RTA subsection 27(3) says that a 24 hours' written notice of entry "shall specify the reason for entry, the day of entry and a time of entry between the hours of 8 am and 8 pm".
We know that a 6-hour window and a 9-hour window were considered too wide for an annual inspection of fire alarm equipment in the Divisional Court decision in Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2007 CanLII 3228 (ON SCDC), <http://canlii.ca/t/1qh2d>, but there are also questions on how the Board ruled or might tend to rule on other windows.
Please note that these types of scenarios would be extremely fact-driven. Also, LTB decisions are not binding. For any specific case or question, please get legal advice.
_________________________________
The Landlord's Right of Entry into a Rental Unit
From LTB Interpretation Guideline 19:
From LTB Interpretation Guideline 19:
From Section "Specifying the time of entry":
"What is a reasonable window of time will depend upon the facts and circumstances in each case. Where the landlord exercises control over the work being done and who is doing the work, the notice should be reasonably specific with respect to the time for entry. Where the landlord does not exercise control over the work being done or the person who is doing the work, the notice should set out a reasonable window of time for entry.
For example, where the work is being done by a cable or telephone company and the company specifies a reasonable window of time when it will be at the rental unit, a landlord may reasonably specify that same window. Where the same or similar work is being done in a number of units on the same day, a reasonable window of time may be specified.
In determining whether the specified window of time is reasonable, consideration should be given to the type and complexity of repair, replacement or work being undertaken, the location of the work and the extent to which the entry affects the tenant's ability to use the rental unit.
The Divisional Court in Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation found that while a landlord is not required to specify the exact hour and minute of a required entry into a rental unit, a written notice providing for a nine hour period for entry to permit the landlord to carry out an annual inspection of smoke detector equipment does not comply with the requirements that the notice specify a time of entry between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m."
_________________________________
Links to some decisions:
1) limit to 1 hour / narrow down to 2 hours:
NOL-21995-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 22068 (ON LTB), par. 41, <http://canlii.ca/t/gpmql#par41>
2) 3-hour window reasonable / “needed to include a three-hour window for the intended entry”:
SWT-95157-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28701 (ON LTB), par. 41, <http://canlii.ca/t/h3r6x#par41>
3) “no longer than 3 hours” (4-hour notice was used in that case):
TSL-82646-17-SA (Re), 2017 CanLII 60803 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/h5zff>
4) exceeding 3 hours “fails to meet requirements”, “improper notice”:
TST-53171-14 (Re), 2014 CanLII 58633 (ON LTB), par. 10, <http://canlii.ca/t/gdvhs#par10>
5) 2 to 4-hour window “not unreasonable”:
TSL-24103 (Re), 2014 CanLII 28876 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/g75cq>
6) 4-hour window accepted:
TST-88106-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42702 (ON LTB), par. 9, <http://canlii.ca/t/hs0hj#par9>
7) 4-hour window “acceptable”:
TNT-63888-14 (Re), 2015 CanLII 54769 (ON LTB), par. 26, <http://canlii.ca/t/gkzdg#par26>
TST-88106-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42702 (ON LTB), par. 9, <http://canlii.ca/t/hs0hj#par9>
8) “should indicate on the notice of entry a shorter duration period (for example 4 hours)”:
TST-79558-16-RV (Re), 2017 CanLII 60135 (ON LTB), par. 11, <http://canlii.ca/t/h5zmr#par11>
9) 5-hour window “to locate a leak” “too broad”, “imprecise”; but 5-hour window accepted “to check leak from toilet”:
TST-43738-13 (Re), 2014 CanLII 49226 (ON LTB), par. 11, <http://canlii.ca/t/g8rlf#par11>
10) 6 hours and a half “not in accordance with the RTA”, “too long of a time span”:
TNL-20253-19 (Re), 2020 CanLII 31177 (ON LTB), par. 8, <http://canlii.ca/t/j6vf3#par8>
11) 7-hour window “failed to meet the requirements of the Act”, “deficient notice”:
TNT-92678-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 60844 (ON LTB), par. 7, <http://canlii.ca/t/h5zcc#par7>
