# Any way a tenant would win an eviction hearing based on sale of property?



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

Hey there folks.,

Did a quick google search and this was the first forum that came up with a real estate subforum., so here goes.

Under what circumstances would a tenant win an eviction trial based on sale of property?

Obviously this tenant refuses to leave their own accord.


Single-Family home, only tenant there. Renting a room in the house only.
No Lease (although this doesn't seem to affect this eviction hearing aspect?
Property is sold pending eviction.

Seems clear cut, but who knows what curve balls a judge would fall for.

LTB Ontario Link


> Can a tenant be evicted in the winter?
> 
> Yes. There is nothing in the Residential Tenancies Act that prevents a tenant from being evicted during the winter months.





> Can a tenant be evicted if the landlord sells the house and the purchaser wants to move in?
> 
> Yes, but only if the rental complex has three or fewer residential units.
> 
> ...


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

If they have no lease offer them cash to leave and tell them you wont call the police to charge them with trespassing ,hopefully they have a drug problem and will take the cash 
My friend has this same issue and I blame her for not doing proper checks on the people ,her tenants have not paid rent in 4 months either...


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

Can they not be forcibly removed by police in this case? Seems like they are quite literally just trespassing if there is no lease...???


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

The LEGAL manner is:

If no lease, landlord MUST give SIXTY days notice if intending to evict based on "sale of property".
Tenant is in their rights to remain until an order of eviction is given, but in fact BEYOND that.
If eviction is achieved at hearing, yet they refuse, landlord can employ Sherrif to forcibly evict (can take another two weeks past?). These fees billed to tenant? Or landlord must pay? I'm not sure.

A tenant can't magically suddenly be trespassing, LOL. The tenant advocacy in Canada is staggering.

That's how it should work. I am enquiring as to whether there is a justifiable cause to overrule tenant eviction based on sale of property?


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

IS OP the tenant or the landlord?I bought a house and kept the tenant without even running a credit check.The house was very well cared for and they even had a dog so it is possible to sell a home with a tenant , many people are looking for investment properties.


----------



## orange (Oct 23, 2011)

Their eviction can be overruled only if the person buying the house does not intend to live in it as their principal residence (or if their family member), but instead will also be renting it out. 

If the buyer intends on using the house as his/her primary residence, or if their family member will be living their, the tenant must leave if they are given appropriate notice.

If, however, the buyer's intent is to rent the house, and they want it unoccupied so they can screen their own tenants, too bad - they/you cannot evict the tenant...they have the right to remain in the apartment and the buyer must inherit the tenant.


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

marina628 said:


> ...tell them you wont call the police to charge them with trespassing ,...


See you recommend here doesn't speak of someone who knows the LTB rules, so I was surprised to hear you have a tenant.


marina628 said:


> ...?I bought a house and kept the tenant....so it is possible to sell a home with a tenant , many people are looking for investment properties.


I'm not suggesting that a tenant MUST vacate upon sale lol, Of course if a new buyer, such as yourself, is fine with the tenant, then conditions can remain as they are.

Of course, not everyone wants a tenant., hence the question.

At the same time, how strongly (if at all) can a tenant substantiate/avoid being evicted. Sometimes a great setup is worth fighting for. Just want to know if there's a legal leg to stand on for the tenant.


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

orange said:


> Their eviction can be overruled only if the person buying the house does not intend to live in it as their principal residence (...


Oh thanks for finding that, I forgot to post it.

Yep,
This exception appears to be the only one.

Assuming the buyer will use it as the primary residence, then is there anything the tenant can do?


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

The purchaser had better be a stranger and the house listed on the open market. 

I could see an adjudicator being suspicious of a non arm's length purchaser. 

Furthermore an additional problem you may well encounter is with the delays inherent in the Ontario Landlord & Tenant Board it may well cost you your buyer. 

These applications are hard to make because...so many people are "faking" these applications to try to get rid of bad tenants. So bring plenty of documentation with you.


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

Berubeland said:


> The purchaser had better be a stranger and the house listed on the open market. . .


Hmmm, Check, and check.

I don't think logistics vis-a-vis the LTB is a concern now, just interested in what a tenant may do to beat said eviction.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Delay is your enemy. The worst thing that could happen is your tenant could appeal the ruling at Divisional Court after the Landlord & Tenant Board which would take another 6 months or so to quash. 

