Singh v. Balogun: Court Quashes Appeal on Rent Increase for Utilities
Court upholds LTB decision, quashes tenant appeal on lawful rent increase for utilities
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
20 Milady Road, Toronto, ON
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Dec 2018
Order Date
Dec 14, 2018
Dispute Summary
Landlord sought to quash tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order that terminated their tenancy for non-payment of rent. The dispute centered on whether a $300 increase in rent (from $1450 to $1750) to cover utilities was lawful.
Determinations
- The Landlord and Tenant Board's decision was reasonable
- The rent increase to cover utilities was lawful
- The tenants' appeal did not raise questions of law
- The appeal was manifestly devoid of merit
Case Study
The court found that the Landlord and Tenant Board's decision to allow the rent increase was reasonable. The increase was lawful under s. 123(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, as utilities are a prescribed service that can be added to rent with tenant agreement. The tenants' appeal was based on questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not questions of law as required for an appeal to the Divisional Court.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord argued that the rent increase was lawful under s. 123(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, as utilities are a prescribed service that can be added to rent with tenant agreement.
Actions
Landlord increased rent from $1450 to $1750 to include utilities, which was previously charged separately.
Tenant
Arguments
Tenants argued that the Board erred in law by treating utilities as rent, including utilities in the rent, and not finding that the rent was only the amount paid by ODSP.
Actions
Tenants refused to pay the $300 portion of rent covering utilities after December 2016, despite having agreed to the new lease terms in July 2014.
Decision Summary
The court quashed the tenants' appeal of the Landlord and Tenant Board's termination order. The court found that the appeal did not raise questions of law as required, and that the Board's decision allowing the rent increase to cover utilities was reasonable and lawful.
Adjudicator Details
Superior Court of Justice
Total Orders
4
Landlord Favorable
50.0%
Tenant Favorable
25.0%
Mutual Agreement
25.0%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Lawful Rent
$1,750
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.