12) 7 to 9-hour window “defective”, “failed to specify a time within an unduly lengthy window”:
SWT-83479-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88797 (ON LTB), par. 104, <http://canlii.ca/t/gw4rh#par104>
13) 8-hour window "unreasonable in the circumstances”, “obviously not a time of entry”:
TST-93623-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 111691 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/hw7rw>
14) 8-hour window “does not comply with the requirement”, “non-compliant with the Act”:
TNT-96306-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 142715 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/hrx6f>
15) 8-hour window “illegal entry”, “not valid”:
TST-73738-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 44267 (ON LTB), par. 15, <http://canlii.ca/t/gsk76#par15>
16) 8-hour window “does not meet the requirements of the Act”, “broad”:
TET-70996-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 72214 (ON LTB), par. 10, <http://canlii.ca/t/gv97z#par10>
17) 9-hour window and 6-hour window “does not comply with the requirement”, “illegal entry”:
Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2007 CanLII 3228 (ON SCDC), <http://canlii.ca/t/1qh2d>
__________________________________
In more detail:
1) "Shall not exceed one hour per day” / “failed to narrow the approximate time of entry to a 2 hour window”:
NOL-21995-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 22068 (ON LTB), par. 41, <http://canlii.ca/t/gpmql#par41>
“41. The Landlord provided the Tenants with eight written notices of entry to address maintenance work inside of the home (Landlord exhibit #3 through 10). Three of the Landlord’s notices are defective because they improperly identified arrival times between the hours of 10:00 am and 4:30 p.m. and failing to narrow the approximate time of entry to a 2 hour window.”
“7. The Landlord shall be permit to access the rental unit rental unit garage on Monday to Friday weekdays only and at a pre-determined and mutually agreed upon fixed time between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. each day. The Landlord’s Monday to Friday presence at the garage shall not exceed one hour per day and the Landlord’s employees shall endeavour to minimize excessive noise while at the garage.”
____________
2) 3-hour window reasonable / “needed to include a three-hour window for the intended entry”:
SWT-95157-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28701 (ON LTB), par. 41, <http://canlii.ca/t/h3r6x#par41>
“Allegation about Bad Faith Notice of Entry and Compliance with the Act:
41. The Landlord stated he owns eight student properties and in September of every year, he hires a contractor to attend each property and complete a general inspection which includes changing the batteries in all the smoke detectors. The Landlord stated that he did not know a notice of entry needed to include a three-hour window for the intended entry. His practice has been to set the inspections all for one day, and the time the contractor actually shows up depends on how fast the he has completed the inspections on the other properties. In this case, the Landlord testified the contractor ran out of time and the inspection was not completed on the Tenant’s townhouse until a few weeks later.”
_____________
3) “No longer than three hours”:
TSL-82646-17-SA (Re), 2017 CanLII 60803 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/h5zff>
"The notice of entry indicated the entry would take place some time between 1:00pm and 5:00pm. The proposed entry was just within the window provided in the notice of entry.
15. The Tenant’s legal representative had also suggested that the Tenant’s failure to comply (at least in the case before me) had some connection to the fact that the Landlord sought to enter the unit at the end of the time window that had been set out in the notice of entry. It may not be practical to require the Landlord to tell the Tenant when an entry will take place later in a time window (as this is the kind of thing the Landlord may not know until later in the time window). However, it would not create a hardship for the Landlord to require the Landlord to provide a shorter window of time for entries and I believe that this would address the Tenant’s frustration.
It is ordered that:
[…]
7B. Any notice of entry served by the Landlord shall set out a time window of no longer than three hours for the time of the entry.”
