Adelaide North Developments Inc. v Gerster
Last updated: February 7, 2026
Order
Ordered by Stephanie Ball,Tribunals Ontario under Section 69, Residential Tenancies Act, 2006
Dispute resolved in
Agreement
Dispute Categories
Notices Sent
Subsections of RTA Quoted
Agree with the ruling?
Citation: Adelaide North Developments Inc. v Gerster, 2025 ONLTB 48094
File Number: LTB-L-067823-24
Timeline
Hearing Date
Jun 2025
Order Date
Jun 24, 2025
Decision
The tenancy continues provided the Tenant adheres to two conditions: not carrying a hammer on the premises and picking up dog waste within 10 minutes. If the Tenant breaches these conditions, the Landlord may apply for an ex-parte eviction order under Section 78. The Tenant is also ordered to pay the $186.00 application fee within six months.
Reason for Eviction Relief
Tenant is caring for her father with dementia, and both parties agreed to conduct-based conditions to preserve the tenancy.
Dispute
The Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenant due to substantial interference with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex. Allegations included the Tenant carrying a hammer in common areas, failing to pick up dog waste, and harassing another tenant. The Tenant admitted to the conduct but explained she carried the hammer for protection against off-leash dogs and had difficulty picking up waste due to her dog's neurological issues.
Determinations
- The Tenant substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex.
- The Landlord established grounds for termination under the N5 notices.
- Relief from eviction is appropriate subject to specific conduct conditions.
- The Tenant must reimburse the Landlord for the application filing fee.
Landlord's Arguments
Actions and Evidence
The Landlord presented video evidence of the Tenant carrying a hammer and pet waste incidents; indicated willingness to allow the tenancy to continue if conditions were met.
Tenant's Arguments
Arguments
The Tenant argued for relief from eviction based on her limited income and her responsibility as a caregiver for her father with dementia.
Actions and Evidence
Tenant testified she carries a hammer for protection because '2 dogs have died from injuries sustained from altercations with other dogs.' She acknowledged failing to pick up after her dog due to its 'diagnosed neurological issues' making it hard to balance and pick up waste simultaneously.
Considerations
Tenant carried a hammer in common areas, causing fear among other residents; failed to pick up pet excrement in walking and lounging areas.
Similar Cases
Click to switch between order outcomes
Algoma District Services Administration Board v Martel
The LTB issued an ex parte order terminating a tenancy and ordering eviction after the tenant breached the conditions of a previous order.
Smith v Lee
An LTB order awards a Landlord unpaid water charges and filing fees after the Tenant vacates the rental unit.
Downey-Thomas v Lacson
The Tenant's application alleging illegal entry, substantial interference, and harassment was dismissed because it failed to provide dates and particulars for the alleged conduct, violating principles of procedural fairness.
Old Oak Properties Inc. v Last
The Landlord established substantial interference due to excessive communications, but relief from eviction was granted allowing the tenancy to continue on conditions.
Algoma District Services Administration Board v Martel
The LTB issued an ex parte order terminating a tenancy and ordering eviction after the tenant breached the conditions of a previous order.
Smith v Lee
An LTB order awards a Landlord unpaid water charges and filing fees after the Tenant vacates the rental unit.
Downey-Thomas v Lacson
The Tenant's application alleging illegal entry, substantial interference, and harassment was dismissed because it failed to provide dates and particulars for the alleged conduct, violating principles of procedural fairness.
Old Oak Properties Inc. v Last
The Landlord established substantial interference due to excessive communications, but relief from eviction was granted allowing the tenancy to continue on conditions.
Algoma District Services Administration Board v Martel
The LTB issued an ex parte order terminating a tenancy and ordering eviction after the tenant breached the conditions of a previous order.
Smith v Lee
An LTB order awards a Landlord unpaid water charges and filing fees after the Tenant vacates the rental unit.
Downey-Thomas v Lacson
The Tenant's application alleging illegal entry, substantial interference, and harassment was dismissed because it failed to provide dates and particulars for the alleged conduct, violating principles of procedural fairness.
Old Oak Properties Inc. v Last
The Landlord established substantial interference due to excessive communications, but relief from eviction was granted allowing the tenancy to continue on conditions.
Algoma District Services Administration Board v Martel
The LTB issued an ex parte order terminating a tenancy and ordering eviction after the tenant breached the conditions of a previous order.
Smith v Lee
An LTB order awards a Landlord unpaid water charges and filing fees after the Tenant vacates the rental unit.
Downey-Thomas v Lacson
The Tenant's application alleging illegal entry, substantial interference, and harassment was dismissed because it failed to provide dates and particulars for the alleged conduct, violating principles of procedural fairness.
Old Oak Properties Inc. v Last
The Landlord established substantial interference due to excessive communications, but relief from eviction was granted allowing the tenancy to continue on conditions.
Twaseen v Zhang
The tenant's application alleging substantial interference and harassment was withdrawn upon request and the file was closed.
C***** Barrientos v Sherritt
An LTB order dismisses a tenant's T2 application for substantial interference, maintenance failures, and harassment after finding the allegations unproven.
Celik v Celik
The LTB dismissed the tenant's application because the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply due to the shared use of kitchen and bathroom facilities with the landlord and the landlord's mother.
Savannah Land Corporation v Dickerson
The LTB granted relief from eviction and allowed the tenancy to continue on strict conditions after finding the tenant substantially interfered with a neighbor's enjoyment by encroaching on shared space.
Latest Insights from Our Blog
Stay informed with expert analysis on rental law, tenant rights, and LTB decisions
Common Reasons Landlords Lose at the LTB (And How to Avoid Them)
Learn from real LTB cases why landlord applications fail. Discover the most common mistakes that lead to dismissed applications and practical strategies to strengthen your case and protect your investment.
Do You Need a Lawyer or Paralegal for the LTB? A Cost-Benefit Guide for Ontario Landlords and Tenants
Should you hire a lawyer or paralegal for your Landlord and Tenant Board case? Compare representation costs, LTB fee recovery limits, and when self-representation makes sense for Ontario rental disputes.
When Payment Plans Fail: Understanding Breach of Conditional Orders and Second Chances at the LTB
Exploring what happens when tenants default on LTB-ordered payment plans, the strict consequences of breaching conditional orders, and the rare circumstances where further relief might be granted in Ontario.
Need Legal Help? We've Got You Covered
Whether you need to find qualified legal professionals or post your specific legal needs to get competitive quotes, our platform connects you with the right help.
Find Legal Professionals
Browse our directory of verified paralegals and lawyers specializing in Ontario rental law and LTB matters.
Browse ProfessionalsPost Your Legal Needs
Describe your legal situation and receive competitive quotes from qualified professionals in our marketplace.
Post a BountyJoin thousands of Ontarians who have found legal help through our platform