The Tenant, another occupant or someone he permitted in the residential complex has: Willfully or negligently caused undue damage to the premises
Substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment or lawful right, privilege or interest of the Landlord or another tenant; Used the rental unit or residential complex in a manner that is inconsistent with the use as residential premises and caused significant damage.Seriously impaired the safety of any person.
The Landlord also applied for an order requiring the Tenant to compensate the Landlord for the damage and claimed compensation for each day the Tenant remained in the unit after the termination date.
The Landlord failed to satisfy the Board that: The damage caused when the pipe burst under the sink was due to the Tenant’s willfulness or negligence.
The Landlord had no proof that the Tenant did not void the part of the notice alleging substantial interference with the reasonable enjoyment or lawful right, privilege or interest of the Landlord or another tenant in the seven days after the notice was served; The Tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or someone he permitted in the residential complex used the rental unit in a manner that is inconsistent with its use as residential premises; The Tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or someone he permitted in the residential complex had seriously impaired the safety of any person.
This was a case where a Landlord was attempting to evict a Tenant based upon their rights in the Residential Tenancy Act. However, when the claims were reviewed by the Board, it became apparent that there was no evidence to support such claims and the Landlord’s application was dismissed. This case demonstrates that a Landlord cannot simply use the Residential Tenancies Act as ammunition to evict a Tenant without substantial reason!
I felt that the Landlord just wanted be to move out for no reason,I’m glad I retained Kevin R. Hodge to represent me at the Landlord and Tenant Board as I was able to maintain my tenancy.
Disclaimer:past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.