Tataw v. Minto Apartment L.P.: Divisional Court Upholds LTB Eviction
Divisional Court upholds LTB eviction, ruling on procedural fairness and post-eviction remedies
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Tenancy End Date
May 2022
Hearing Date
Feb 2023
Order Date
Aug 3, 2023
Dispute Summary
Tenant appealed LTB eviction order to Divisional Court. Landlord had filed two LTB applications - one for persistent late rent payment and another for non-payment of rent. Tenant was evicted based on the non-payment application. Tenant sought to set aside eviction order and be restored to the unit or another unit.
Determinations
- No reversible error in LTB decision
- Court cannot restore evicted tenant after unit re-rented
- No authority to order tenant be given different unit
- Landlord entitled to pursue separate applications for late payment and non-payment
- No procedural unfairness in denying adjournment
Case Study
The court found no reversible error in the LTB decision. The eviction had already been carried out and the unit re-rented before any stay was in place. The court has no authority to order the tenant be given a different unit. The landlord was entitled to pursue separate applications for persistent late payment and non-payment of rent. There was no procedural unfairness in denying an adjournment for the tenant to obtain bank records.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord argued appeal was moot as eviction already carried out and unit re-rented. Landlord claimed it was entitled to pursue separate applications for late payment and non-payment issues.
Actions
Landlord filed two separate LTB applications - one for persistent late rent payment and another for non-payment of rent. Landlord obtained eviction order on March 21, 2022 for non-payment. Landlord filed order with Sheriff who evicted tenant on May 30, 2022. Landlord re-rented unit to new tenant on September 22, 2022.
Tenant
Arguments
Tenant argued it was procedurally unfair for landlord to pursue two separate LTB applications. Tenant claimed there was issue estoppel preventing the second application. Tenant argued LTB lacked jurisdiction due to prior termination order. Tenant claimed procedural unfairness in denial of adjournment request.
Actions
Tenant failed to pay rent arrears by April 15, 2022 as ordered by LTB. Tenant did not seek timely reconsideration of LTB order or pay as ordered.
Procedural Errors
Tenant failed to seek timely reconsideration or stay of LTB eviction order before eviction was carried out.
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court dismissed the tenant's appeal of the LTB eviction order. The court found no reversible error in the LTB decision. The eviction had already been carried out and the unit re-rented before any stay was in place, so the tenant could not be restored to the unit. The court has no authority to order the tenant be given a different unit. The landlord was entitled to pursue separate applications for persistent late payment and non-payment of rent. There was no procedural unfairness in denying an adjournment for the tenant to obtain bank records.
Adjudicator Details
Divisional Court
Total Orders
19
Landlord Favorable
79.0%
Tenant Favorable
15.8%
Mutual Agreement
5.3%
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.