Tenants Win Against Eviction: Option Properties v Hill 2024
St. Catharines tenants successfully challenge landlord's attempt to evict for 'demolition' of rental unit
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: November 14, 2024
Case Summary
Unit ****, 136 Church St, St. Catharines, ON L2R3E4
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Subsections of RTA Quoted
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Aug 2024
Order Date
Aug 30, 2024
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict Tenants because the Landlord requires possession of the rental unit in order to demolish the unit and perform extensive renovations.
Determinations
- Landlord served N13 notice on September 29, 2023
- Proposed work involves removing interior walls, floor assemblies, and roof
- Building will be reconfigured from 4 to 8 rental units
- Basement unit will still exist after renovations
Case Study
The key issue was whether the proposed work constitutes a demolition or extensive renovation under the Residential Tenancies Act.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Proposed work is so extensive that it would be unclear which basement unit Tenants would occupy
Actions
Landlord intends to remove all interior walls, floor assemblies, and roof, creating eight rental units from four
Tenant
Actions
Tenants currently occupy the entire basement of the building
Decision Summary
The Landlord's application was dismissed. The proposed work was determined to be a renovation, not a demolition, which means the Tenants retain their right to return to the rental unit after renovations.
Reason for Eviction Relief
Proposed work does not constitute a complete demolition, and Tenants can return to a reconfigured unit
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
70
Landlord Favorable
74.3%
Tenant Favorable
17.1%
Mutual Agreement
8.6%
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.