1911715 Ontario Inc. v Sykes
Tenant wins · Scarborough · 2025-05-28
- Adjudicator
- Kate Sinipostolova
- Dispute
- Substantial Interference
- Notice
- Substantial interference (N5)
- Landlord
- 1911715 Ontario Inc.
- Tenant
- D.S.
- Landlord rep
- Bindu Jain, Ridowan Chaklader, Christina Destito
- Tenant rep
- Alexander Palacios
What happened
The Landlord applied to evict the Tenant for substantial interference, based on a second, non-voidable N5 notice. The notice was found to be defective because most of the alleged incidents occurred before the legally permissible timeframe. The one valid claim, that the Tenant failed to advise on availability for electrical work, was deemed insufficient to constitute substantial interference. Consequently, the Landlord's application was dismissed.
The ruling
The Landlord's application to evict the Tenant for substantial interference is dismissed. The second N5 notice served by the Landlord was found to be procedurally defective, as it included allegations from dates that are not permissible for a non-voidable N5 notice. The one valid allegation was insufficient to prove substantial interference.