You don't really need grounds to appeal. And they might even get free legal aid.


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

Hmmm, since you brought it up:

So can you explain the timeline?

Say today *Feb 1*, notice of eviction delivered. +60days
*Apr 1*, Tenant has to leave.

Assuming: Hearing is held, and won by LL.

Two scenarios:
a-tenant abides, leaves done.

b-tenant refuses to leave, 
i-Sherrif. How exactly does this work? LandLord (LL) or tenant pays for this? Do you need approval/permission? Or soon as the Hearing is concluded and substantiated for the eviction, the LL can call on this office? Sheriff shows up and forcibly evicts tenant?

Under i, assuming Apr 1 is when eviction has to happen as decreed by hearing, when would the Sheriff theoretically be evicting the tenant? days? weeks? or if they're free, they head over that day?

That is, is there a waiting period to get the Sherrif at your door? Is it really "you have an hour to vacate" or do they give a couple days?

ii:
Where in this sequence does 'appeal' come into play?

If there's an eviction for the tenant, but refuses to leave and is appealing, can you still forcibly evict? or so long as the tenant 'appeals' (is this a stay or whatever it's called?), then it's hands off (by the Sheriff) till that appeal is held and concluded?

Berubeland., appreciate your blog. Spent 15mins or so rummaging through it.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

marina628 said:


> If they have no lease offer them cash to leave and tell them you wont call the police to charge them with trespassing ,hopefully they have a drug problem and will take the cash
> My friend has this same issue and I blame her for not doing proper checks on the people ,her tenants have not paid rent in 4 months either...


That was my attempt to be funny ,I have several rentals and have yet to ask one to leave but I do know no matter how much notice you give them they can dig their heels in and fight you on it .


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

How long have you had this tenant?Do they pay their rent on time?Is there any reason you believe you could have a problem getting them out?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

As a past homeowner for many years, and a recent tenant..........

If a landlord wanted me to leave for their own considerations, I would be appreciative of some of the cost of moving to a new location, to satisfy their request.

Moving is stressful and expensive, and some consideration between landlord and tenant would always be a good thing.

As I understant the law as well........if the property is being put up for sale......does not the tenant have the right of first refusal?


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

iloverfd: I think if that happens, murder might be the easier option. I'm kidding. Kind of.

Don't forget you can't file the application for hearing until the original 60 days is up, even if you know they're not leaving. At that point, you get a hearing date and have to serve notice of this to the tenant at least 5 days in advance, so figure at least another week or two. At the hearing, if you win, they will set another date the tenant must leave by, a week or two later, so you're already into one full month lost. 

Then after that date passes, you can file for the sheriff, probably starting into the second month lost if all goes well and smooth. The sheriff comes and changes the locks and removes the person (not their stuff). You must then hold their stuff somewhere for 48 hours and allow them to pick it up from that place before disposing of it.

And that's assuming they don't actually make the legal appeal, which could take a few months. I've never had to go through that though.


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

sags said:


> ...As I understant the law as well........if the property is being put up for sale......does not the tenant have the right of first refusal?


How well do you understand it? 



financialnoob said:


> ...Don't forget you can't file the application for hearing until the original 60 days is up, even if you know they're not leaving....


The lawyer has already filed for the hearing well before the 60days, so I'm wondering where you're getting it has to be AFTER the 60 days have elapsed. Seems kind of significant if you're so adamant about this point.

Also, What is 'first refusal'? Can I see an official link to this?

@marina628. The tenant has no interest of leaving. Rent below market, absurdly wasting utilities without repercussions (Utilities included in rent), why would anybody give that up without a fight? Already won a previous attempt to evict  (not same reason).

Rent paid on time., but frankly with significant increase in utilities, and the lack of other tenants, it doesn't amount to anything.

Used to have 2 other tenants, but were driven out. Haven't been able to replace them yet. Quiet & Clean rental, No need to share common area with anybody, Heck I'd be fighting tooth and nail to stay where I was.

So other than this 'first refusal', is there anything else that can be done? Faking injury? Mental Health? Disability? Financial stress of moving? In theory, what could be done to allow this adjudicator to ignore the law and do as they were sold into doing, due to a great hearing performance .


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

You learn from your mistakes ,never include utilities in the rent .One of my tenants who has been there three years asked us to consider taking $100 a month off rent as utilities have increased ,I told her so has my taxes and my own utilities so no way.She still pays her rent on time and considering she pays $300 less than a older house down the street i think she will make sure she pays on time.
My friend who has not received rent in 4 months may lose the deal on the house over her tenant situation as it closes March 1 and no sign of getting tenant out yet.One thing she did recently was talk to the welfare agent who cut off the welfare because they were given rent money and used it for other stuff.She probably should have used that as leverage as now they have no welfare check for the month so not hope in hell she will get money.She wants to get them out and this point not about the money ,they are squatters not tenants IMO ...BTW I would never rent to anyone on welfare either although some landlords love to buy crap houses and rent to people on welfare.My oldest house was built in 2006 and my tenants had jobs and decent credit ,they can lose their jobs nothing is for granted but our rents start at $1100+ so don't think welfare could cover it anyway.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

In the Landlord Doomsday Scenario the timeline would be as follows. 

Landlord puts house on the market.

He sells the place with a 60 day closing but he can * only give notice at the end of the lease or if the tenant is month to month with 60 day notice. Proper 60 day notice can only be given at the latest the last day of the month. So...

If your house sells the 10th of January you could give the paper right away but the 60 day countdown begins the 1st of Feb with the tenant vacating March 31st. (April 1st) 

So your tenant doesn't move, you take your notice and certificate of service to the Landlord & Tenant Board along with the L-2 Application form. 

Now with the N-12 most landlords will wait to see if the tenant moves first. This is a mistake. File right away.

Assuming you didn't file right away but hurry down to the Landlord & Tenant Board the day after they were supposed to leave, you'll have to wait for a court day, depending where you are, it can take another 6 weeks. 

You go to court the Adjudicator gives you an order which gives your tenant an additional 11 days before they have to move. 

They still don't move...

You wait the 12 days and go down to the Sheriff's office, bring $330-$380 with you.

Wait 8 weeks in Toronto or less if you live in other area's before the sheriff comes. The Hamilton Sheriff is fantastic. 

The sheriff comes to kick out your tenant....

Unless a few days before the sheriff is supposed to come you find out the order is stayed.

The tenant has asked for a review. The landlord & tenant board has granted a review because ??? doesn't matter you get to wait until the next court date. Yes the tenant will get another 11 days. Yes the sheriff will take their sweet time Again. 

Or the tenant has appealed the decision to Divisional Court. You will have to get an expensive lawyer and when the court date comes up 6 months in the future he'll spend 15 minutes of his time to get the thing thrown out. It doesn't matter that'll cost you $1500.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

If you are local hire Rachelle


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

^^ Thank you for that post. Very informative. Certainly is a Doomsday scenario lol. Does any of that cost come back on the tenant, or is the LL entirely on the hook for it?

Can you sue for costs back or something?


What exactly is a Sherriffff? Is it a rank, or is it simply the OPP?


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

My mistake, it was early and I was braindead. Was thinking of rental arrears, where you cannot file until after the date has passed. But Berubeland is absolutely correct (as always) that for this type of form, you can file the day after serving notice, which it sounds like your lawyer has already done.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Why do you want to get rid of the tenant - are they a bad tenant?


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

@ financialnoob, thanks for clarifying.

^The objective is selling the house, vacant. By process of elimination, & stating the obvious-obviously the buyers will only buy it vacant. I don't think be it a good or bad tenant is relevant, unless you can suggest otherwise?

Although, in the eyes of reputable tenants, society at large, common sense...and a LL, a good tenant would've moved out sensibly?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Let's be fair here. Moving house is not something you can do overnight. The custom in Ontario is, 60 days notice on both sides. It is hard to find a good rental less than 60 days out because that is how things work.

So, 60 days is barely enough time to find a good rental and get set to move.

If it was my house I would not disturb the tenants, although I would tell them I am getting set to sell (and ask them if they would like to buy it, before I list it).

The buyer may want the house as a rental. Or, may not want the house immediately.

If the buyer wants possession immediately tell them it takes 60 days minimum. You can give the tenant notice as soon as you have a signed offer BUT be sure you get a substantial deposit, at least 10% over and above the RE commission. This deposit is NOT refundable if the buyer backs out. Notice should be timed to coincide with the buyer's date of possession or later unless the buyer wants to pay you for lost rent.

Give the tenant notice as quickly as possible so they have time to make their own preparations. An extra week, 2 weeks or month is very useful. This may be possible if the property is not closing right away.

If this does not suit the buyer tough beans. 60 days minimum is the law. If they want possession sooner they may negotiate something with the tenant ($$$$ for moving early) but that is out of your hands. If they insist on faster possession or no deal, then no deal. Write that one off and go on to the next buyer.

This is all fair, and legal. It is not very nice on the tenant but you should give them the best break you can IF they have been good tenants. You might even kick in a few bucks towards moving expenses if they have been real good.

This is all based on 35 years as a small landlord.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

iloverfd said:


> @ financialnoob, thanks for clarifying.
> 
> ^The objective is selling the house, vacant. By process of elimination, & stating the obvious-obviously the buyers will only buy it vacant. I don't think be it a good or bad tenant is relevant, unless you can suggest otherwise?
> 
> Although, in the eyes of reputable tenants, society at large, common sense...and a LL, a good tenant would've moved out sensibly?


It just seems like you have a tenant that pays the rent and you want to illegally kick them out for your own benefit.

If that is the case, then I wish you no success.


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

^^ Your comments are very fair indeed, if this was a good tenant, and this was all very sudden. At the same time, let's be fair., a buyer has the right to do as they please with a property. It's not fair to penalize someone who's putting down cold hard cash into a home, just because a renter doesn't want to move. By penalize, I mean, make them choose to not buy this property, or accept it with the current conditions (Be they reasonable or simply prepostrous to accept anybody to accept) in place., IE tenant.

The house has been on the market for quite awhile in fact., already fell through a few times previously because tenant wouldn't leave, though no legal proceedings in those attempts-as they are currently-took place, so THIS time it is a little different., hence this thread.

I've been trying to avoid being more detailed than this, because frankly it seems irrelevant, simply from an official standpoint "what could be done to fight this eviction". That said, and in not so many words, this is NOT a good tenant.

I'm curious now, what could be gained to strengthen the case if it can be presented that the tenant is a bad tenant?

^ I realize it is a little difficult as I'm not willing to divulge the details, but on the surface, the law doesn't revolve around your sentiments, but around...law. How is this eviction 'illegal'? If it is illegal., then kindly offer a standpoint to take for the tenant.


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

Four Pillars said:


> It just seems like you have a tenant that pays the rent and you want to illegally kick them out for your own benefit...


Are you suggesting, that every tenant who pays rent should never be evicted, if the home/property is sold to a buyer who doesn't want the tenant(s)??


----------



## GreenAvenue (Dec 28, 2011)

I didn't read all of the posts but being a landlord myself I would try the 'try to catch a fly with honey' - approach. I tried it myself twice and it works as a charm. I wrote a letter explaining "that the rent agreement is going to end because of sale of the property. When rents were below market value I'd let them know the new house owner will increase these to market value. 
Mentioning 'eviction' sets of the wrong emotions. Let them do the math, they'll most likely leave as they did with me. 

In case of unpaid rent I changed the locks and invited them to go to court, as mentioned in the contract I have with them. Illegal? I know but since they couldn't pay the rent they can't pay for registration fee's at the court's clerk either. 

But I'd try the friendly way first if you want to evict. On the other hand, I have purchased all my properties with the tenants already there which was a nice perk IMO. I believe a buyer is more interested in a tenant in the property he buys. Good luck, please don't forget to keep us posted!


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

As an investor we look for homes with tenants and when we view we look for any damage signs of what we can expect.We only buy single family homes and although ROI is not as good as having a home with basement apartment from my experience you have less issues.
Did you ever have a lease with these tenants as normally you sign a lease and when it expires it is month to month.In our case we sign a new lease every year with our tenants.
Maybe instead of evicting them you should force them to take over utilities and do a fair rent increase and try selling it as an investment property.New owner who legitimately wants to move in may have better change than you to get them out.Your investment is their home ,the tenants pay their rent and that in itself is a blessing these days.
How long have you had this property?what do you mean by other tenants were drove out?by you or by tenant who remains?


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

iloverfd said:


> Are you suggesting, that every tenant who pays rent should never be evicted, if the home/property is sold to a buyer who doesn't want the tenant(s)??


