Disputes between tenants and landlords

Other Side Of The Story

A few days ago, I posted a story suggesting a Toronto-based tenants’ association wanted better and more structured paperwork when signing a lease. In other words, if tenants are legally permitted pets, why would a landlord be able to add a clause saying pets were not allowed.

Anyway, the real story in the swaying back-and-forth between tenants and landlords, is that tenants do -- in fact -- control the process too much. Just read this story from THE NATIONAL POST:

  ()()()()()()()()

Judge calls on province to plug loopholes after hearing couple lived rent-free in $3,600 a month apartment

Adrian Humphreys | Aug 14, 2012 | NATIONAL POST
TORONTO -- Legal loopholes allowed tenants to live rent-free for almost 10 months in a $3,600 per month downtown Toronto apartment, court heard, one of an increasing number of cases that prompted an exasperated judge to call for changes to the way landlord and tenant disputes are handled in Ontario.

A Toronto man and his wife moved into an apartment on Baldwin Street on October 11, 2011, and have not paid rent since, court heard, despite apparently still living there with pending appeals delaying any possible eviction.

The law is so imbalanced in favour of the tenants the small landlord doesn’t have a chance

“I was being ruined financially,” Melissa D’Amico told court, saying she believes the tenant was manipulating the system so he could live rent-free “for as long as possible.”

Ms. D’Amico rented the upstairs of her only rental property to Rony Hitti and his company, Toronto Bespoke Inc., but almost immediately rent became a problem.

Mr. Hitti was served with a notice to end his tenancy just 10 days after moving in, court heard.

She started eviction proceedings with the Landlord and Tenant Board a few weeks later. Twice since, Mr. Hitti gave cheques for past rent that bounced, each time resetting eviction proceedings back to the beginning of the mandated timetable, court heard.

The province’s Residential Tenancies Act, passed in 2006, allows tenants facing eviction to cancel the eviction order by swearing an affidavit that the backlog of rent has been paid, without the landlord confirming the debt has been settled.

When reached late Monday, Mr. Hitti told the National Post he was appealing the matter but has not had a chance to read the court ruling.

“I asked my lawyer to take a look at it and appeal it and set it aside. He told me it was a nasty piece of work, but I have no idea,” Mr. Hitti said.

He said the judgment was made without him being present in court and declined to discuss the case in detail pending his appeal.

“Our side of the story was never heard,” he said.

Harry Fine, a paralegal representing Ms. D’Amico, said Mr. Hitti had plenty of opportunities to make his case and had a lawyer present at the hearing that brought Judge Matlow’s ruling.

Mr. Fine said each “crap appeal” filed in such cases means an automatic stay in favour of the tenant and pushes an eviction order to the back of the queue, regardless of an appeal’s merit.

“It’s shameful,” Mr. Fine said.

“The law is so imbalanced in favour of the tenants the small landlord doesn’t have a chance. Every small landlord case is a nightmare. They get into the business because their realtor says a property has income potential but they forget that it is a business — and a highly regulated business.”

Mr. Hitti’s case is not alone in exceeding the patience of a judge.

The situation prompted Ontario Superior Court Justice Ted Matlow to brand Mr. Hitti’s appeal an “abuse of process” and decry the way landlord and tenant disputes are handled, calling for the provincial government, the courts and the Landlord and Tenant Board to plug obvious holes in the system.

“My recent experience sitting as a single judge of this court to hear motions has convinced me that there is a growing practice by unscrupulous residential tenants to manipulate the law improperly, and often dishonestly, to enable them to remain in their rented premises for long periods of time without having to pay rent to their landlords,” Judge Matlow wrote in his ruling on Ms. D’Amico’s dispute with Mr. Hitti.

“It is [a] practice that imposes an unfair hardship on landlords and reflects badly on the civil justice system in Ontario,” he wrote.

Judge Matlow heard a motion, pressed by Ms. D’Amico, to dismiss Mr. Hitti’s appeal of an eviction order issued by the board made in March.

“The agreed rent pursuant to the lease was $3,600 per month and, at the time of the motion before me, the tenants remained in occupation of the rented premises and were in arrears of rent of approximately $25,000,” Judge Matlow wrote.

“It is my hope that those in a position to amend the rules of this court will consider this judgment and see fit to restrict the right of appeal in residential landlord and tenant cases and, perhaps, require that leave to appeal be obtained before appeals can be brought,” he wrote.

“His appeal raised no bona fide question of law … was totally devoid of merit, vexatious and an abuse of process,” Judge Matlow ruled, ordering Mr. Hitti to pay Ms. D’Amico’s court costs of $13,072.

National Post
• Email: ahumphreys@nationalpost.com | Twitter: AD_Humphreys