Eviction for Non-Payment: Oketch v. Walton & Living v. Maker
Oketch v. Walton
Facts
The Tenants, who were often late in their payments in the prior months, did not pay for rent from October 2020 to July 2021 (Oketch v. Walton, 2021). The household’s income dropped significantly, and the Landlord’s legal representative contacted the family. The contact was unfruitful, as it turned out that one of the Tenants was laid off during the COVID-19 outbreak (Oketch v. Walton, 2021). It is unclear whether the Tenants were back at work at the time of the hearing.
Issue
Initially, the Landlord was unable to contact the Tenants despite trying to do so, even through legal means (Oketch v. Walton, 2021). The Tenants did not provide an adequate answer or react to this situation with any level of reassurance. In turn, they requested to postpone the eviction on the grounds of section 83(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (Oketch v. Walton, 2021). However, no signs of improvement or payments have been made since the request.
Reasons
While the pandemic made a severe blow to the Tenants’ budget, there were no efforts to work on fixing the situation, despite the Tenants receiving the COVID-19 recovery benefits (Oketch v. Walton, 2021). The Landlord exhausted all their methods of contacting the Tenants, although to no avail.
Decision
The tenancy was terminated, and the date for moving out was set, with total payments, including rent and related compensations, expected to be made before leaving the rented property (Oketch v. Walton, 2021). Interest on the late payments will be applied if the Tenants fail to satisfy the decision. Proposed arrears will be discussed separately if the Tenants file a proper motion with the Board.
Living v. Maker
Facts
The Tenant failed to pay the rent from January 2020 to March 2021, during which time he helped his father recover (Living v. Maker, 2021). During that period, the Tenant’s father had his leg amputated, although he recovered after this operation at the time of the hearing. The Tenant’s father is now eligible for $1,800 due to his disability (Living v. Maker, 2021). This pressuring factor caused the Tenant to develop an anxiety disorder.
Issue
The Tenant was served an eviction notice on January 24, 2020, yet refused to accept it and asked for relief under section 83(1) (Living v. Maker, 2021). His father made it impossible to move out and seek another residence. In addition to this issue, the Landlord has discovered that damage was done to the premises (Living v. Maker, 2021). The Tenant refused or was unable to cover the fine for this problem.
Reasons
The household did not produce an income sufficient enough to conduct monthly payments after the Tenant’s father became ill (Living v. Maker, 2021). Such an issue and the Landlord’s eviction notice have caused the Tenant to develop anxiety. Moreover, the Landlord did not seek other options to come to an agreement with the Tenant and find a compromise on the subject (section 83(6)) (Living v. Maker, 2021). The new income from the Tenant’s father’s disability pension will be sufficient to cover the previous debt alongside future rent payments.
Decision
The court decided to decline the Landlord’s request for eviction on the basis of subsection 83(1)(a) and 204(1) of the Act (Living v. Maker, 2021). Additional monthly payments were assigned to gradually compensate the Landlord for the missed rent and expenses related to the case.
References
Living v. Maker, CanLII 85178, (LTB 2021). Web.
Oketch v. Walton, CanLII 142178, (LTB 2021). Web.