Shane v Mattinas
Tenant wins · Sudbury · 2025-07-31
- Adjudicator
- Elle Venhola
- Dispute
- Damage to Property
- Notice
- Damages (N5)
- Landlord
- J.S.
- Tenant
- A.M.
- Tenant rep
- Jonathan Wong
What happened
The Landlord applied for eviction and compensation for alleged property damage. An original order was issued in the Landlord's favor, but the Tenant filed for a review, asserting he never received notice of the hearing. The Board found the Tenant, who lives with disabilities and has no digital access, was not properly served as the LTB only sent the notice via email to an account the Tenant does not use. Upon rehearing the merits, the Board found both N5 notices served by the Landlord to be fatally defective due to lack of particulars, contradictory instructions, and illegal attempts to retroactively amend the notices.
The ruling
The LTB granted the Tenant's request for review and cancelled the previous eviction order. The Landlord's application was dismissed in its entirety because the N5 notices of termination were legally defective. Specifically, the notices lacked required particulars, contained contradictory voiding instructions, and the Landlord attempted to improperly amend a notice after service.