_____________
4) Exceeding 3 hours “fails to meet requirements”, “improper notice”:
TST-53171-14 (Re), 2014 CanLII 58633 (ON LTB), par. 10, <http://canlii.ca/t/gdvhs#par10>
“7. The parties are in agreement that the Landlord served four written notices of entry on the Tenant for the following days:
a) January 7, 2014 between the hours of 11:00AM to 4:00PM “to spray for cockroaches”;
b) January 14, 2014 between the hours of 11:00AM to 5:00PM “Per shower repair/maintenance”;
c) February 6, 2014 between the hours of 12:00AM to 1:00PM “to spray you apartment”; and
d) February 14, 2014 between the hours of 9:00AM to 5:00PM “to install breaker panels”.
8. It is the Tenant’s position that all the notices fail to meet the requirements under subsection 27(3) of the Act because they do not state that the time of entry will be from 8:00AM to 8:00PM. The Tenant is relying on Wrona v. T.CH.C., [2007] O.J. No. 423 (Ont. Div. Ct.) as her authority.
9. As I stated at the hearing, I disagree with the Tenant’s interpretation of the court’s decision. In Wrona, the court found that a landlord cannot indicate a six or nine hour period during which an entry will occur; the notice must specify a time within the 12-hour window permitted under the Act. In other words, a landlord should indicate on the notice of entry a shorter duration period (for example 3 hours) during which a landlord or its agent may enter the rental unit rather than something as vague as between the hours of 8 to 8.
10. Having reviewed the notices of entry, I find that three of the notices fail to meet the requirements set out in the Act because the duration or window in time given exceeds more than three hours. As a result, the entries on January 7, 14 and February 14th are deemed to be illegal because improper notice was given.”
_____________
5) 2 - to - 4 hour window “not unreasonable”:
TSL-24103 (Re), 2014 CanLII 28876 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/g75cq>
The Tenant complained that the Landlord served him multiple notices of entry, for example in April 2009, the Landlord served the Tenant notices of entry for April 9, 13, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29. In May 2009 the Landlord served notices of entry for May 1, 5, 8, 11. The Tenant also submitted that the notices did not accurately reflect the time needed to do the repairs. Most of the notices indicated that the Landlord would remain in the rental unit two to four hours, or even longer, but the Landlord often stayed for a shorter period of time. On one occasion despite a four hour window, the Landlord only attended for 10 -15 minutes to inspect the rental unit. On August 25, 2010, despite having served a notice of entry, the Landlord did not attend at all. This caused a major inconvenience to the Tenant because the Tenant wished to be present while the Landlord was in the unit. The Tenant was concerned that the Landlord would access the Tenant’s personal information.
Based on quantity and quality of the disrepair issues, I am not satisfied that the service of multiple notices constituted harassment or seriously interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the premises. These notices were served after the Tenant presented the Landlord with a long list of complaints, and after the Municipal Licensing and Standards order was issued. The Landlord was addressing the disrepair. The Tenant is not required to be present at the rental unit when the Landlord attends to do the repair. If he wishes to be present, that is the Tenant’s choice and he must bear the consequences. A two to four hour window of entry is not unreasonable."
_____________
6) 4-hour window accepted:
TST-88106-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42702 (ON LTB), par. 9, <http://canlii.ca/t/hs0hj#par9>
“9. The notice of entry was served on the Tenants more than 24 hours prior to the proposed entry, it provided a four hour of window of entry, and it stated that the entry was for the purpose of carrying out a repair or replacement or doing work in the rental unit.”
_____________
7) 4-hour window “acceptable”, “particularly where repairs by an outside contractor are required”:
TNT-63888-14 (Re), 2015 CanLII 54769 (ON LTB), par. 26, <http://canlii.ca/t/gkzdg#par26>
“25. The Ontario Divisional Court in Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corp. (2007) 2007 Carswell Ont 693, has held that a landlord cannot indicate a six or nine hour period during which an entry will occur.
26. Although there is no case law specifically on point, a 4 hour window of time within the 12 hour period of entry permitted by the Act is acceptable, particularly where repairs by an outside contractor are required.
