Dahlke v Davies
Tenant wins · Bancroft · 2025-09-12
- Adjudicator
- Inderdeep Padda
- Dispute
- Substantial Interference
- Notice
- Substantial interference (N5)
- Landlord
- C.D.
- Tenant
- P.D., S.M.
- Landlord rep
- Darryl Woodcock
What happened
The Landlord applied to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenants for substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment. The Landlord served two separate N5 notices. The Board found that the second notice was legally defective because it failed to correctly time the referenced incidents as required for a subsequent notice under the Act. Furthermore, the Landlord's attempt to amend the application to rely on the first notice was rejected because the amendment was filed more than 30 days after the termination date specified in that notice, depriving the Board of jurisdiction.
The ruling
The Landlord's application to evict the Tenants for substantial interference was dismissed. The Board determined that the second N5 notice used for the initial filing was defective. The Landlord's request to revert to the first N5 notice was denied because the request was made after the 30-day statutory limitation period for filing based on that notice had expired.