A former tenant of a Westfort residence requested for the utmost allowable $15,000 in damages.
THUNDER BAY — Landlords who terminate tenancies beneath “no fault” provisions of Ontario laws should take care to make sure they adhere strictly to these provisions, and that they full the paperwork correctly.
In any other case, as a Thunder Bay home-owner realized this 12 months, they might discover themselves having to pay compensation.
She was exercising her authorized rights when she requested a tenant to go away so she may occupy her residence’s basement residence herself.
As a result of it was really two of her members of the family who moved into the unit, the owner ended up having to compensate the tenant to the tune of about $2,300, however this was effectively wanting the $15,000 – the utmost permitted – the tenant was searching for.
Particulars of the ruling within the case by the province’s Landlord and Tenant Board had been only recently made public.
Underneath Ontario legislation, one of many conditions the place a no fault termination of tenancy is allowed is when landlords require the residence as a result of they, a member of their fast household, or their caregiver needs to maneuver into the unit.
Within the case of a basement residence in Westfort, in September 2022 the proprietor of the property handed a tenant an N12 Discover of Termination indicating she supposed to occupy it herself as of December 1.
The owner was already dwelling upstairs on the principle flooring.
When the tenant moved out in November, and realized the owner’s sister and nephew had been taking on the unit, she utilized to the Landlord and Tenant Board for $15,000 normally damages.
Each events attended the next listening to.
The owner didn’t deny that two members of the family had moved into the residence, however mentioned she had misunderstood the N12 type, didn’t serve it in dangerous religion, and easily made a mistake.
She testified her relationship with the tenant had all the time been good, and that she took steps to assist the tenant discover one other place to remain, together with offering a letter of reference that famous her sister and nephew had been taking on the tenant’s unit.
The owner mentioned the 2 members of the family act as her caregivers, and that she will’t handle to make use of the steps to get to the basement unit.
However the officer who performed the listening to mentioned he wasn’t glad “as the owner’s testimony appears to counsel, that this association is akin to her taking on the rental unit or turning the rental unit into one massive household residence.”
He mentioned she was conscious on the time she served discover to her tenant that her sister and nephew could be transferring in “to offer care companies for her, and the shape clearly permits her to pick this as an possibility,” but she selected to not.
Since she had additionally testified that she not often visits the basement and is restricted from doing so, the officer mentioned he was glad “this was an utility served in dangerous religion.”
In figuring out an acceptable treatment, he took under consideration the extra $150/mo the tenant is paying for her new residence, and ordered the owner to reimburse her for one 12 months of the extra price, for a complete of $1,800.
He rejected the tenant’s utility for a a lot increased award, including that he was conscious of the actual fact the owner has a restricted earnings, and didn’t profit from the tenant’s eviction financially since her sister and nephew are paying the identical lease she had charged the tenant.
However he did grant a further award of $500 to underscore the significance of utilizing the N12 type accurately, and to compensate the tenant for her stress and inconvenience.
He additionally ordered the owner to pay the tenant an additional $48 to cowl the price of submitting for a listening to.
