Siddique v Goncalves

Tenant wins · Etobicoke · 2025-12-09

Adjudicator

Greg Witt

Dispute

Substantial Interference, Unpaid Utilities

Notice

Substantial interference (N5)

Landlord

M.S.

Tenant

C.G., V.N.

Landlord rep

Zeeshan Siddique

Tenant rep

Cassia Gomes

What happened

The Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenants, alleging that unpaid utility charges constituted a substantial interference with the Landlord's lawful rights or interests. The Tenants' representative argued that the application was invalid because an N5 notice (substantial interference) is not the correct legal instrument for collecting unpaid utility bills where no service disruption occurred.

The ruling

The Landlord's application to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenants was dismissed. The Board found that an N5 notice for substantial interference is not the appropriate legal form for a dispute solely concerning unpaid utility bills, as the utilities were still active. The Landlord was advised that the proper recourse is a monetary claim under Section 87.