Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

Order under Section 69

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006

File Number: TSL-73114-16

2016 CanLII 44292 (ON LTB)


JD and ZL (the ‘Landlords’) applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict SD (the
‘Tenant’) because the Tenant did not pay the rent that she owes. The Landlords also claimed
administration charges related to an NSF cheque (the ‘L1 Application’).

The Landlords also applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenant because
the Tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or someone the Tenant permitted in the residential
complex has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment or lawful right, privilege or
interest of the Landlords or another tenant. The Landlords also claimed compensation for each
day the Tenant remained in the unit after the termination date (the ‘L2 Application’).

These applications were heard in Toronto on June 7, 2016. The Landlords, the Landlord’s Legal
Representative, MY, and the Tenant attended the hearing. The Tenant spoke with Duty Counsel
prior to the hearing.

For the Reasons attached to this order:

Determinations:
The L1 Application

1. The Tenant has not paid the total rent she was required to pay for the period from April 1,
2016 to June 30, 2016. Because of the arrears, the Landlords served an N4 Notice of
Termination effective April 19, 2016.

2. The Tenant is in possession of the rental unit.

3. The monthly rent is $591.00.

4. The Landlord is not holding a last month’s rent deposit.

5. The Landlords are entitled to $20.00 for an administrative charge related to a cheque
tendered by or on behalf of the Tenant which was returned as it could not be negotiated.

6. The Tenant paid $1,183.20 after the application was filed.

7. At the hearing, the Tenant raised the following issues pursuant to section 82 of the
Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’):

a. Z.L. illegally entered the rental unit.

b. Z.L. changed the password for her internet access.

Order Page 1 of 3
File Number: TSL-73114-16

c. Z.L. unlawfully demanded additional money from her.

d. Z.L. ordered her to get out of the rental unit.

e. Z.L. shut off the heat to the rental unit two weeks prior to the hearing.

2016 CanLII 44292 (ON LTB)


f. Another tenant in the complex harassed her with unwanted attention.

g. The other tenants leave doors open in the residential complex.

8. The Tenant did not demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the Landlords
breached any provision of the Act with respect to the issues raised under section 82 of
the Act.

The L2 Application

9. The Tenant has substantially interfered with the Landlords’ and the other tenants’
reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex and with a lawful right, privilege or
interest of the Landlords.

10. I have considered all of the disclosed circumstances in accordance with subsection 83(2)
of the Act and find that it would be unfair to grant relief from eviction pursuant to
subsection 83(1) of the Act.

It is ordered that:
The L1 Application

1. The Tenant shall pay to the Landlords $548.40*, which represents the amount of rent
owing and compensation up to June 27, 2016 and the total charges related to an NSF
cheque tendered to the Landlords by or on behalf of the Tenant.

2. The Tenant shall also pay to the Landlords $19.45 per day for compensation for the use
of the unit starting June 28, 2016 to the date the Tenant moves out of the unit.

3. The Tenant shall also pay to the Landlords $170.00 for the cost of filing the application.

4. If the Tenant does not pay the Landlords the full amount owing* on or before July 8,
2016, the Tenant will start to owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from
July 9, 2016 at 2.00% annually on the balance outstanding.

The L2 Application

5. The tenancy between the Landlords and the Tenant is terminated as of July 8, 2016. The
Tenant must move out of the rental unit on or before July 8, 2016.

6. If the unit is not vacated on or before July 8, 2016, then starting July 9, 2016, the
Landlords may file this order with the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) so that the
eviction may be enforced.
Order Page 2 of 3
File Number: TSL-73114-16

7. Upon receipt of this order, the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) is directed to give
vacant possession of the unit to the Landlords on or after July 9, 2016.

Costs Payable to the Board

2016 CanLII 44292 (ON LTB)


8. The Tenant shall pay to the Landlord and Tenant Board costs in the amount of $40.00 by
July 15, 2016.

June 27, 2016 _______________________


Date Issued Kevin Lundy
Member, Landlord and Tenant Board

Toronto South-RO
79 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 212, 2nd Floor
Toronto ON M4T1M6

If you have any questions about this order, call 416-645-8080 or toll free at 1-888-332-3234.