27. In this case there was no time at all provided to the Tenant in the Notices of Entry. I therefore find that the four Notices of Entry did not comply with the requirements of the Act.”
TST-88106-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42702 (ON LTB), par. 9, <http://canlii.ca/t/hs0hj#par9>
“9. The notice of entry was served on the Tenants more than 24 hours prior to the proposed entry, it provided a four hour window of entry, and it stated that the entry was for the purpose of carrying out a repair or replacement or doing work in the rental unit.
10. It is uncontested that the Tenants took the position, when they were served this notice, that it was not adequate as it did not state the precise repair to be undertaken.”
_____________
8) “Should indicate on the notice of entry a shorter duration period (for example 4 hours)”:
TST-79558-16-RV (Re), 2017 CanLII 60135 (ON LTB), par. 11, <http://canlii.ca/t/h5zmr#par11>
“11. The Divisional Court in Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corp., [2007] O.J. No. 423 (Ont. Div. Ct.) has found that a landlord cannot indicate a six or nine hour period during which an entry will occur. In other words, the notice of entry must specify a time within the 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. window permitted under the Act. What this means is that a landlord should indicate on the notice of entry a shorter duration period (for example 4 hours) during which a landlord or its agent may enter the rental unit rather than something as vague as between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
12. Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, I find that the Landlord illegally entered the unit on May 20, 2016. The Landlord provided insufficient evidence to establish that the entry into the unit without notice was due to an emergency situation.
13. I find that the Landlord illegally entered the unit on November 16 and November 18, 2016. I say this because I find that the notices of November 11, 2016, were not valid, as it did not specify a time of entry between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. I also considered that, notwithstanding, the Tenant permitted or consented to the Landlord’s entry to the unit on November 16 and 18, Wrona also indicated that consent does not waive the requirements of a notice of entry. What this means is that an invalid notice of entry is still invalid, even if the tenant consents to the entry.”
_____________
9) Notices “highly imprecise” (including 5-hour window notices):
TST-43738-13 (Re), 2014 CanLII 49226 (ON LTB), par. 11, <http://canlii.ca/t/g8rlf#par11>
“8. On ten occasions from September, 2013 to April, 2014, three months after the application was filed, the Landlord served on the Tenant notices of entry that were highly imprecise. Excluding the dates, which were not in dispute, these notices provided the following time ranges and reasons, reproduced exactly and chronologically:
Time Range Reason
(a) 8AM 5PM Inspect smoke detectors, plumbing
(b) 8AM 5PM Measure Door
(c) 8AM 5PM Install Door
(d) 9am to 4pm Conduct the annual fire inspection
(e) 9:AM 2:PM Check leak from toilet
(f) 9:00am through 4pm BELL should only require brief access to your suite
(g) 8:00am and 5:00pm repair the bath tub wall, install a tub surround, replace
taps and caulk around tub area. This job will take all day
(h) 9:00AM and 5:00pm to check that all components of the fire alarm system are in working order
(i) 11:30am and 5:00pm BELL …to conduct an inspection of work required
(j) 10:00am and 3:00pm to locate a leak
9. The Landlord’s representative argued the bulk of the notices reflected the times the Landlord was given by companies like Bell who provide them a large window, an eventuality foreseen in the Board’s Guideline 19 on the subject. The Landlord also argued the Tenant provided no evidence of any impact these time ranges had on him and on his ability to fully enjoy the rental unit.
10. In Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, [2007] O.J. No. 423 (‘Wrona’), however, the Divisional Court found a six-hour entry window was not lawful, and said in paragraph 6:
The notice provisions are drawn to protect the rights of the tenant and pursuant to s. 2(1) of the TPA (the Tenant Protection Act, the Act’s similar predecessor), they cannot be waived. In our opinion, by failing to consider the legitimacy of the notice, the Tribunal erred in law and further erred in law in holding that in the face of the defect in the notice, a consent to entry could operate as a waiver of the requirement of the notice
11. Despite the absence of specific evidence on point, it was assumed that those notices relating to Bell reflected exactly the windows provided its notice to the Landlord, and that others relating to entire building work might also have been unpredictable. On the other hand, in others particularly (a), (b), (c), (f) and (j), I find following Wrona that the Landlord’s notice of entry was too broad and not in compliance with the Act.”
