LTB Order LTB-T-072805-24

Order under Section 30 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 Citation: Edoria v RICHLAND TECH INC, 2025 ONLTB 82047 Date: 2025-10-22 File Number: LTB-T-072805-24 In the matter of: Unit 1, 45 Church Street Orangeville ON L9W1N7 Between: Marlon Escalante Edoria Tenant OCT 22, 2025 And RICHLAND TECH INC Landlord Marlon Escalante Edoria (the 'Tenant') applied for an order determining that RICHLAND TECH INC (the 'Landlord') failed to meet the Landlord's maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act') or failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards. This application was heard by videoconference on October 15, 2025. The Tenant, the Tenant's legal representative, Charity Dela Cruz, the Landlord's legal representative, David Borrie, and the Landlord’s witness, Armand Pasquale, attended the hearing. Determinations: 1. In their application the Tenant alleges that the Landlord has reallocated their assigned parking spots to locations which are not desirable. This is not an allegation that involves maintenance but rather the Tenant is alleging that the reallocation of their parking spots has interfered with their reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit and/or residential complex. 2. The Board cannot consider the Tenant’s allegations respecting substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex because the Tenant has not filed the correct type of application. 3. The Tenant submitted that they did not know which type of application to file, so they called the LTB and were advised to file the T6 application by a customer service agent. The Tenant subsequently retained the services of a legal representative on June 11, 2025. 4. It should be noted that parties who call the Board are advised that customer service agents cannot provide legal advice. This is also clearly stated on the Board’s website. Order Page 1 of 2  File Number: LTB-T-072805-24 5. Regardless, it is not uncommon for unrepresented applicants to file the wrong application type, and the Tenant did eventually retain the services of a legal representative to assist them. The Tenant's legal representative did not request to amend the application or put the Landlord on notice of any changes intended to the original application as per the Board’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 15.1 explains that a party must request to amend the application as soon as possible but no less than 7 days prior to the hearing in writing, serve the amended application to all other parties and file with the Board the amended application and a completed Certificate of Service. 6. When becoming retained, the Tenant's legal representative ought to have reviewed the application filed by the Tenant and realized it was the incorrect application type. In my view the Tenant's legal representative had ample opportunity to investigate and take reasonable steps to request to amend the application. 7. As a result, the Tenant’s application must be dismissed. 8. The Tenant stated that the issue which caused them to file the application is ongoing. For this reason, the Tenant is not statutorily barred by the limitation period to refile using the correct application type. It is ordered that: 1. The Tenant’s application is dismissed. October 22, 2025 ____________________________ Date Issued Melissa Anjema Member, Landlord and Tenant Board 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 2 of 2