CMHA v Grinnus

Tenant wins · Scarborough · 2025-05-08

Adjudicator

Julie Broderick

Dispute

Illegal Act, Substantial Interference

Notice

Illegal act (N6), Substantial interference (N7)

Landlord

C.

Tenant

M.G.

Landlord rep

Simran Datta

What happened

The Landlord applied to evict the Tenant for an illegal act, based on an N6 notice. The adjudicator found the N6 notice was invalid due to insufficient details, contradictions, and confusion. The Landlord also submitted an N7 notice but failed to include it in the application. A late request to amend the application to include the N7 was denied because it was served late, lacked proof of service, and would be prejudicial to the Tenant, who was absent from the hearing. As a result, the Landlord's application was dismissed.

The ruling

The Landlord's application for eviction is dismissed. The N6 notice of termination was ruled invalid due to being confusing, contradictory, and lacking sufficient details. The Landlord's late request to amend the application to include an N7 notice was denied due to procedural errors and prejudice to the Tenant. The tenancy is not terminated.