_____________
10) 6 and a half hours “not in accordance with the RTA”, “too long of a time span”, “should indicate shorter duration period”:
TNL-20253-19 (Re), 2020 CanLII 31177 (ON LTB), par. 8, <http://canlii.ca/t/j6vf3#par8>
“8. I find that most of the notice of entry were proper notices, except the notice for February 16, 2019. The February 2019 notice was not in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'), as the length of time set out for the entry was too long of a time span, namely 10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
9. The Divisional Court in Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corp., [2007] O.J. No. 423 (Ont. Div. Ct.) has found that a landlord cannot indicate a six or nine hour period during which an entry will occur. In other words, the notice of entry must specify a time within the 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. window permitted under the Act. What this means is that a landlord should indicate on the notice of entry a shorter duration period.”
_____________
11) 7-hour window “failed to meet the requirements of the Act”, “deficient notice”:
TNT-92678-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 60844 (ON LTB), par. 7, <http://canlii.ca/t/h5zcc#par7>
“7. Consistent with Wrona, and Guideline 19 of the Board’s Interpretation Guidelines, in determining whether the specified window of time is reasonable, the Board usually considers the type and complexity of repair, replacement or work being undertaken, the location of the work and the extent to which the entry affects the tenant's ability to use the rental unit. What is reasonable will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and may differ depending upon whether the landlord exercises control over the work being done. Although there are extenuating circumstances that may have necessitated a longer entry window, the Landlord failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that everything was done to negotiate a more accurate window of entry with contractors. A Tenant is entitled to privacy and it is not clear to me on the evidence that a shorter entry window was not possible. In any event, the Landlord eventually conceded at the hearing that the notice was deficient because the seven hour window of entry failed to meet the requirements of the Act.”
_____________
12) 7-to-9 hour window “defective”, “failed to specify a time within an unduly lengthy window”:
SWT-83479-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88797 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/gw4rh>
“100. Paragraph 1 of subsection 27(1) of the Act permits a landlord to enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry to carry out a repair or replacement or do work in the rental unit. Subsection 27(3) of the Act specifies that this written notice “shall specify the reason for entry, the day of entry and a time of entry between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.” This provision contained the same language as in its predecessor section in the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 (the ‘TPA’). None of the Landlords’ notices of entry specified a time within the seven to nine hour windows when entry could occur.
101. The Ontario Divisional Court addressed this same issue in Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation:
In order to obtain entry, the landlord was required to give Mr. Wrona written notice pursuant to s. 21 of the TPA. Section 21(2) of the TPA states in part that the notice “… shall specify the reason for entry, the date of entry and a time of entry between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.” In our opinion, a common sense reading of the language of ss. 2 requires the notice to specify a time of entry within the twelve hour window, not as was done here, a nine hour period within the window during which an entry would be made.[1]
102. Following the above argument, I find that the Landlords’ notices in the present case were defective as they failed to specify a time within an unduly lengthy window.
103. The Court in Wrona also noted that the notice provisions were enacted to protect the rights of the tenant and, pursuant to then subsection 2(1) of the TPA, cannot be waived.[2] In the face of the defect in the notice, a tenant’s consent to entry cannot operate as a waiver of the requirement for notice. As a result, in the present case, the Tenants’ consent to entry similarly cannot cure the illegal entries caused by the defective notices.
104. While it is impractical to expect a landlord to predict the precise minute when entry will occur, I find that the Landlords’ failure to provide a general indication when the attendance may be expected over a seven to nine hour window substantially interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit.”
