Lam v Xu

Tenant wins · Toronto · 2025-08-01

Adjudicator

Joshua Labbe

Dispute

Altering Locks, Breach of Conditions

Landlord

V.L., Z.J.G.

Tenant

W.X., B.C.

Tenant rep

Rong Wei Yu

What happened

Landlords applied for an order under Section 35(2) of the Act to determine if Tenants altered the locking system without consent and to recover expenses. Landlords alleged that Tenants changed locks on several exterior doors and the furnace room, as well as added padlocks to bedroom doors.

The ruling

The application by Landlords for an order regarding unauthorized lock changes was dismissed. Although the Tenants did change several exterior locks without consent, they provided the Landlords with duplicate keys, maintaining access to the unit. The Member ruled that no out-of-pocket expenses were 'necessary' under Section 35 because the Landlords had access. Additionally, the installation of padlocks on interior doors was found not to be an alteration of the locking system under the Act.