Landlord Meets All Technical Requirements of Eviction Procedure But Still Has To Pay $25,000 - Anoth
Sometimes it seems like you can't win for losing? A recent appeal from the Landlord Tenant Board illustrates how a landlord who did everything technically correct during eviction still was wrong and liable to pay $25,000 to the evicted tenant for throwing out the tenant's belongings.
The tenant and landlord entered into a tenancy agreement in July 2009. Since he did not qualify on his own, his parents co-signed on the tenancy agreement. About a year later, on July 22, 2010 the tenant was incarcerated for a breach in the terms of his recognizance and was due for release in November 2010. Being at least somewhat responsible, he asked his parents to take care of the rent while he was locked away.
The parents tried to pay rent. They advised the landlord that the tenant was "away" and that they would be paying rent and left a rent cheque in the mailbox. They also left numerous phone messages none of which were returned. Some time later, they checked their bank account and discovered the cheque for rent had not been cashed. They followed up with more phone calls and attended the landlord's office to clear the matter up. The assistant there refused another cheque.
The landlord followed proper procedure to evict the tenant. He served a Notice of Eviction for non-payment of rent, served the Notice of Hearing and after acquiring an Eviction Order at that hearing, served the Eviction Order. He arranged for the sheriff to post a Notice to Vacate and then waited the requisite 72 hours before throwing out all the tenant's possessions.
The tenant sought compensation for the possessions. At the Landlord and Tenant Board hearing, the Board found that the landlord had technically done everything right regarding the eviction but still awarded $25,000 to the tenant. The Board believed the testimony of the parents that the landlord had refused to accept payment of rent from them and had not contacted them regarding disposal of the tenant's belongings. The testimony of the parents was corroborated by their telephone records. The Board rejected the landlord's testimony that it had no idea where the tenant was. Rather, it noted that the landlord had testified the belongings were worthless but then called an appraiser who testified that the value was "at least $10,000" and possibly one collection was $70,000. In assessing compensation, the Landlord Tenant Board gave the highest award that it could.
The landlord appealed unsuccessfully. Although he was technically compliant with the Residential Tenancies Act, the underlying principle is that a landlord "must act reasonably" and that landlords who fail to do so will be found liable.
The Lesson: Technical compliance with eviction procedures is not enough. It is prudent for a landlord to follow up with co-signers regarding eviction procedures, especially in the context where a tenant's possessions may be disposed of. At the very least this will provide some evidence that the landlord tried to return possessions rather than just disposing of them.
Billion v Vaillancourt, 2016 ONSC 5820 https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2016/2016onsc5820/2016onsc5820.pdf
The content and the opinions expressed here is informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Nor does reading or commenting on it create a lawyer/client relationship with the author. I encourage you to contact me directly at adrianlawoffice@gmail.com if you have specific legal questions or concerns.
http://adrianlawoffice.wix.com/mysite
If you are an individual looking for assistance with a legal problem, contact Adrian Law for professional and cost-effective advice. adrianlawoffice@gmail.com
The author encourages you to share this article on social media.
Follow me on Twitter @gwendolynadrian