In accordance with section 81 of the Act, the part of this order relating to the eviction expires on
January 9, 2017 if the order has not been filed on or before this date with the Court Enforcement
Office (Sheriff) that has territorial jurisdiction where the rental unit is located.

* Refer to section A on the attached Summary of Calculations.

Payment of the costs must be made to the Board by the deadline set out above. The costs can be paid by certified
cheque, bank draft or money order made payable to the Minister of Finance. If paying in person, the debt can also
be paid by cash, credit card or debit card.

Order Page 3 of 3
Schedule 1
SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS

File Number: TSL-73114-16

2016 CanLII 44292 (ON LTB)


A. Amount the Tenant must pay as the tenancy is terminated:

Reasons for amount owing Period Amount


Arrears: (up to the termination date in the April 1, 2016 to April 19, 2016 $369.55
Notice of Termination)
Less the amount the Tenant -$1,183.20
paid to the Landlords
Plus compensation: (from the day April 20, 2016 to June 27, $1,342.05
after the termination date in the Notice to the 2016
date of the order)
NSF cheque charges and related administration charges: $20.00
Amount owing to the Landlords on the order date:(total of previous $548.40
boxes)
Additional costs the Tenant must pay to the Landlords: $170.00
Plus daily compensation owing for each day of occupation $19.45 (per day)
starting June 28, 2016:
Total the Tenant must pay the Landlords as the tenancy is $718.40, +
terminated: $19.45 per day
starting June 28,
2016

Schedule Page 1 of 1
File Number: TSL-73114-16

REASONS

2016 CanLII 44292 (ON LTB)


The L1 Application

1. The only contested issue under the L1 Application related to unpaid rent for March, 2016.
The Tenant did not contest the Landlords’ evidence that the cheque tendered for that
month and dated March 3, 2016 did not clear the bank as the funds were “frozen.”

2. The Landlords also did not contest the Tenant’s evidence that she had received
information that this cheque remained negotiable and that if the Landlord, Z.L attended at
the Tenant’s bank, he could retrieve the cheque and attempt to negotiate it. It is worth
noting that the Tenant and the Landlords bank at different financial institutions. The
Tenant never replaced the missing payment for April, 2016 and insisted repeatedly at the
hearing that it was the Z.L.’s responsibility to arrange for payment with her bank.

3. I disagree with the Tenant’s position on this point. Under the tenancy agreement, the
Tenant is responsible for paying the rent in full and on time. While her bank was initially
the cause of the missed payment, she took no reasonable steps to correct the problem
and attempted to assign responsibility to the Landlords. If she had a problem with her
bank failing to process a payment, she may seek redress with her bank. Their failure to
make funds available for a cheque tendered to the Landlords in no way negates her
responsibility for this payment. It is not the Landlord’s responsibility to chase her down
for payments or to attend at her bank and negotiate for the recovery of a missed
payment. On the Tenant’s own evidence, re-presentation of a cheque at her bank would
also require the Landlords to incur a $30.00 set fee. I find no compelling reason for the
Landlords to incur this cost.

4. While Z.L. was free to comply with the Tenant’s suggestion to negotiate with her bank to
re-present the old cheque, he is by no means obligated to assume this unnecessary
inconvenience or potential expense. The simpler method would be for the Tenant to
simply replace the frozen cheque with a new payment and cancel the old cheque. I find
that the Tenant’s refusal to do was unreasonable.

5. As a result, I find that the Tenant remained in arrears for the missed payment as of the
date of the hearing. I also find that the Landlords were authorized to charge the Tenant
the $20.00 administrative fee for the cheque that did not clear.

Issues Raised under Section 82

6. At the hearing, the Tenant raised the following issues pursuant to section 82 of the Act:

a. Z.L. illegally entered the rental unit.

b. Z.L. changed the password for her internet access.

Reasons Page 1 of 8
File Number: TSL-73114-16

c. Z.L. unlawfully demanded additional money from her.

d. Z.L. ordered her to get out of the rental unit.

e. Z.L. shut off the heat to the rental unit two weeks prior to the hearing.

2016 CanLII 44292 (ON LTB)


f. Another tenant in the complex harassed her with unwanted attention.

g. The other tenants leave doors open in the residential complex.