_____________
13) 8-hour window “unreasonable in the circumstances”, “obviously not a time of entry”:
TST-93623-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 111691 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/hw7rw>
" 22. The Tenants argue that the notice did not comply with subsection 27(3) of the RTA, which provides that a notice of entry must specify the time of entry. An eight-hour window is obviously not a time of entry.
23. The Board’s Interpretation Guideline 19 takes the position that a landlord does not have to give a precise time of entry, but must give a reasonable window of time. Whether the window is reasonable will depend on the circumstances. The guideline is not binding on me, but even if I assume that it accurately sets out the law on this issue, I do not find that the window of time the Landlord gave was reasonable in the circumstances.
24. The Landlord testified that to replace the Tenants’ modem, she had to first enter the unit to remove the modem, then stand in line at the cable company’s retail outlet to return it and get the new modem, then go back to the unit to install the new modem. She did not know how long the line at the cable company would be, so to be safe, she gave an eight hour window for entry to the unit.
25. There are three reasons that an eight hour window was unreasonable in the circumstances. First, the Landlord actually had to enter the unit twice on March 2, but the notice of entry only specified one entry.
26. Second, the Landlord knew what time she would come to remove the old modem. She could have given a narrow window for her first entry to the unit, even if she had to give a broad window for the second entry.
27. Third, it is not plausible that the Landlord thought she might be standing in line at the cable company for nearly eight hours. Even if some uncertainty was warranted, she could have given a much narrower window for the second entry."
_____________
14) 8-hour window “does not comply with the requirement in the RTA”, “non-compliant with the Act”:
TNT-96306-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 142715 (ON LTB), par. 6, <http://canlii.ca/t/hrx6f#par6>
“5. These notices do not comply with the Divisional Court decision in Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, [2007] O.J. No. 423, which determined that , while a landlord is not required to specify the exact hour and minute of a required entry, a six hour entry window does not comply with the requirement in the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) that a landlord specify a time of entry.
6. The notices in this instance all specify 8 hour windows of entry which exceeds the 6 hours that the Divisional Court found to be non-compliant with the Act.”
_____________
15) 8-hour window “illegal entry”, “not valid”:
TST-73738-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 44267 (ON LTB), par. 15, <http://canlii.ca/t/gsk76#par15>
“Remedy for illegal entry
14. The illegal entry of a rental unit is a breach of privacy. The leading case with respect to breach of privacy is Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corp., [2007] O.J. No. 423 (Ont. Div. Ct.). In that case the Tenant was provided with notice but the notice failed to meet the mandatory requirements of the Act: the time of entry was a window of several hours rather than a specific time. The Court awarded the tenant $1,000.00 for a single illegal entry. As Wrona is the leading case from the higher courts of Ontario with respect to privacy rights, I believe the remedy awarded by the Court in that case is the starting point for determining the appropriate amount to award the Tenant in this case.
15. In the Wrona case there had been a history of disputed notices of entry. There is no such history in this case. It is interesting to note that had the Landlord served her notice in writing 24 hours prior to the entry for an entry window between 9:00am and 5:00pm, as per Wrona, the notice would still not be valid as it sets out an eight hour window of time rather than a more specific time.”
_____________
16) 8-hour window “does not meet the requirements of the Act”, “broad”:
TET-70996-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 72214 (ON LTB), par. 10, <http://canlii.ca/t/gv97z#par10>
“8. While the Landlord’s agent entered the unit for a maintenance issue, I find the entry is illegal as the notice to enter does not meet the requirements of the Act.
9. In this case whether the Landlord entered the unit after the noted time on the notice to enter of 9am July 6, 2016 or not, the notice to enter did not meet the requirements set out in subsection 27(1) of the Act. Pursuant to this section, the Landlord is required to give the Tenant written notice of entry 24 hours prior to the scheduled entry. The Landlord had the entry scheduled for 9am and the Landlord’s Witness testified he did not serve the Tenant the notice to enter until 10:30am July 5, 2016. This is less than the required 24 hours.
