Hiring Paralegal Recommended in this Case?

[Nir]

Hi,



There will be a LTB Hearing thanks to a "Request to Re-open an Application" the landlord has filed following an order under section 206 which the tenant failed to meet. The order was based on a non-mediated agreement to follow certain payment schedule, which the tenant signed but failed to pay/meet the payment schedule.



Apparently, tenant can not pay the amount hence the goal is obviously to end his tenancy.



Is hiring a paralegal recommended in a case like this in order to end the tenancy?

Not sure a paralegal is needed if the only requirement from the landlord will be to prove amount was not paid by tenant.



Thoughts?



THANKS.

 

[invst4profit]

Was this a non mediated settlement that the Board ordered?

If it was a board order did it not include the ability for the landlord to do a immediate eviction if the tenant violates the order. This would be the normal practice allowing the landlord to evict without having to notify the tenant or return to the board.

I need a few more details to be able to understand the reason for a New application because a request to "Re-open" may be inappropriate under the circumstances and not in fact what the landlord requires.



Is the landlord still within the 30 day limit.

 

[Nir]

Hi Greg,

Yes, it is within the 30 days. Yes, it is a non-mediated agreement hence the need to actually have a Hearing to end his tenancy. so.. should a paralegal be hired or is it a straight forward case usually resulting in ending the tenancy if amount owed is not paid within say 30 days?

Thanks.

 

[invst4profit]

I am tired these days and as a result having problems communicating and understanding



There are two types of agreements for tenants to pay. One would be through mediation prior to the hearing and the other where the tenant and landlord come to a mutual agreement on there own before proceeding to the hearing.

IN each case the tenant and landlord still appear before the adjudicator and he makes it an official order.

The adjudicator then generally includes the immediate eviction clause if the tenant does not make a payment on time.



If it was a LTB ruling, whether with or without mediation, it should be a simple matter to terminate the lease without the need of a paralegal.



If my understanding is wrong, as it may be, that this was not a board order for the tenant to make payments then you are starting from square one and may need assistance. However it is my opinion that non payment cases are relatively straight forward, assuming the landlord has his case in order, and generally can be handled by a reasonably competent landlord.

Side arrangements, not issuing of N4s, confused communications, and leniency on the part of the landlord can however result in unfavourable rulings. This is one of the major reasons why landlords should never cut there tenants any slack. No good deed goes unpunished in the hands of Duty Council.

If this was only an agreement between you and your tenant without the involvement of the board it is very unlikely you will get an eviction. The best you can hope for is a new agreement enforced by the board but if the tenant is agreeable you might get lucky.



What I do not understand is why there is no order for an immediate eviction. That is standard policy with the board.

 

[Nir]

Hi Greg,



Hope you're feeling better, less tired. Thanks for the advice!



It worked exactly as you mentioned - an eviction order without the need for a paralegal. an organized

payment history was required due to tenant's attempt to confuse the numbers and change amount owed.

What helped end the circus was a transaction history with copies of all returned cheques - one for the tenant and one copy for the judicator.



Regards,

Nir