Illegal Entry

7. The Tenant testified that Z.L. entered the rental unit on May 15, 2016 without notice or
consent. Z.L. denied entering the rental unit on this date. The Tenant’s evidence of
entry related to a knife that she arranges in a particular position in the unit before she
leaves her residence. When she returned to the unit on May 15, 2016, she found the
knife in a different position. She also claimed that unspecified items were missing from
her room. On the balance of probabilities, I do not find that this rather vague evidence
constitutes evidence that Z.L. entered the rental unit on the day in question.

Harassment – Internet Access

8. Between March 19 and March 26, 2016, the Tenant stated that she could not access her
internet account. She decided that the only explanation for this service interruption was
that Z.L. must have changed the Wi-Fi password. When she accused him of changing
the password, Z.L. denied this allegation and suggested that she either take her
computer to a repair shop or contact her internet provider. According to Z.L. and a
written account from another tenant in the complex, she became enraged and screamed
at him over this advice. He nonetheless investigated the interruption in the Tenant’s
internet service and concluded that the issue likely related to a problem with the Tenant’s
computer itself, rather than the internet connection.

9. At the hearing, the Tenant repeatedly accused Z.L. of changing the password and
refused to acknowledge that a telecommunications company rather Landlords supply
internet service to the residential complex. The Tenant repeatedly insisted that if she
could not use her computer, Z.L. must be to blame. Her purported evidence in support of
this conclusion was simply that she could not access the internet.

10. Although the Tenant contacted the police over this issue, on the evidence, they informed
her that this was not a police matter and took no further action. At the hearing, she took
the rather illogical position that because she told the officers that Z.L. changed her
password, then, because they were aware of her allegation, Z.L. must therefore be
responsible. She also asserted that her accusation against the Landlords in and of itself
serves as irrefutable evidence in support of her position. She also noted that her
password is no longer the same as when she opened the account and suggested that
there was something intrinsic about the serious of characters in the new password that
suggests that Z.L. must have changed the password. I do not find that this in any way
demonstrates that Z.L. changed her password.
Reasons Page 2 of 8
File Number: TSL-73114-16

11. The Tenant submitted a two page document relating to her Fido account in support of
her position that Z.L. interfered with her internet service. This ‘Transaction History’ sets
out the dates and times of incoming and outgoing telephone calls from March 20, 2016 to
April 19, 2016 and the amounts owing. Most of the charges are $0.00 or similarly small

2016 CanLII 44292 (ON LTB)


amounts. At the bottom of the second page, the Tenant has written “53$”. The subtotals
in the amounts charged indeed add up to $53.00. However, the Tenant could not explain
why she believed that the Landlord should pay her this amount for her various calls,
other than her repeated assertion that he changed the Wi-Fi password.

12. I do not find that the Tenant clarified how her inability to access the internet affected the
use of her telephone, particularly as this document would tend to suggest that her ability
to send and receive text messages and voicemails as well as normal telephone service
was unimpeded during this same period.

13. While she also displayed an image on her phone of disconnected cables to the internet
that she stated was taken on October 22, 2015, I do not find that this evidence proved
that Z.L. tampered with the internet on October 22, 2015, in March, 2016, or at any other
time. It would also appear that these cables may not have related to the problems with
the internet as the Tenant agreed that the internet service at the complex was wireless.

14. On the balance of probabilities, I do not find that the Tenant demonstrated that Z.L.
harassed her by interfering with her internet service.

Demands for Money

15. With respect to the Tenant’s assertion that Z.L. demanded additional money from her,
Z.L. denied requesting any money for rent above the amount owing for March, 2016. He
acknowledged however, that on August 1, 2015, he did request payment for the internet
and cable bills. As the Tenant did not contest Z.L.’s evidence that she owed a balance
for these services, I find nothing improper in his request for payment. She did not allege
that he was in any way disrespectful or aggressive in the manner of the request. She
simply took offence because he wanted her to take responsibility for her debts, rather
than leave him to carry these expenses.

Harassment and Threats to the Tenancy

16. On an unspecified date, the Tenant filmed Z.L. as he was walking through the residential
complex. On the recording, played at the hearing, the Tenant can be heard relentlessly
berating him with various complaints and accusations. He expressed his objection to
being recorded, but the Tenant continued to film him all the while yelling accusations.
Eventually, he turned to the camera and told the Tenant to “get out of here.” While the
Tenant interpreted this short statement as a threat of eviction, I find it more likely that
Z.L. meant to tell her to leave him alone and expressing his frustration at the Tenant’s
insistence on recording him without his permission. There was no reference to eviction
in the recording played at the hearing.