10. In addition, in Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2007 CanLII 3228 (ON SCDC), the Divisional Court held that a notice of entry must specify an actual time of entry, and is not sufficient to simply set out a broad window of time during which the Landlord may enter. The Court in that case affirmed the Board’s view that a six hour entry was too broad. In this case, the notice of entry provided for an eight hour window.
11. In Wrona the Divisional Court replaced the decision of the Board and granted the tenant an abatement of $1,000.00 for a single illegal entry. I find that this is also an appropriate award in this matter.”
_____________
17) 9-hour window and 6-hour window “does not comply with the requirement to specify a time of entry”, “illegal entry”:
Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2007 CanLII 3228 (ON SCDC), <http://canlii.ca/t/1qh2d>
“[3] In order to obtain entry, the landlord was required to give Mr. Wrona written notice pursuant to s.21 of the TPA. Section 21(2) of the TPA states in part that the notice “… shall specify the reason for entry, the date of entry and a time of entry between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.” In our opinion, a common sense reading of the language of ss.2 requires the notice to specify a time of entry within the twelve hour window, not as was done here, a nine hour period within the window during which an entry would be made.
[4] In that regard, we agree with the finding of Member Graham of the Tribunal in his Decision in file #TNT-04362, a proceeding between these same parties that:
“I do not accept that a landlord is required to specify the exact hour and minute of a required entry into a rental unit and although the hours of entry set out in this notice are clearly between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., I do not find that a six-hour entry period complies with the requirement that the Landlord specify a time of entry between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.”
___________________________________________
Additional Examples:
SWT-12062-10 (Re), 2010 CanLII 65596 (ON LTB), par. 8, <http://canlii.ca/t/2d8wf#par8>
“8. On February 11, 2010, the Landlord gave the Tenant a written notice to enter the rental unit on February 13, 2010, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., to conduct an inspection. The written notice was defective because it did not specify a time for entry, and the range of times given was too broad in the circumstances. Entering the rental unit based on a defective notice is a violation of the Act. However, the Landlord attempted to give the notice required by the Act and the Landlord honestly believed he was assisting the Tenant by providing a wider window, to allow the Tenant time to prepare for the entry. In addition, this was not one of the instances of illegal entry alleged by the Tenant, and the Tenant never complained about this entry to the Landlord. Since the Landlord’s breach did not impact the Tenant, no abatement of rent or other relief is warranted.”
_________________
TST-64758-15 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28655 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/h3r0b>
“Notices of entry give a long time window
78. It is uncontested that the Landlord has delivered several notices of entry to the Tenant which set out a long window of time during which the entry will take place (8:00 am to 5:00pm, for example). At the hearing the Tenant submitted several notices of entry with such long time windows for entry.
79. The Tenant testified that she does not feel comfortable having the Landlord’s staff enter her unit without her present. The Tenant testified that once, when she was not present while the staff entered her unit, the Tenant’s cat was traumatized. Because the Tenant feels she has to be present for the entry, the long windows of entry are disturbing to her.
80. The Tenant testified that she rarely asks the staff, in advance of a proposed entry, for a more reasonable time window but when she does, they give her one.
81. The Tenant chooses to be present whenever the Landlord’s staff are going to enter her unit. The only reason that the Tenant gave for this discomfort was that her cat was upset once. This is not a sufficient reason to say that the Tenant has no choice but to stay in the rental unit during entries by the Landlord’s staff. The Tenant could choose not to be present and then the long entry window would not affect her as much or at all. Further, the Landlord has addressed this issue when it was raised by the Tenant. For these reasons, this issue does not constitute substantial interference with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of her unit.”
To find out more:
Disclaimer:
You should not act or rely on any information provided in this blog. It is not legal advice, and the content is provided for general discussion and general information purposes only and to help encourage further research. To ensure your interests are protected, retain or formally seek legal advice from a licensed legal professional.
Never disclose details about your specific legal matters outside of situations when you have established solicitor-client relationship with a qualified legal professional. By using this blog, you acknowledge and accept this warning and agree to waive all liability for use of any information contained in this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment