Case Study

Eviction — Persistent late payment · Richmond Hill · LTB-L-009618-26

Ontario LTB order in Richmond Hill · April 30, 2026 · Granted

🕑 Case timeline

Application Date: Not Available

Hearing Date: April 22, 2026

Order Issued: April 30, 2026

Termination Date: Not Available

Eviction Deadline: Not Available

ℹ️ Case overview

Case Number: LTB-L-009618-26
Address: 1807-95 ONEIDA CRES, RICHMOND HILL, ON L4B0H5
Form Used: N8
Served By:
Amount Awarded: $1,305.50
Decision In Favor: Landlord
Application Type: Eviction — Persistent late payment
RTA Sections: Section 69

👥 Parties involved

Landlord: Ivan Escobar
Landlord Rep: Self Represented
Tenant: Barbod Kalantarian
Tenant Rep: Self Represented
Adjudicator: Melinda Jamieson
Keywords: eviction, persistent late payment, damage to property, interference with reasonable enjoyment

⚖️ Decision summary

This Landlord application — Eviction — Persistent late payment — was granted.

⚠️ Dispute summary

📑 Findings & determinations

it is ordered that: 1. The Landlord withdraws the N8 notice regarding persistent late payment of rent. File Number: LTB-L-009618-26 Order Page 2 of 2 2. The Tenant shall pay to the Landlord $1,305.50 which represents the $1,119.50 claimed on the application and the $186.00 for the cost of filing the application. 3. The Tenant shall pay the $1,305.50 in paragraph 2 to the Landlord as follows: • $652.75 on or before June 30, 2026; and • $652.75 on or before August 15, 2026. 4. If there is a breach in payment, the entire amount in paragraph 2 becomes due and payable immediately and simple interest will be calculated as per the Courts of Justice Act on any balance outstanding. April 30, 2026 ____________________________ Date Issued Melinda Jamieson Hearing Officer, Landlord and Tenant Board 15 Grosvenor Street, Ground Floor, Toronto ON M7A 2G6

💡 Summary points

applied for an order requiring the Tenant to pay the Landlord's reasonable out-of- pocket expenses that are the result of the Tenant's conduct or that of another occupant of the rental unit or someone the Tenant permitted in the residential complex. This application was scheduled to be heard by videoconference on April 22, 2026. The Landlord and the Tenant attended the hearing. The Tenant consulted duty counsel. In mediation, the parties before the Landlord and Tenant Board consented to the following Order. I was satisfied that the parties understood the terms and consequences and freely agreed to resolve the application instead of a merit hearing. On consent of the parties,
📄 View Official PDF

Share this case

🧑‍⚖️ Same adjudicator

Melinda Jamieson

📂 Related by application type

Eviction — Persistent late payment