Reasons Page 3 of 8
File Number: TSL-73114-16

17. I do not find that the Tenant demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that the
Landlord harassed her or interfered with her reasonable enjoyment of the residential
complex by threatening to evict her.

18. The Tenant also testified that on another unspecified occasion, Z.L. suggested to the

2016 CanLII 44292 (ON LTB)


Tenant that “the police will kick you out.” This was confirmed on a recording played at
the hearing. This statement was also recorded by the Tenant while she chased him
about the complex and recorded him without his consent. However, there was no
indication on the evidence that the Landlords had contacted the police in order to remove
the Tenant from the rental unit. Instead, I find on the balance of probabilities that Z.L.
uttered this statement out of frustration with the Tenant’s own harassment towards him,
combined with an element of spontaneous wishful thinking. In light of the wider context
of this event, I do not find that this utterance rises to the seriousness of a compensable
breach of the Act.

Withholding Vital Service (Heat)

19. The Tenant accused Z.L. of shutting off the heat to the residential complex roughly two
weeks prior to the hearing. He denied this allegation and noted that he has no control
over the heat from outside of the residential complex. To this, the Tenant offered the
rather preposterous claim that the police had assured her that all landlords control the
heat in a residential complex.

20. As the Tenant offered no other credible evidence at the hearing to support her position, I
find that she failed to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that Z.L. withheld heat
to the rental unit in breach of section 21 of the Act.

Problems with the Conduct of the Other Tenants

21. The Tenant testified that during the period in March, 2016 when her internet was not
available, she asked one of the other tenants, P.S., for the password. She stated that he
responded that they could get to know each other better. This statement made the
Tenant uncomfortable and that she “cried bitterly” on March 20, 2016. This evidence
was not contested by the Landlords. However, the Tenant acknowledged that she never
informed the Landlords of this issue prior to the hearing.

22. She also took issue with the other tenants’ habit of leaving doors open in the residential
complex. Putting aside the seeming triviality of this complaint, she never notified the
Landlords of her concerns, but did call the police with regard to this issue.

23. The Landlord and Tenant Board (the ‘Board’) does not have jurisdiction to resolve
conflicts between tenants. The only question before me is whether or not the Landlords
took appropriate in response to the Tenant’s complaints. The relevant issue is not
whether the other tenants substantially interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable
enjoyment, but whether the Landlords, through inaction, substantially interfered with her
reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or the residential complex.

Reasons Page 4 of 8
File Number: TSL-73114-16

24. As the Tenant never brought either of these complaints to the Landlords’ attention –
despite her numerous and unwelcome telephone calls to them as described below – I
find that she denied them a reasonable opportunity to resolve these issues prior to the
hearing.

2016 CanLII 44292 (ON LTB)


25. In the absence of any knowledge of these issues, the Landlords cannot have
substantially interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or the
residential complex by failing to address them.

The L2 Application

26. The tenancy commenced in 2009. The Landlords testified that since 2010, the Tenant
has called them repeatedly and at various hours in the absence of any emergency. For
example, the Landlord, J.D. testified that on February 27, 2016, the Tenant called the
Landlords six times without any emergency. She noted that this far from a new
experience by 2016 as she recalled the Tenant calling them over trivial matters
seventeen times in 2012. She added that the Tenant often called in the evening when
Z.L. had returned from work, thereby interfering with his attempts to rest.

27. Similarly, on March 19, 2016, the Tenant telephoned the Landlords seven times to
complain that the internet was not working. As Z.L. was already aware of this issue and
was in the midst of investigating the problem, the repetitive nature of these calls served
only to harass the Landlords.

28. The Tenant has also regularly called the police whenever some aspect of daily life at the
residential complex perturbed her. For instance, on October 3, 2015, the Tenant called
the police for a non-emergency issue. When the officer arrived, she argued with him at
length and shouted at him when he disagreed with her. The other tenants expressed
anxiety to the Landlords at the repeated and unnecessary police presence in the
residential complex and the disruption caused by the Tenant’s protracted arguments with
the officers. The Tenant did not contest any of this evidence. As a result, I find that the
Tenant substantially interfered with the Landlords’ and the other tenants’ reasonable
enjoyment of the residential complex.

