Yassin v Smith: Rent Arrears and Eviction in Pickering
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: November 14, 2024
Case Summary
Unit ****, 906 Reytan Blvd, Pickering, ON L1W1Y7
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed to Landlord
$5,363
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Subsections of RTA Quoted
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date (Estimate)
Aug 2024
Hearing Date
Aug 2024
Tenancy End Date
Aug 2024
Order Date
Oct 11, 2024
We estimate Application Date using rent arrears.
Dispute Summary
Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict Tenant due to non-payment of rent and disputed rent increase. Tenant has a pending T1/T6 application and was willing to vacate the rental unit.
Determinations
- N1 Notice served by mail on October 7, 2023
- Rent increase complies with section 116(1) of the Act
- Tenant did not void N4 Notice
- Tenant willing to vacate by August 31, 2024
Case Study
Dispute over rent increase notice and rent arrears. Tenant claims improper service of N1 notice and has been incrementally paying rent increases.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Actions
Landlord increased rent by $50 each year via text message since 2018
Tenant
Arguments
Disputed service of N1 Notice of Rent Increase and rent arrears
Actions
Tenant testified she was willing to vacate the rental unit as of August 31, 2024 and has found a new place.
Decision Summary
Tenant may void eviction by paying $5,362.50 by October 22, 2024. If not paid, must vacate rental unit. Tenant has pending T1/T6 application.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
379
Landlord Favorable
90.5%
Tenant Favorable
1.3%
Mutual Agreement
8.2%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Lawful Rent
$1,691
Rent Arrears
$289
Application Fee
$186
Rent Deposit
$1,450
Deposit Interest
$211
Total Owing
$5,363 (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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Karaiskakis v Hazelview Properties Inc.
LTB dismisses tenant's claim of substantial interference due to noise from other tenants, finding landlord took reasonable steps to address complaints.