Tenant Wins Appeal: Pelletier v. Bloorston Farms Ltd. 2023 ONSC 5626
Divisional Court overturns eviction, rules LTB must consider misrepresentation claims in tenancy termination agreements
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Sep 2023
Order Date
Oct 6, 2023
Dispute Summary
Tenant appealed Landlord and Tenant Board orders denying his motion to set aside an eviction order and denying his request to review that decision. The eviction order was based on an agreement the tenant signed to terminate his tenancy in exchange for $6,000, which he later contested. The tenant argued the agreement was signed under duress, was unconscionable, and based on misrepresentations by the landlord's agent.
Determinations
- Board erred in law by not considering evidence of misrepresentation
- Board failed to fulfill statutory duty under s. 77(8) and s. 202 of RTA
- Appeal allowed
- Eviction order set aside
Case Study
The court found that the Landlord and Tenant Board erred in law by failing to consider all circumstances surrounding the agreement as required by s. 77(8) of the Residential Tenancies Act, particularly the evidence of misrepresentation. The Board also failed to fulfill its duty under s. 202 of the RTA to ascertain the real substance of transactions and the good faith of participants.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord argued that the agreement to terminate tenancy was valid and enforceable.
Actions
Landlord's agent allegedly told tenant the building was condemned, eviction was inevitable, and sheriff's visit was imminent.
Aggravating Factors
Alleged misrepresentation by landlord's agent regarding building condemnation and imminent eviction
Tenant
Arguments
Tenant argued the agreement was signed under duress, was unconscionable, and based on misrepresentations by the landlord's agent.
Actions
Tenant signed agreement to terminate tenancy, then contacted landlord to retract agreement. Tenant argued he was misled about the necessity of signing the agreement.
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court allowed the tenant's appeal and set aside the Landlord and Tenant Board's orders that refused to set aside the eviction order. The court found that the Board erred in law by failing to consider evidence of misrepresentation and not fulfilling its statutory duties under the Residential Tenancies Act.
Adjudicator Details
Divisional Court
Total Orders
3
Landlord Favorable
33.3%
Tenant Favorable
66.7%
Mutual Agreement
0.0%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Lawful Rent
$652
Other Owed Amount
$6,000
Compensation offered for terminating tenancy
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.