Landlord Granted 8.19% Rent Increase for Capital Expenditures in xxx v xxx: xxx v xxx 2022
LTB Approves 8.19% Rent Hike for Landlord's Capital Upgrades
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: July 22, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Aug 2019
Order Date
Feb 28, 2022
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to increase the rent charged by more than the guideline for one or more of the rental units in the residential complex due to capital expenditures.
Determinations
- Certain rental units were not served with the application and are excluded from the order
- Landlord did not prove painting and replacing door locks were eligible capital expenditures
- Landlord justified a rent increase above the guideline because of capital expenditures
- Landlord proved work on fire separations, canopy repairs, and landscaping were eligible capital expenditures
- Landlord's costs for elevator modernization, roof replacement, lighting retrofit, intercom, and garage door replacement were eligible capital expenditures
- Landlord's request to withdraw conceding capital expenditures for items a-e was denied
- Maximum rent increase above the guideline because of capital expenditures is 8.19%
Decision Summary
The Landlord is permitted to increase the rents charged by 8.19% for the eligible units, in three phases from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2021. The rent will be reduced after the weighted useful life of the capital expenditures.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
611
Landlord Favorable
83.8%
Tenant Favorable
6.7%
Mutual Agreement
9.5%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
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.