LTB Order LTB-L-036382-23

O. under Section 69 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 Citation: D. P. v D. P., 2023 ONLTB 59376 Date: 2023-08-31 2023 ONLTB 59376 (CanLII) File Number: LTB-L-036382-23 In T. matter of: 9, 20 BUDGELL TERR TORONTO ON M6S1B4 Between: L. D. P. A. A. R. D. P. R. L. D. P. (T. 'Landlord') A. F. an O. to T. T. T. A. E. R. D. P. (T. 'Tenant') because T. Tenant did not pay T. rent that T. Tenant owes. This application was heard by videoconference on August 16, 2023. T. A. A. T. R. attended T. hearing. T. R. was represented by Adeela Alvez. Determinations: 1. F. T. reasons that follow, I find that T. application must be dismissed because T. parties do not have a landlord-tenant relationship governed by T. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (“Act”). T. parties below will be referred to as T. ‘A.’ A. ‘R.’ 2. This application is based on an N4 notice of termination served F. non-payment of rent. Both T. N4 notice A. L1 application filed by T. A. assert that T. monthly rent is $3,500.00 per month A. that T. R. has paid no rent since June 1, 2015. T. application claims $366,000.00 in arrears of rent. 3. T. parties are biological brothers A. dispute who is T. lawful owner of T. rental unit. 4. T. parties agree that T. rental unit is in a condominium town house complex, which was formerly owned by T. mother of T. parties. 5. Both brothers grew up A. resided in T. rental unit together F. most of their life A. agree that their mother, Teresa D. P. passed away on or about June 2015. After Ms. D. P. passed, both brothers resided in T. rental unit together F. a short period. 6. L. D. P. (T. A.) testified that shortly after his mother passed, he moved out of T. rental unit because he A. his brother could not get along. R. D. P. (T. R.) currently resides in T. rental unit A. has done so his entire life. 7. T. parties agree that no written T. agreement was signed between T. parties, nor was there any oral agreement reached between T. parties to lease T. rental unit. Mr. O. Page 1 of 4  File Number: LTB-L-036382-23 L. D. P. testified that he demanded that his brother pay rent in 2015, to which R. D. P. refused. When I asked Mr. L. D. P. why he believes T. rent is $3,500.00 per month despite no agreement being reached, he stated that he came up with this amount because that is what a neighbouring home was being rented F. in 2023. 2023 ONLTB 59376 (CanLII) Analysis: 8. In O. F. T. Act to apply, A. F. T. Board to have jurisdiction to hear this matter, T. A. A. R. must have entered into a T. agreement. Section 2(1) of T. Act defines a T. agreement as follows: “T. agreement” means a written, oral or implied agreement between a tenant A. a landlord F. occupancy of a rental unit A. includes a licence to occupy a rental unit; 9. Based on T. evidence before me, I find that there was no T. agreement entered into by T. parties A. therefore is no landlord A. tenant relationship . As such, this Act does not apply, A. T. application must be dismissed. 10. T. evidence is clear that this is a case of two siblings who are fighting over their parents’ estate A. not a landlord A. tenant relationship. T. parties confirmed at T. hearing that they were both residing in T. rental unit prior to their mother passing away A. that no written T. agreement was entered into on or after June 2015 when their mother passed. Further, T. parties agree that Mr. R. D. P. has resided in T. rental unit his whole life A. never paid rent to either his mother or to Mr. L. D. P.. There was also no oral or implied agreement entered into after Ms. D. P. passed away which stipulated that Mr. R. D. P. was to pay a specific amount F. T. right to continue to occupy T. rental unit. T. A. simply unilaterally decided after 8 years that his brother should pay $3,500.00 per month in rent based on T. rents at a neighbouring rental unit A. decided this should charge should be retroactive to T. date his mother passed away. T. A. acknowledges that there was no agreement to pay this amount F. any period. 11. T. ownership of T. rental unit is in dispute A. I am not making any determination as to who T. rightful owner is. However, even if I was to find that T. A. was T. sole lawful owner, I would still find that there is no landlord A. tenant relationship give T. absence of a T. agreement 12. T. Board has T. exclusive jurisdiction to determine all applications under this Act A. with respect to all matters in which jurisdiction is conferred on it by this Act. While T. parties clearly have a dispute respecting their mother’s estate, T. Board does not have jurisdiction with respect Estate matters or disputes over T. ownership of properties. T. parties may wish to raise their concerns before a Court of competent jurisdiction. O. Page 2 of 4  File Number: LTB-L-036382-23 Costs against T. A.: 13. After I gave my oral ruling at T. hearing, T. R.’s representative requested that T. Board O. costs against T. A.. T. R. argues that T. A. knowingly initiated a frivolous A. vexatious application. 2023 ONLTB 59376 (CanLII) 14. Section 204 of T. Act permits T. Board to O. a party to pay T. costs of another party. Guideline 3 of T. Board’s Interpretation Guidelines requires that, in considering a request F. costs awarded against a party, T. Board consider whether T. party’s actions were unreasonable. A party’s actions will be considered unreasonable if they cause undue expense or delay. An example given in Guideline 3 is bringing a frivolous application. 15. I agree that T. A.’s application was frivolous A. as such, find that costs should be awarded. T. A. in this case knew there was no T. agreement between T. parties A. that he A. his brother were disputing who owns his mother’s estate. Rather than addressing this matter before T. Superior Court, T. A. decided to file an application with T. Board which retroactively charged T. responding party 8 years’ worth of arrears based on T. current market rent in an attempt to have his brother removed from a home passed down from his mother’s estate. 16. T. A.’s actions in this case are a waste of Board A. responding party’s time. T. application was clearly initiated in bad faith A. as an attempt to avoid proceedings before T. Superior Court. 17. In accordance with Rule 23.2 of T. Board’s Rules of Procedure, which states that costs should be awarded in T. amount of $100.00 per hour F. attendance A. preparation time, I find that T. R. (tenant) is entitled to costs in T. amount of $200.00. This amount includes $100.00 F. T. time of hearing A. $100.00 F. preparation F. T. matter. 18. This O. contains all T. reasons F. this matter. No further reasons will issue. It is ordered that: 1. T. application is dismissed. 2. T. A. (landlord) shall pay to T. R. (tenant) $200.00 in costs. 3. If T. A. (landlord) does not pay T. R. (tenant) T. full amount owing by September 15, 2023, T. A. will owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from September 16, 2023 at 6.00% annually on T. balance outstanding. August 31, 2023 Date Issued Fabio Quattrociocchi Member, Landlord A. Tenant Board O. Page 3 of 4  File Number: LTB-L-036382-23 15 Grosvenor St, Ground Floor Toronto ON M7A 2G6 If you have any questions about this O., call 416-645-8080 or toll free at 1-888-332-3234. 2023 ONLTB 59376 (CanLII) O. Page 4 of 4