Pedersen v Wrightman
Tenant wins · Sarnia · 2025-05-01
- Adjudicator
- Kate Sinipostolova
- Dispute
- Damage to Property, Inconsistent Use, Substantial Interference
- Notice
- N7 notice of termination
- Landlord
- J.P., D.M.
- Tenant
- M.W., T.W., J.W.
What happened
Landlords applied to evict Tenants based on an N7 notice alleging willful damage, inconsistent use (drug use, hoarding, stolen bikes), and substantial interference (noise, bed bugs, cockroaches). The application was dismissed because the N7 notice was found to be void. The adjudicator determined that the allegations were too vague and lacked specific dates, failing to provide the Tenants with sufficient details to prepare a defense, as required by the precedent set in Ball v. Metro Capital Property.
The ruling
The Landlords' application for eviction was dismissed. The adjudicator ruled that the N7 notice of termination served to the Tenants was void because it contained vague allegations without specific dates or details. This failure to provide sufficient information prevented the Tenants from understanding the case against them and preparing a defense, rendering the notice invalid and leading to the dismissal of the application.