29. Between October 8 and October 18, 2015, the Tenant repeatedly set all of the
thermostats for the residential complex to the maximum setting, causing the other
residents to complain to the Landlords that it was too hot and dry in the complex. The
Tenant argued repeatedly with P.S., over this conduct. As Z.L. pays for the heat for the
complex, I find that this potentially costly waste of energy substantially interfered with a
lawful right of the Landlords.

30. The parties agreed that the Tenant regularly wrapped the doorknob to her room with
plastic bags since March, 2015, apparently in an effort to deter anyone from entering the
room in her absence. While this conduct lacks a certain level of hospitality, I do not find
that it substantially interferes with the Landlords’ or the other Tenants’ reasonable
enjoyment of the residential complex.

Reasons Page 5 of 8
File Number: TSL-73114-16

31. Similarly, the Tenant agreed at the hearing that she wrote the following message in large
block capital letters on her door:

DON’T TOUCH MY DOOR OR ANYTHING ON MY DOOR


GOD PUNISH YOU

2016 CanLII 44292 (ON LTB)


32. A photograph of the door submitted at the hearing confirmed the Tenant’s graffiti. While I
do not find that this message in and of itself rises to the seriousness of substantial
interference with the other Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment, it does support the
Landlords’ other evidence that the Tenant’s conduct towards the other tenants has
deteriorated to an increasingly toxic campaign of hostility and antagonism since at least
early 2015.

33. For instance, the Landlords submitted two letters from other tenants in the residential
complex that describe the Tenant’s erratic and disruptive behaviour since at least
August, 2015. In their letters, both P.S. and S.R. described the confrontation between
the Tenant and Z.L. in March, 2016, when she discovered that her internet was not
accessible. When Z.L. denied the Tenant’s accusation that he changed the Wi-Fi
password, S.R. wrote that the Tenant began to point her finger in his face while shouting
and screaming that, “God will punish you.” The Tenant initially acknowledged this
statement at the hearing, but denied it only minutes later.

34. On the balance of probabilities, given the identical message on her door and her
acknowledgement at the hearing that she expects the other residents and the Landlords
to be “god-fearing” to her standards, I prefer the evidence of Z.L. and S.R. on this issue
and find that she did scream this statement at Z.L. Although the Tenant is entitled to her
religious beliefs, she is not entitled to either impose these beliefs on the other residents
or to use them to substantially interfere with their reasonable enjoyment of the residential
complex.

35. Both P.S. and S.R. also noted in their letters that the Tenant has often yelled at them and
that she regularly calls the police to the residential complex in the absence of any
emergency. She also recorded them with her camera phone throughout the residential
complex and in their own rooms without their consent. Z.L. testified that the Tenant’s
aggressive surveillance of the other Tenants makes them very uncomfortable in their
own homes and that this conduct severely frightened a young child of one of the tenants.
The Tenant did not contest this evidence at the hearing. I find that this conduct
substantially interfered with the other tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the residential
complex.

36. P.S. and S.R. reported that the Tenant also disconnected the internet and cable
television for the entire building on November 22, 2015. When Z.L. attended at the
residential complex in response to the service interruption, it took approximately three
hours to resolve the problem. Z.L. testified that when he and the other tenant spoke to
her about this issue, she shouted and screamed at them. As a result, I find that the
Tenant substantially interfered with the other tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the
residential complex and with a lawful right of the Landlords.

Reasons Page 6 of 8
File Number: TSL-73114-16

37. Because neither P.S. nor S.R. attended at the hearing to testify to their observations their
letters were hearsay. The essential defining features of hearsay are an out-of-court
statement adduced to prove the truth of its contents in the absence of a
contemporaneous opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

2016 CanLII 44292 (ON LTB)


38. I find that to accord this hearsay the same probative weight without allowing the Tenant
any means of cross examining the declarants on the basis of their statements or testing
the veracity of their observations would be unduly prejudicial under the circumstances.
However, subsection 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, 1990 permits
admission of unsworn oral testimony and allows the Board Member to assign it the
appropriate probative weight. Because the Tenant did not substantially contest the
content of the two letters and since they largely conformed to Z.L.’s own direct evidence
and much of the Tenant’s, I find that these documents offered credible and reliable
evidence at the hearing, albeit at a slightly reduced probative weight.

