LTB Order LTB-T-010752-23

Order under Subsection 135 2023 ONLTB 77289 (CanLII) Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 Citation: W. v W., 2023 ONLTB 77289 a t e : 2 0 2 3 - 1 2 - 0 4 File Number: LTB-T-010752- 23 In the matter of: 68 Townline Road Orangeville Ontario L9W1V6 Between: A. W. T. A. M. W. (also K. as M. C.) L. D. C. 1 A. W. (the 'T.') A. F. an order determining that M. W. (also K. as M. C.) A. D. C. (the 'L.') collected or retained money illegally. This application was heard by videoconference on November 1, 2023. 2023 ONLTB 77289 (CanLII) Only the T. attended the hearing. As of 2:11 p.m., the L. were not present or represented at the hearing although properly served with notice of this hearing by the LTB. There was no record of a request to adjourn the hearing. As a result, the hearing proceeded with only the T.'s evidence. Preliminary Issues: 1. A preliminary issue was raised with the T. with respect to the “reasons” section of her T1 application A. how some of her description was cut off at the end of page 5 of 7. The T. stated that she had intended F. a lengthier description to have been submitted online, A. that she didn’t realize a portion of her reasons were cut off. Despite this, the hearing proceeded, as I was satisfied that sufficient reasons A. details were outlined on the application to allow the respondents to understand the case to be met, A. that the application involved the return of a deposit to a prospective T.. The T. included the essential facts of her claim in the description on page 5 of 7 including the amount paid towards her deposit, the intended start date of the lease, the attempts she made to move into the unit A. on what dates, as well as a statement about why she asked F. the return of it after she was not provided with vacant possession. Moreover, the respondents were not at the hearing to say why this prejudiced them, if at all. 2. The second issue raised with the T. involved what the legal name is of the respondent “M.”. The T. stated that it was her understanding that the respondent may have Order Page of 3 File Number: LTB-T-010752-23 recently undergone a name change. The T. was unsure of what the respondent’s current legal name is, given that “M. C.” accepted a $1,000.00 rental deposit from the T., but that “M. W.” had been corresponding with the T. A. the Board through email. The T. submitted a banking receipt into evidence which shows “M. C.” accepting funds from the T., but her email on the same banking receipt being one which included the last name “W.”. As such, I am satisfied that M. W. A. M. C. are one A. the same person. F. the purposes of enforcing this order, the application is amended to reflect both names. 2 Determinations: 3. As explained below, the T. proved the allegations contained in the application on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, the L. must compensate the T. in the amount of $250.00 plus the $53.00 application fee. 2023 ONLTB 77289 (CanLII) 4. The parties entered into a tenancy agreement F. a six-month term commencing December 1, 2022 to June 1, 2023, with rent being $1,000.00 per month. The T. admitted a copy of this lease into evidence. M. C. is listed as the Landlord on the T.’s lease, A. the T. stated at the hearing, that Ms. C. had indicated that D. C. was the legal owner of the property. 5. The T. sent the Landlord M. C. a $1,000.00 deposit as last month’s rent on October 23, 2022 by e-transfer. The T. submitted a banking receipt into evidence which shows this transaction. 6. The T. testified that it was her intention to move into the rental unit on December 1, 2022 but that she never actually moved in. The T. testified that her move in date was first shifted by agreement of the parties to December 4, 2022, but that on December 2, 2022 the Landlord M. C. reached out by text message to let the T. know that the unit was still undergoing repairs A. renovations A. would be ready sometime in the coming week. The T. submitted a text message dated December 2, 2022 into evidence from Ms. C. which reflects this. 7. The T. further testified that she allowed the L. additional time to get the rental unit ready, A. rescheduled her moving day to December 7, 2022. The T. stated that on the morning of December 7, 2022 she received a further text message from Ms. C. indicating that the unit was still not ready. The T. submitted a text message dated December 7, 2022 into evidence which reflects this, A. which shows Ms. C. stating that “…The remaining things that have to be completed are the washroom, the kitchen ceiling A. the closet rod. He said that you can move your stuff in today but unfortunately won’t have a functional bathroom until he is off on the weekend […]”. In response to receiving this message, the T. indicated that she then, on December 10, 2022 asked to be let out of the lease, given that she was not prepared to move into an unfinished unit, A. that she asked the L. to return her $1,000.00 deposit. 8. In addition, the T. testified that the L. agreed to return her $1,000.00 deposit once they had secured a new T., as her deposit had already been spent on improvements to the unit. I note that the Landlord M. W. did communicate with the Board on October 26, 2023 by sending in an email which stated that the L. had Order Page of 3 . File Number: LTB-T-010752-23 3  reimbursed the T. in the amount of $750.00. The T. acknowledges this amount was paid to her. 9. Based on the uncontradicted evidence of the T., I find that the L. failed to provide her with vacant possession of the rental unit on two occasions, A. frustrated the contract by suggesting that the T. should occupy the unit while the bathroom A. 2023 ONLTB 77289 (CanLII) other sections of it remained unfinished. The T. should not have been expected to wait an unspecified amount of time before being able to comfortably occupy the unit. Accordingly, she was entitled to ask F. the return of her deposit pursuant to section 107 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) which states: Rent deposit, prospective T. 107 (1) A landlord shall repay the amount received as a rent deposit in respect of a rental unit if vacant possession of the rental unit is not given to the prospective T.. 10. As is required under section 135(4) of the Act, the T. filed her T1 application within one year of the date that the funds were retained in contravention of the Act, by filing her application on December 21, 2022. 11. Given that the L. have already reimbursed the T. in the amount of $750.00, the T. is owed a remaining $250.00, plus the $53.00 application fee. It is ordered that: 1. The total amount the L. shall pay the T. is $303.00. This amount represents: o $250.00 F. the balance of her last month’s rental deposit. o $53.00 F. the cost of filing the application. 2. The L. shall pay the T. the full amount owing by December 15, 2023. 3. If the L. do not pay the T. the full amount owing by December 15, 2023, the L. will owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from December 16, 2023 at 7.00% annually on the balance outstanding. 4. The T. has the right, at any time, to collect the full amount owing or any balance outstanding under this order. December 4, 2023 ___________________________ Date Issued Madeline Ntoukas Member, Landlord A. T. Board 4 15 Grosvenor Street, Ground Floor Toronto ON M7A 2G6 If you have any questions about this order, call 416-645-8080 or toll free at 1-888-332-3234. Order Page of 3 2023 ONLTB 77289 (CanLII) . 5