In LTB-T-061726-26, Rachelle Berube applied under section 135 of the Residential Tenancies Act, claiming the Waglers collected rent illegally at 1104 Fantham Road. The hearing was held by videoconference on October 28, 2026. The Waglers did not attend, although properly served, and the hearing proceeded on the tenant’s evidence.
The Board found the lawful site rent was $750 per year, based on the lease term from June 1, 2024 and her April 23, 2026 acknowledgement letter. The Waglers’ new lease raising the rent to $1,300 per year effective June 1, 2026 is void, because no section 116 notice of rent increase was served — citing Honsberger v. Grant Lake Forest Resources, 2019 ONCA 44. She had paid the $1,300 for 1104 Fantham as part of a $2,400 e-transfer covering both 1104 and 1106 Fantham.
From the order (Member Jin Zhang)
Paragraph 8: Landlords and tenants cannot contract out of the RTA. A written agreement to raise the rent, without proper service of a notice of rent increase, is therefore unenforceable. The only exceptions are an agreement to increase the rent under section 121 or section 123.
Paragraph 9: The Court of Appeal has confirmed this principle. An existing tenant who signs a new lease for the same unit is not a new tenant and does not begin a new tenancy, so the landlord must still give notice of the rent increase and the increase stays capped at the guideline (see Honsberger v. Grant Lake Forest Resources Ltd., 2019 ONCA 44, at paras. 28–29).
Paragraph 10: After the Landlords took over the site, they issued a new lease for it (DOC-8375429; Exhibit 3). The lease raised the rent from $750.00 to $1,300.00 per year, effective June 1, 2026.
Paragraph 12: I find that the rent increase of June 1, 2026, through the signing of a new lease agreement, is void. Therefore, the lawful annual rent remains $750.00.
The order: the Waglers must pay $598 ($550 excess rent plus the $48 filing fee) by November 15, 2026, with 4% simple interest from November 16, 2026. She may alternatively deduct the $598 from rent due on or before May 31, 2027. Her $750 costs request was denied — the member found the Waglers’ non-attendance caused no undue expense or delay, and the failure to refund is part of the breach itself, not conduct in the proceeding.
Note: this is a separate order from the two October 23, 2026 orders — the $398 owed to her for 1193 Fantham (LTB-T-062119-26) and the $598 owed to Mathieu Lambert-Belanger and Lee-Anne Tanguay for 1189 Fantham (LTB-T-062303-26).
Leave a Reply