Landlord Tenant Board Sent To Dog-House For Ruling About Tenant's Pets
People can get emotional about their pets and sometimes that emotion involves litigation. A recent Ontario Divisional Court decision illustrates that if your landlord interferes with your pet, the remedy lies in Superior Court and not with the Landlord Tenant Board.
The tenant had vacated the premises but brought a claim to the Landlord Tenant Board asserting that her former landlord had interfered with her, her cat and dog and some of her property. Among her claims she asserted that the landlord took possession of her dog and would not give it back. The tenant appeared at the scheduled hearing but the landlord did not.
Most of the hearing was spent dealing with the issue of the dog. The tenant informed the LTB Member that she had located the dog but the woman caring for it would not give it to her. The police had been called but they refused to get involved claiming it was a matter for the civil courts and not the police. The LTB member made an order including $8,700 related to taking possession of the dog and also ordered the dog to be returned.
When the tenant delivered the order to the woman caring for the dog, she immediately contacted the landlord who made a Request to Review the LTB decision on the grounds that she had not been given notice of the hearing. Despite attaching emails demonstrating that the tenant had given her the dog, the Request to Review was denied.
The landlord appealed to Divisional Court who agreed that proper notice had not been given. The court then assessed whether the LTB had the jurisdiction to deal with the issue of the dog and ruled that it did not. The Residential Tenancies Act clearly states what types of dispute the Landlord Tenant Board may resolve and these do not include disputes relating to pets. Those disputes must be resolved in the courts.
The Lesson: It is important to ascertain whether the decision making body that you are applying to has the jurisdiction to do what you would like them to. If you are unsure, it is wise to consult legal counsel for this information.
Aghazarian v Cena, 2017 ONSC 3990 (ONSC) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2017/2017onsc3990/2017onsc3990.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