Landlord Wins Personal Use Case: Wang v Rehman 2024
Toronto landlord allowed to move into rental unit, tenants evicted
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: September 12, 2024
Case Summary
5106 Telegram Mews, Toronto, ON M5V3Z1
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed to Landlord
$186
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Dec 2023
Order Date
Jan 25, 2024
Tenancy End Date
Feb 2024
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict the 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 Landlord testified that she is currently living in a larger home in Oakville which is too big for her, and she intends to downsize by moving into the rental unit in Toronto.
Determinations
- Landlord served valid N12 Notice
- Landlord requires unit for own residential occupation
- Landlord compensated Tenants one month's rent
- Landlord entitled to reimbursement of $186 application fee
- Landlord holds $2,400 rent deposit plus $86.01 interest
- Tenancy terminated effective 2024-02-29
Case Study
The Landlord's emails are consistent with her testimony of experiencing financial difficulties while maintaining both her Oakville and Toronto properties and being unemployed. The Landlord's plan to move into the rental unit and sell her Oakville property would resolve those financial difficulties and result in a more affordable lifestyle for her retirement. There is nothing in the evidence that suggests that the Landlord served the notice of termination in bad faith.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
The Landlord argued that she is experiencing financial difficulties and needs to move into the rental unit to avoid financial hardship.
Actions
The Landlord testified that she is currently living in Oakville in a four-bedroom home which is too big for her, and she intends to downsize by moving into the rental unit in Toronto.
Tenant
Arguments
The Tenants argued that the Landlord's real intention was to terminate the tenancy and re-rent at a higher price, not to move in.
Actions
The Tenants believe that the Landlord's real intention in giving the N12 Notice is to terminate the tenancy and re-rent it at a higher price, not to move in. The Tenants presented emails from the Landlord requesting rent increases.
Procedural Errors
The Tenants submitted their evidence to the Board two days before the hearing and did not send a copy to the Landlord, contrary to the Board's Rules of Procedure.
Decision Summary
The tenancy is terminated effective February 29, 2024. The Tenants must move out of the rental unit on or before February 29, 2024. If the unit is not vacated by that date, the Landlord may file the order with the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) to enforce the eviction. The Tenants shall also pay the Landlord $186 for the cost of filing the application.
Reason for Eviction Relief
The Tenants will be out of the country until February 15, 2024, so a postponement to February 29, 2024 is reasonable to give them the opportunity to find a new rental unit when they return.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
100
Landlord Favorable
85.0%
Tenant Favorable
11.0%
Mutual Agreement
4.0%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Application Fee
$186
Rent Deposit
$2,400
Deposit Interest
$86
Total Owing
$186 (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.