Landlord Wins Personal Use Eviction: Wengel Girma v Dupuis 2024
Landlord wins eviction to house brother who will care for aging parent
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: November 14, 2024
Case Summary
14 Pennington Lane, Gloucester, ON K1B4X7
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Subsections of RTA Quoted
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
May 2024
Order Date
Aug 28, 2024
Tenancy End Date
Oct 2024
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict Tenants because they require the rental unit for residential occupation by a person who provides care services to the Landlord's parent.
Determinations
- Landlord proved grounds for termination
- N12 notice served correctly
- Landlord's brother will provide care for parent
- Tenants to vacate by October 31, 2024
Case Study
The Board considered the 'good faith' requirement for personal use eviction, focusing on the genuine intention to occupy the premises.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Genuine intention to have brother occupy unit to provide care for mother
Actions
Landlord wants brother to move in to care for aging parent with health issues
Tenant
Arguments
Finding suitable accommodations will be harder due to Mr. Keefe's diminished income from a 2020 injury
Actions
Tenants claimed Landlord ignored maintenance issues and used pressure tactics to get them to vacate
Decision Summary
The tenancy is terminated. The Tenants must vacate the unit by October 31, 2024, to allow the Landlord's brother to move in and provide care for their mother.
Reason for Eviction Relief
Additional time needed for Tenants to find housing
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
30
Landlord Favorable
80.0%
Tenant Favorable
13.3%
Mutual Agreement
6.7%
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.