Colalillo v Blaskovich – LTB Order LTB-L-108175-25 | Cambridge Eviction Dismissed

The Landlords' application for eviction and compensation is dismissed in its entirety.
The Board found the correct lease makes the Landlords responsible for water utility costs.
The Landlord's credibility was severely undermined by submission of what appeared to be a manipulated lease document.

Landlords received a water bill of $3,248.52 for July 15 – September 19, 2025, approximately 10 times the normal amount, and sought to hold Tenants responsible.
Tenants reported a running toilet on September 21, 2025; Landlords alleged Tenants were aware of a prior leak and failed to notify them promptly.
Conflicting lease documents were submitted by both parties, with the Landlord's version appearing altered and lacking corroborating payment history or plumber reports.

The lease submitted by the Landlord purporting to make Tenants responsible for water was found to be blurry, blue-tinged, and apparently manipulated, rendering the Landlord's evidence not credible.
The N5 notice's own language — referencing only excess charges beyond normal usage — confirmed the Landlord ordinarily pays the water bill.
No prior water bill payments by Tenants, no relevant correspondence, and no plumber's report were provided to support the Landlord's claims.
The Tenants are not responsible for the water bill; the Landlords are responsible per the authentic lease agreement.
No evidence of interference or damage by Tenants to plumbing was established; grounds for eviction under Section 64 of the RTA were not proven.

Landlords applied to evict Tenants and recover $2,935.08 in excess water charges, alleging Tenants failed to report a plumbing leak and were contractually responsible for water bills.
Landlord submitted two conflicting leases; the lease showing Tenants responsible for water appeared blurry, blue-tinged, and manipulated.
Tenant submitted a lease and original rental ad both showing utilities were included in rent, and confirmed she had never paid water bills during the tenancy.
The N5 notice itself referenced only the excess amount beyond normal usage, implying the Landlord normally covers water, further undermining the Landlord's position.
Application dismissed; Landlords failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Tenants were responsible for the water bill or caused any plumbing damage.