Trowbridge v. Skjodt: Court Upholds N12 Eviction for Landlord's Personal Use
Court upholds N12 eviction for landlord's personal use despite planned renovations, dismissing tenant's appeal
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed to Landlord
$6,000
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Jul 2024
Order Date
Jul 18, 2024
Tenancy End Date
Aug 2024
Dispute Summary
Tenant appealed an LTB order terminating his tenancy based on the landlord's N12 notice for personal use. The landlord claimed he and his wife intended to occupy the unit after renovations, including installing accessibility features. The tenant argued the landlord should have used an N13 notice for renovations instead.
Determinations
- LTB did not err in accepting landlord's use of N12 notice
- No requirement to use N13 notice if s. 48 requirements are met
- No express timeframe for landlord occupation in s. 48
- LTB's finding of landlord's good faith is a factual determination outside court's jurisdiction
- Tenant can still pursue s. 57 application after vacating if landlord acts in bad faith
Case Study
The court found no legal errors in the LTB's decision. It ruled that a landlord is not required to use an N13 notice if they can meet the requirements for an N12 notice under s. 48 of the RTA. The court also found that there is no express requirement for the landlord to occupy the unit within a specific timeframe, and the estimated 10-month renovation period did not prevent a finding of good faith.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord argued that the N12 notice was appropriate as he intended to occupy the unit for personal use after renovations.
Actions
Landlord testified that he planned to renovate the unit to return it to a single-family home, including installing a wheelchair ramp and elevator for accessibility.
Tenant
Arguments
Tenant argued that the landlord should have used an N13 notice for renovations instead of an N12 notice for personal use. Tenant also claimed that a 10-month renovation period was unreasonable for an N12 notice.
Actions
Tenant appealed the LTB's decision to terminate the tenancy based on the landlord's N12 notice.
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court dismissed the tenant's appeal of the LTB order terminating his tenancy. The court found no legal errors in the LTB's decision to accept the landlord's N12 notice for personal use, despite planned renovations. The tenant must vacate by August 31, 2024, and pay $6,000 in legal costs to the landlord.
Adjudicator Details
Divisional Court
Total Orders
6
Landlord Favorable
50.0%
Tenant Favorable
50.0%
Mutual Agreement
0.0%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Other Owed Amount
$6,000
Legal costs awarded to landlord
Total Owing
$6,000 (Owed to Landlord)
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.