Landlord Wins Personal Use Case: Trimmeliti v Lambe 2023
Landlord wins personal use case against Kleinburg tenants despite their request for adjournment
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: September 12, 2024
Case Summary
126 Killington Avenue, Kleinburg, ON L4H3Z6
Decision in favor of
landlord
Previous Order
Upheld
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Dec 2022
Hearing Date
Jun 2023
Order Date
Jun 29, 2023
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict Tenants because the Landlord in good faith requires possession of the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation for at least one year. The Tenants requested a review of the order and that the order be stayed until the request to review the order is resolved.
Determinations
- Tenants attended the hearing without their legal representative
- Tenants requested an adjournment of the matter at the outset of the hearing and during the hearing
- Hearing Member denied the Tenants' request to adjourn the hearing
- Hearing Member provided the Tenants with the option of either proceeding that day after speaking with tenant duty counsel or having their representative attend the hearing later in the day
- Tenants rejected the options presented to them and insisted that the matter be adjourned to another day when their legal representative was available
- Hearing Member gave the Tenants time to speak to tenant duty counsel and to prepare for the hearing
Case Study
The Tenants have the burden of leading sufficient evidence to establish that they were not reasonably able to participate in the original hearing and that the Hearing Member made a serious error in denying the Tenants' request to adjourn the hearing. Based on the evidence and submissions, I am not satisfied the Tenants met that burden of proof. The Tenants had an adequate opportunity to participate in the hearing, and the granting of adjournments is at the discretion of the Member hearing the application.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
The Tenants had an adequate opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The Hearing Member stood the matter down so that the Tenants could consult with tenant duty counsel and contact their legal representative. The Tenants waited until the last minute to retain counsel of their choice, who was not available. This was simply a delay tactic on behalf of the Tenants.
Tenant
Arguments
Tenants exercised reasonable diligence in obtaining legal representation before the hearing of January 10, 2023. The Tenants were financially not able to obtain legal representation until January 9, 2023, one day before the hearing, when they were able to secure sufficient funds.
Actions
Tenants received the Notice of Hearing just before Christmas 2022. Tenant JL contacted their legal representative a day or two after receiving the Notice of Hearing, but was unable to retain the services of the legal representative at the time, because he did not have sufficient funds to do so. JL is the sole provider for the family. JL's wife, the other named Tenant, has serious medical issues and is on dialysis.
Decision Summary
The request to review order LTB-L-020008-22 issued on February 9, 2023 is denied. The order is confirmed and remains unchanged. The interim order issued on March 16, 2023 is cancelled. The stay of order LTB-L-020008-22 is lifted immediately.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
228
Landlord Favorable
79.8%
Tenant Favorable
12.7%
Mutual Agreement
7.5%
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.