I am looking for information regarding a dispute I am having with a former tenant.
I rented her a room with a private entrance and private bath but she had access to the family kitchen. Technically, such an arrangement does not fall under the landlord tenant act in Ontario because it is not an enclosed apartment.
At the time of her leaving she agreed that she owed me $700 in unpaid rent.
Now she claims that since the Landlord Tenant Act does not apply, the entire situation had changed.
**According to her, the living situation was such that I was only allowed to charge her 1/4 of my monthly expenses as rent. **
She is convinced that this is found under contract law. And she keeps asking me to search this myself.
If I can find the source of her claim, I have better chance of convincing her she is wrong.
Does anyone know where she is coming from?
Please avoid responses that say
say goodbye to your money (I know that but I still have hope)
she’s crazy (quite possibly unbalanced but she must be getting this from somewhere)
You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Her argument is coming from a position of desire (“I don’t want to pay”) rather than a place of logic. As such, the following arguments to her would have the same result:
“You are not correct.”
“You are not correct, because §4.5(b)(iv) of the Landlord-Tenant Act of 1879 explicitly allows for this situation.”
“In June of 2014, when you agreed that you owed me $700, you established that this debt was valid. You cannot amend those conditions retroactively.”
“I like cheese.”
If you were “sharing expenses” maybe she’d have a point.
IANAL, but it seems to me…
Your (verbal?) contract was for $X per month rent.
Presumably she agreed to this before moving in, and she demonstrated her agreement each month (minus the last few) by paying that money.
By agreeing and holding up her end of the agreement (as you did yours) you two were executing a contract.
Unless she can point to something specific (not, “a friend told me”) that says this sort of contract is illegal (she can’t) then the contract she agreed to is the contract she’s bound to honour.
But I think Dr D is right - you can’t argue logic with a fruit loop.
You can, however, take a fruit loop to court and the loopy makes it easier for you to win.
“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it smart…”
Be sure you have all your ducks in a row before you go to small claims court, ready to quote chapter and verse for the “exempt from Landlord Tenant Act” issue.
A chat site I was on a few years ago, the landlords on the site basically said the Rental Tribunal was designed to make landlords sorry they ever got into the rental market, should they ever get past tenant delaying tactics. Don’t let your ex-tenant have a shot at convincing the judge the case should be punted to there.
I suspect your best bet is to negotiate out of court for the most money you can convince her to pay. You are far better off with her agreeing to pay $500 voluntarily than trying to get and enforce a $700 small claims court judgment against her. Even if you win, how do you think you’re going to collect the money without spending most of the $700 on enforcing it?
For negotiation purposes, note that your expenses, of which she is to pay (up to) 25% should include property taxes, building maintenance, utilities, and amortization of capital invested in house, etc. Probably comes to more than the agreed upon rent, so you’re already doing her a favour only asking $700.
When she says contract law, she may mean “common law”…
At least she is still working outside the residential tenancy acts…
and under some generic law, such as contract or common law.
It is not true that the exemption you mention is exempting you from the Ontario RTA. It is exempting you from the leasing terms, mainly exempting you from having to follow a lengthy eviction procedure, that is subject to notice periods and review (by tribunal,etc)…
Yes. Tenant(s) and Boarders can divide the rent in any manner upon which they agree. However, the Tenant cannot collect more from Boarders than the actual rent being charged by the Landlord. The Tenant(s) is responsible for collecting and paying the rent to the Rental Office each month.
And there it is, the tennant is not to make a profit from subletting to lodgers, boarders,roomers… Perhaps the leasee/“tennant” can live rent free, but not actually make a profit…
According to Platts lane… Suspect you are doomed to RTA and tribunal…
Ah, the differences may be “owner” vs “tennant”.
If you are the owner, then you are exempt from the RTA, as you do not pay rent…
You might think that the persons on lease as as good as an owner, wrt lodgers,boarders,roomers… But no… there’s the complication… if you are the owner, you aren’t prohibited from making a profit off boards,lodgers,roomers…
Redactions by me to leave what I believe to be the relevant facts.
But they bring up some questions:
– Did the agreed-upon rent include a share of the utilities? Or were utilities separate?
– How much was she paying in rent? How much in utilities? On the first of the month, how much in total did she give you, and how was it broken down?
– How much money are you seeking from her? Are you seeking some amount in excess of $700?
I’m just puzzled as to why she agrees that she owes you a certain amount of money for rent, but she disputes the cost of the utilities. You did not mention the utility arrangement, or the cost of utilities, in your OP. So, answers to the above questions will help.
ETA: I’m ignoring the RTA and other issues for now. I’m trying to get at the heart of the original contract; which, once known, will guide us through subsequent issues involving the RTA, common law, etc.
