Zimet v Chaudhry - LTB Ruling on Assignment and Sublet Dispute
LTB rules in favor of Oakville landlord who refused consent for tenants to assign or sublet rental unit
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: November 3, 2024
Case Summary
2776 Rosewood Lane, Oakville, ON L6J7M4
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed to Tenant
$2,065
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Subsections of RTA Quoted
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Tenancy End Date
May 2023
Hearing Date
Feb 2024
Order Date
May 6, 2024
Dispute Summary
Tenants applied for an order determining that the Landlord arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment or sublet of the rental unit. The Tenants decided not to move into the rental unit and requested the Landlord's consent to assign the lease or terminate the tenancy. The Landlord refused to consent to the assignment and did not agree to terminate the tenancy. The Tenants then gave the Landlord a N9 Notice of Termination with the termination date of May 30, 2023. The Tenants also requested the Landlord's consent to sublet the rental unit for May 2023, but the Landlord did not consent.
Determinations
- Landlord refused consent to assign the tenancy
- Tenants gave valid N9 Notice of Termination
- Tenancy terminated on May 30, 2023
- Tenants did not have right to sublet for May 2023
- Landlord did not fail to mitigate Tenants' losses
Case Study
The Tenants' remedy when the Landlord refuses consent to assign is to terminate the tenancy in 30 days. The Tenants gave a valid N9 Notice of Termination, so the tenancy terminated on May 30, 2023. The Tenants did not have the right to sublet the rental unit for May 2023 since they did not retain the right to return to the rental unit. The Landlord is not found to have failed to mitigate the Tenants' losses by not re-renting the unit before the tenancy terminated, as the Landlord showed the unit to several candidates but was unable to agree on terms.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Actions
Landlord refused consent to assign the tenancy and did not agree to terminate the tenancy. Landlord showed the unit to several candidates but was unable to agree on terms, and eventually re-rented the unit effective June 15, 2023.
Tenant
Arguments
Landlord failed to mitigate the Tenants' losses by not re-renting the unit for May 2023 when there were interested candidates.
Actions
Tenants decided not to move into the rental unit and requested the Landlord's consent to assign the lease or terminate the tenancy. Tenants provided the Landlord with a list of over 80 interested candidates to rent the unit for May 2023.
Decision Summary
The tenancy between the Landlord and the Tenants is terminated as of May 30, 2023 pursuant to the Tenants' N9 Notice of Termination. The Landlord shall pay the Tenants $2,065.46, which represents the rent paid for the period from May 31, 2023 to June 30, 2023 plus an additional $10. If the Landlord does not pay the full amount by May 17, 2024, the Landlord will owe interest at 7% annually on the outstanding balance.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
228
Landlord Favorable
79.8%
Tenant Favorable
12.7%
Mutual Agreement
7.5%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Lawful Rent
$1,990
Rent Deposit
$3,980
Deposit Interest
$10
Total Owing
$2,065 (Owed to Tenant)
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.