I'm suggesting that the laws regarding that sort of situation should be obeyed. 

I'm not very knowledgeable about this stuff - most of what I know, I've learned from Rachelle.

From what I understand (and I could be wrong and I know there are different laws in different provinces), in Ontario if you sell a property that has a tenant, you can't kick them out. 

The person buying can't kick them out either unless they (or a relative) is going to live in the property.

You've indicated that you would prefer to sell the house without the tenant. I think that is a reasonable desire, however if the tenant wants to stay, then I think you have to accept it and move on.

It appears to me (and I apologize if I've misunderstood) that you are looking for a solution (legal or otherwise) to get the tenant out.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

As a small landlord I have been in the position before, of selling a house with tenants in it. This does not stop you from selling. If you evict the tenants just because you want to sell you will lose a lot of money in lost rent. This is foolish if you do it only because you hope to please some future buyer you have not even met. Sell it with the tenant in place.

Do you have any other reason for evicting? If the tenants are clean, well behaved, pay rent on time you are unfair to evict for no reason. If they are bad tenants, behind on the rent etc then you can evict regardless of whether you want to sell or not.

I could see, if they trashed the place and were behind in the rent you might want to get them out, fix the place up and sell it. In that case you should have no problem getting an eviction whether you are selling or not.

If you just want to sell and there are no tenant problems why rock the boat? Let the tenants know what is going on. Go ahead and sell. Maybe the buyer is looking for an investment and a good tenant in place is a plus. Maybe they do not need to move in right away. Who knows what some future buyer might want?

I say don't rock the boat until you have a buyer. Let the agent deal with this issue.

PS It is illegal to evict a tenant for no reason. This is as it should be.


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

Four Pillars said:


> ...
> I'm not very knowledgeable about this stuff....in Ontario if you sell a property that has a tenant, you can't kick them out.....


ahhh, well, I have quoted from the LTB website in the first post, the specific laws in this case. Which clearly state that new ownership (SPECIFICALLY rental property has <=3 units, new owner will use as personal home and use personally) is a valid reason to evict a tenant. It doesn't say there are any exceptions. Simply that. I'm sure of course notwithstanding that the sale is kosher, but otherwise, no exceptions to this legitimate cause for eviction.

Hope that helps .



Four Pillars said:


> ...The person buying can't kick them out either unless they (or a relative) is going to live in the property....


Ahh, yep-you gottur!



@ Rusty: I would definately agree if you're not at the final stages of closing (and no tenants was a condition to the sale), then yeah, why worry about it. If they're great tenants, certainly-but then great tenants wouldn't need anything more than a courteous request and perhaps incentive to vacate. If the potential buyer WANTS tenants, then of course it's a bonus. Of course, not every home owner wants to buy a home to keep it as a rental property, or requires an income supplement that would come from a tenant(s) in their own home, but rather, some purchasers might in fact want the home all to themself? Is that such an outlandish concept? LOL, I certainly agree you can't evict for 'no reason'. haha, that hurts my feelings ...I think I've established (allbeit shrouded in anonymity & inspecifics) this isn't the case .


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Very early in my career I was managing a portfolio of about 50 income properties that were all on the market because the owner and his wife were splitting up. 

It was not a fire sale. 

The agents did not like it that we kept the property tenanted. It is very inconvenient for them to show the property with tenants in place, you have to make appointments and sometimes have problems with showings. 

Personally if I was the owner of a tenanted property I would have it no other way. Once a property becomes empty it becomes a giant sinkhole for your cash and puts you in a much weaker bargaining position if an offer comes in. 

If the place is full, and it's cash flowing it's no problem to keep if the offer is weak or lower than expected. If the place is costing you a couple thousand per month you'll be have incentive to take the first offer rather than the best offer that may come 6 months down the road. Who does this benefit?

Plus from an income property perspective, an empty property is worth $0 if it's empty. It kind of makes me laugh when I see listings of empty income properties sometimes with the note for "easy showings" of course if it's a single family home that's different. 

If the tenant is good and is paying market rent there is no problem. The problems come when you have entrenched tenants who pay less than market rent. No investor wants them to stay obviously. In fact the standard of care required for a tenant who pays below market and a tenant who pays market rent is the same.


