Introduction
The landlord and tenant board based in Ontario has been in operation since 2007. This was made to take the place of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal which resolved diverse issues relating to the area tenants and landlords. It is part of the RTA which has been operating lawfully in Canada since 2006. It has been viewed as one sided as many complain that it favors tenants especially when information concealment is concerned. Legally, dispute resolution is referred to when either the tenant or landlord has broken a contract, and acted in a torturous manner thus causing injury to the other party. It is ruled by a dispute resolution officer who makes their judgment in regards to the interpretation of the situation lawfully. It is, however, the duty of the offended to provide sufficient proof that they have undergone diverse damage due, to the actions of the other. In most cases, the RTA provided a chance for the aggrieved to represent themselves and form an argument without necessary seeking for lawyers’ services.
The landlord or the advocate acting on their behalf is expected to fill a form applying for the case to be heard. This was established to ensure effective handling of the many cases brought before the board. It is approximated that the board handles over 75,000 cases annually which are mostly brought by landlords. Notably, most of these cases involve eviction orders which landlords sought to remove some tenants. These evictions are based on rent evasion by tenants or excessive damages done to the premises. The landlord is, therefore, expected to indicate that damage has been caused or the tenant has fallen short of meeting their responsibility of giving rent. This is mostly contained in the landlord tenant agreement written and signed to seal their relation.
One of the major cases which raised diverse arguments and views involved an enraged tenant who was alleged of not paying her rent arrears by different landlords. It is the responsibility of any tenant to pay their landlord rent, and maintenance charges when they fall due. This is indicated in the rent agreement which was provided to the court for evidence. The major road block to these landlords, and the scape goat which the tenant had was the concealment of previous defilements. The landlord and tenant board has different rules in which is the privacy legislature. This rule allows a tenant to conceal their past mischiefs in other rental places for their current landlords.
The privacy legislature allowed the plaintiff to hide earlier shortfalls leading to accumulated complaints from six landlords. One landlord was claiming as much as $7, 000 which the tenant had in arrears. This was done through issuance of defaulting cheques, which would later bounce. She also had the tendency of making part payments when confronted by the landlord. The privacy legislature provides that any tenants history regarding past landlords, and heir payment methods is private thus should not be provided to current landlord. The tenant on her defense claimed that the property was not well maintained making the living conditions become intolerable. This was the reason for her half payments instead of paying the required amount. She also claimed that the landlords have physically and emotionally harassed her in different circumstances an allegation, which was not supported by any tangible evidence.
Such increased eviction cases have been on the rise in Ontario which takes almost 94% of the cases brought to the Board. The current rules which have been viewed to protect the tenants on a high account compared to the landlords have, therefore, reduced their trust in the Board. To reduce this, the Board has directed for different changes to be made to the rules. An eviction period has been set during, which the tenant is expected to repay any arrears owing to the landlord, or rather vacate from the premises. This has worked to protect the sanity of the relation between the two, and reduce the accumulated cases for the Board. This has also protected the financial interests of the landlord.
Conclusion
The formation of the LTB sometime in 2007 was a major challenge for most landlords. It is claimed that it has many rules, which seek to protect eviction of tenants such as the one discussed. The landlord had been unlawfully denied of his rights to receive his dues, and yet the continued delay made eviction complicated. The tenant finally lost the case due to insufficient evidence but this was after a long battle before the Board. The privacy legislature has also been discriminative to the landlords as it prevents them from analyzing the payment habits, and appropriateness of their tenants. On their defense, the Board has claimed that this would be an interruption of the provincial rights to privacy of the tenants. The decisions in this tribunal however lies with the Board which decides whether an order to evict a tenant is appropriate or the tenant can continue in the property, and the amount of expenses to be repaid.
