Dispute

The Landlord applied for rent arrears and damages against a Former Tenant who was also a former superintendent of the complex. The Landlord claimed $510.00 in rent arrears which the Tenant had deducted for pest control work. The Landlord also claimed for various damages including bathroom and kitchen cabinets, electrical tampering, and the unauthorized removal of a tree. The Tenant argued the rent deduction was approved and that some damages were pre-existing or related to his former duties as superintendent.

Unlock Order Content

Determinations

  • Landlord agreed to $510.00 rent reduction for pest control work
  • Tenant negligently caused damage to bathroom sink and cabinets
  • Tenant caused damage to kitchen cabinets beyond normal wear and tear
  • Insufficient evidence that Tenant caused window or baseboard damage
  • Insufficient evidence of electrical tampering by the Tenant
  • No financial loss proven for the removal of a tree
  • Unlock Order Content

Landlord's Arguments

Arguments

Argued the Tenant caused willful and negligent damage to multiple parts of the century home and failed to provide replacements or repairs as promised in emails.

Unlock Order Content

Actions and Evidence

The Landlord testified that the Tenant chopped down a 20-foot tree and alleged the Tenant was running a 'hydroponic business' and tampered with the electricity.

Unlock Order Content

Tenant's Arguments

Arguments

Argued that many of the alleged damages were pre-existing, caused by external maintenance issues (eavestroughs), or were part of authorized work during his time as superintendent.

Unlock Order Content

Actions and Evidence

The Former Tenant admitted to removing the sink and making alterations but claimed he did so as part of his superintendent duties. He provided evidence that the landlord approved his rent deduction for pest control work. He also submitted FOI requests to the ESA to prove no electrical permits were issued for the complex.

Unlock Order Content

Need assistance from an expert?

Professional business person

Reach Landlords & Tenants

Advertise your legal or rental services to our audience

Sponsored

Similar Cases

Loading similar cases...
Share:

Latest Insights from Our Blog

Stay informed with expert analysis on rental law, tenant rights, and LTB decisions

Need Legal Help? We've Got You Covered

Whether you need to find qualified legal professionals or post your specific legal needs to get competitive quotes, our platform connects you with the right help.

Find Legal Professionals

Browse our directory of verified paralegals and lawyers specializing in Ontario rental law and LTB matters.

Browse Professionals

Post Your Legal Needs

Describe your legal situation and receive competitive quotes from qualified professionals in our marketplace.

Post a Bounty

Join thousands of Ontarians who have found legal help through our platform