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

Berubeland said:


> ...If the place is full, and it's cash flowing it's no problem to keep if the offer is weak or lower than expected. If the place is costing you a couple thousand per month you'll be have incentive to take the first offer rather than the best....course if it's a single family home that's different...


Absolutely makes sense *if* an income property, which this particular one isn't., If you didn't have a purchase agreement for a home (that needed it vacant), and you had good tenants, I would of course agree to keep the tenants just the same, as everybody has suggeseted. Money is money . Pretty obvious decision to me.

So after a couple days, other than simply ensuring being legit-crossing all T's and dotting all I's., it appears that there isn't anything other than delaying (by appealing) the inevitable, that a tenant can do? Any last minute thoughts?


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Do it all by the book and if it means losing a sale or having to keep it empty for months trying to sell I think you have learned valuable lesson from this.It may be better if you just lay it out there what they are doing that makes them bad tenants and maybe I missed it but did they ever have a lease?


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

m2m., although (having a lease) doesn't seem to be a valid exception to the rule.


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

So:

The scumbag tenant, got a bribe to leave. The court hearing came, the tenant sent a "buddy" lawyer, with some delay request attesting to some bogus blah blah blah, anyway, owners decided (thru their lawyer) to just pay him off. I feel bad for them, but hey, let yourself get so caught up in bed with a lowlife such as this person, and you pretty much have nobody but yourself to blame, sadly.

We paid nothing to do with eviction fees, lawyer ref housing, bribe (of course I'm being satyrical, it was an "eviction settlement" or whatever it's legally called), etc., Thankfully, close date was met, tenant left without damaging the property (just left it STINKING, thankfully a good triple shampooing resolved that hehe)....and we are now proud, ecstatic new home owners!!!

Yay!!!

Sadly, we couldn't actually find out what would have happened had we had the time to do the proper legal avenue.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

So you were the buyer ,Congrats to you on your new home.


----------



## ghostryder (Apr 5, 2009)

iloverfd said:


> Single-Family home, only tenant there. Renting a room in the house only.
> No Lease (although this doesn't seem to affect this eviction hearing aspect?
> Property is sold pending eviction.



Not that it matters now, but was this "tennant" sharing kitchen & bathroom with the homeowner?


http://www.ltb.gov.on.ca/en/Key_Information/STEL02_111462.html



> the Act does not apply if:
> 
> •the tenant must share a kitchen or bathroom with the owner, or certain family members of the owner;


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

It's really too bad the owner paid him off. Rewarding bad behaviour is part of the reason bad tenants keep getting worse. Funny thing is I ended up at the Landlord & Tenant Board the other day and a tenant trying to get an extension to stay in the house got 10 days from the hearing to move, and his wife is 9 months pregnant. He said he couldn't move because his wife was pregnant. 

Plus the landlord even got early filing... 

This means that the minute they get the order they cn go to the sheriff with it and save those 10 days if they suspect that the tenant won't leave until they get the sheriff letter.


----------



## iloverfd (Feb 6, 2012)

marina628 said:


> So you were the buyer ,Congrats to you on your new home.


yes. Forgive our trepidation with allowing even the remotest fidelity previously on who we could be, as we truly thought we were going to lose the house if this ******* couldn't get kicked out ...and so somehow I thought me asking for help here (had he found out) would hinder our chances.../facepalm.



ghostryder said:


> Not that it matters now, but was this "tennant" sharing kitchen & bathroom with the homeowner?
> 
> 
> http://www.ltb.gov.on.ca/en/Key_Information/STEL02_111462.html


separate kitchen & bathroom. 3 bedrooms in basement, full bath & kitchen in basement. Scumbag was renting x1 of the bedrooms. The other two had been vacant for yeras, because this tenant sent the other two renters RUSHING for the door. We end up with a brand new renovated basement floor, 2 fully reno'd (carpet) bedrooms that were hardly used, and only his room which used a good carpet shampooing to revitalize.

From that link:
"But these units are still covered by most of the other rules in the Act, such as maintenance and the reasons for eviction." Which, had it been the case and not fallen under that condition, vis-a-vis eviction, it would still be upheld.


^ I certainly agree, it doesn't solve anything for the next would-be landlord of this scumbag leech ...REALLY wish there could be a database of bad tenants that landlords could share. hehe.


----------

