James v Vidyasri
Landlord wins · Scarborough · 2025-11-03
- Adjudicator
- Mark Melchers
- Dispute
- Harassment, Maintenance, Tenant Rights
- Landlord
- H.V.
- Tenant
- R.J., E.J.
What happened
Tenants applied for an order alleging the Landlord illegally entered the unit, interfered with their reasonable enjoyment through noise, harassed/threatened them, and withheld vital services (specifically internet access). The application was ultimately dismissed due to a lack of specific particulars (dates and times) and jurisdictional limits regarding internet services and the statute of limitations for historical rent increases.
The ruling
The Tenants' application was dismissed in its entirety. The claims of illegal entry and noise interference lacked the necessary specific dates to allow the Landlord to respond. The claim regarding a rent increase from 2022 was filed too late, and the claim regarding internet access was dismissed because internet is not legally defined as a vital service over which the Board has jurisdiction.