I’ve written a number of posts lately about Ontario tenants who abuse the system and the calls from the judiciary to have tenancy laws reformed. A decision released recently is another all-too-familiar example of how residential tenants can game the system to their advantage.
The tenant entered into a one-year lease agreement with the landlord on July 15, 2015. He took possession of the unit on July 20, 2015. He paid his first and last month’s rent but did not make any of the other rental payments (which were to be $1,400 per month).
This tenant in this case was “proactive” (if you will) and brought his own application to the Landlord and Tenant Board asserting that the landlord damaged his possessions and harassed him. The purpose of this application was to set-off against the rental arrears that were owed.
The tenant failed to attend the Case Management Hearing for the application that he had initiated and his application was dismissed as abandoned on Nov. 17, 2015.
The landlord’s application in respect of the rental arrears was put over to Dec. 18, 2015 and then again to Jan. 15, 2016 and once more to Feb. 23, 2016.
The tenant did not attend the hearing on Feb. 23 and the board ordered the tenant to pay the arrears by March 3, failing which the landlord would be permitted to file the Termination Order with the Sheriff to have the tenant evicted.
The tenant did not pay the arrears and was served with the Termination Order on March 4. Instead of vacating the unit, the tenant filed a Notice of Appeal on March 10, which automatically served to stay the pending eviction.
On March 22 the landlord’s lawyer advised the tenant that the landlord would be bringing a motion to have the appeal quashed and asked the tenant to provide dates in March and April for the motion. The tenant indicated that his counsel was not available until the first week of May.
When the motion came up for a hearing on May 11 the tenant showed up without counsel. The tenant claimed to have not received the motion materials and sought an adjournment, which was granted by the court and the matter was put over to May 24.
When the motion was heard on May 24, the landlord put forth evidence that this was the third case where this particular tenant had been involved in a landlord and tenant appeal following an eviction notice, allowing him to live rent free before the appeal was quashed.
The court found that the tenant’s pending appeal had no merit and quashed the appeal and lifted the stay of the eviction order. Although the landlord sought partial indemnity costs of $7,500, the court only awarded the landlord $5,000 in costs.
All in all, the tenant was able to live rent free for 10 months, at a cost of at least $14,000 to the landlord.
Matt Maurer is an accomplished trial and appellate lawyer with nearly a decade of experience advocating on behalf of his clients. He is a regular contributor to print and online media publications on issues pertaining to real estate disputes and issues affecting the practice of law and access to justice. He is with Minden Gross LLP in Toronto. Contact him by email or call 416-369-4322.