39. Z.L. also testified that the Tenant also regularly left hair and other debris in the common
shower, flushed inappropriate objects down the toilet and left water on the floor. This
conduct prompted more complaints from the other tenants. While I find on the balance of
probabilities that the Tenant substantially interfered with the other tenants’ reasonable
enjoyment of the residential complex with respect to this issue, Z.L. noted that the
Tenant discontinued these actions after he served the N5 Notice to terminate the
tenancy (the ‘N5 Notice’).

40. Z.L. also testified that the Tenant has refused access to the rental unit on multiple
occasions even after he has served her with proper 24 hours’ notice. However, as the
N5 Notice did not specify any dates or times that the Tenant refused access to the rental
unit and Z.L. did not provide any additional details at the hearing, I find that the
Landlords’ evidence on this issue was too vague upon which to base any finding of fact.

41. However, the Tenant acknowledged that Z.L.’s suspicions that she may have altered the
lock to the rental unit were well-founded since she had indeed added an additional lock
without notice to him and without his consent. I find that this action substantially
interferes with a lawful right or privilege of the Landlord to access the rental unit in the
event of an emergency. However, as the remedy for this issue may only be addressed
through an L8 Application not before me, no remedy will be ordered in response to this
issue. However, I find that this conduct militates strongly against relief under section 83
of the Act.

42. Z.L. also testified that the Tenant keeps an excessive number of boxes in her rental unit
that have resulted in a potential fire hazard. However, he offered no specifics at the
hearing or other evidence such as photographs of the rental unit to support this
allegation. The Tenant testified that none of these boxes block the heater as Z.L.
claimed in the L2 Application. As the Landlords’ evidence was no more persuasive than
that of the Tenant, I find that, with respect to this issue, the Landlords failed to
demonstrate substantial interference on the balance of probabilities.

43. On April 4, 2016, Z.L. served the Tenant with the N5 Notice, pursuant to subsection
64(1) of the Act. Other than the conduct described at paragraph 39, Z.L. gave
Reasons Page 7 of 8
File Number: TSL-73114-16

uncontested testimony that the Tenant never corrected the behaviour described in the
Notice. As a result, I find that the Tenant failed to void the N5 Notice pursuant to
subsection 64(3) of the Act.

Section 83 Relief against Eviction

2016 CanLII 44292 (ON LTB)


44. Given the Tenant’s highly aggressive and disruptive conduct toward the Landlords and
the other residents in the complex, I find that any postponement or relief from eviction
would result in undue prejudice to both the Landlords and the other residents of the
residential complex. Similarly, as the Tenant expressed an attitude of absolute
entitlement to her conduct toward the Landlords and the other tenants, I find that she
would be highly unlikely to comply with an order to refrain from this conduct for any
period of time.

45. I have considered all of the disclosed circumstances in accordance with subsection 83(2)
of the Act and find that it would be unfair to grant relief from eviction, pursuant to
subsection 83(1) of the Act.

Costs Payable to the Board

46. Throughout the hearing, the Tenant continually asked the same questions regarding her
theories that she was not responsible for the March, 2016 rent due to her bank’s error or
that Z.L. had changed the Wi-Fi password. Despite receiving the same undesired
answers from the Landlords, she repeatedly ignored my directions to move on to other
topics and questions.

47. In addition, after the hearing had concluded and the Landlords and their Legal
Representative had departed the hearing room, she repeatedly attempted to provide ex
parte evidence in support of her position, despite being advised several times that this
conduct was inappropriate and no further evidence would be admitted in the absence of
the opposing party in the interests of fairness. After the Tenant continued to insist on
testifying in the absence of the Landlords and ultimately began to waste the hearing time
of other parties anxious to start their own hearings, she was directed to exit the hearing
room. She initially refused and continued to offer unsolicited evidence.

48. As a result of the Tenant’s unreasonable conduct, I find that she must pay costs to the
Board in the amount of $40.00.

June 27, 2016 _______________________


Date Issued Kevin Lundy
Member, Landlord and Tenant Board

Toronto South-RO
79 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 212, 2nd Floor
Toronto ON M4T1M6

Reasons Page 8 of 8