Superior Court of Justice – Ontario in Bankruptcy and Insolvency

Court File No.: 31-3216349
Released: 2025-06-09

In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Leanna Mae Snaith in the Community of Newcastle in the Municipality of Clarington, in the Province of Ontario

Before: Associate Justice Anna Ilchenko, Registrar in Bankruptcy

Counsel

• Marc Goldgrub for Landlords Juan Liu and Bobin Rui (collectively, the "Landlords")
• Bankrupt appearing in person (the "Bankrupt")
• Trustee: BDO Canada Limited (the "Trustee"), Paul Ihnatiuk, LIT, appearing not opposing
• Superintendent of Bankruptcy not opposing although duly served

Heard: May 22, 2025 and June 3, 2025

Endorsement

[1] The Landlords of the residential property leased by the Bankrupt at 6 Keating Drive, Newcastle, Ontario (the "Property") appear on this Motion to lift the stay of proceedings under s.69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") with respect to the Bankrupt, who is the tenant in the Property under a lease with the Landlords, to permit the Landlords to direct the Sheriff to obtain possession of the Property and that the provisions of s.84.2 of the BIA do not apply. Where text is underlined in these reasons, unless otherwise advised, that underlining has been added by me.

[2] Both the Bankrupt and the Landlords appeared on January 6, 2025 before Susan Priest ("Priest"), a Member of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the "Board" or "Tribunal") at a hearing under the provisions of s.69 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the "RTA") where the Landlords were seeking an Order to terminate the Tenancy of the Bankrupt and to evict the Bankrupt.

[3] Priest rendered a decision on January 15, 2025 (the "Board Decision") (Rui v Snaith, 2025 ONLTB 3427) which I have appended as Schedule A to this Endorsement. This is also at Exhibit A to the Affidavit of the Landlord Juan Liu sworn for this Motion on May 18, 2025 (the "Liu Affidavit").

[4] I adjourned the initial May 22nd hearing to June 3 after the Bankrupt uploaded to Caselines her affidavit and other materials minutes before the commencement of the May 22nd hearing. The Landlords filed a second Affidavit sworn on May 28, 2025 responding to allegations and arguments made by the Bankrupt (the "Liu Responding Affidavit").

[5] The Board Decision made the following factual determinations:

1. The Landlord served the Tenant with a valid Notice to End Tenancy Early for Non-payment of Rent (‘N4 Notice’). The Tenant did not void the notice by paying the amount of rent arrears owing by the termination date in the N4 Notice or before the date the application was filed.
2. As of the hearing date, the Tenant was still in possession of the rental unit.
3. The lawful rent is $1,850.00. It is due on the 20th day of each month.
4. Based on the Monthly rent, the daily rent/compensation is $60.82. This amount is calculated as follows: $1,850.00 x 12, divided by 365 days.
5. The Tenant has paid $16,650.00 to the Landlord since the application was filed.
6. The rent arrears owing to January 31, 2025 are $46,250.00.
7. The Landlord incurred costs of $186.00 for filing the application and is entitled to reimbursement of those costs.
8. The Landlord collected a rent deposit of $1,850.00 from the Tenant and this deposit is still being held by the Landlord. The rent deposit can only be applied to the last rental period of the tenancy if the tenancy is terminated.
9. Interest on the rent deposit, in the amount of $291.44 is owing to the Tenant for the period from December 1, 2015 to January 6, 2025.

[6] After hearing the Bankrupt’s arguments that she was entitled to relief under s.82 of the RTA as a result of various assorted alleged breaches by the Landlords of the reasonable use and enjoyment of the Property, including that the Landlords illegally entered the Property, and after granting the Bankrupt credit for a $300 “key deposit” made in violation of s.106 of the RTA by the Landlords, Priest made the following findings of fact and law under the considerations under s.63 of the RTA:

21. The Landlord’s representative submitted the Landlord is seeking an order for eviction. He submitted the rent arrears are substantial and are beyond the Board’s monetary jurisdiction. He added that despite the arrears, the Landlord is amiable to postponing the eviction to February 28, 2025.
22. The Tenant testified that she resides in the rental unit with her three children, aged 17, 14, and 12. She shared that she is currently enrolled in school full-time and relies on OSAP for her income. Additionally, she receives a monthly payment of $2,500.00 from the government, which includes the Child Tax Benefit and the H.S.T. refund. Her monthly expenses total approximately $1,800.00, excluding the rent. Given her financial situation, the Tenant proposed a monthly payment plan of $300.00 in addition to the regular monthly rent. The Tenant was unable to determine how much time she would need to find alternative housing but hoped to be given additional time.
23. In the above circumstances, I do not find the Tenant’s repayment plan to be reasonable. I say this because such a plan would take the Tenant approximately thirteen years to repay the Landlord and considering the rent arrears exceed the Board’s monetary jurisdiction, the Tenant’s request is highly prejudicial to the Landlord.
24. In regard to the Tenant’s request for an extended eviction, I find the Tenant’s inability to pay rent would cause further prejudice to the Landlord however the Landlord has agreed to postpone the eviction until February 28, 2025. In consideration of the Landlord’s acceptance of a short postponement of the eviction, the rent arrears are significant and considering the Tenant’s income somewhat exceeds her monthly expenses, I conclude that the tenancy is no longer viable. The Tenant's financial situation does not suggest a realistic prospect of meeting the obligations under the tenancy agreement, and extending the eviction past February 28, 2024 would not alleviate the ongoing issues. Given the substantial amount of arrears, I do not find it appropriate to grant relief from eviction.
25. I have considered all of the disclosed circumstances in accordance with subsection 83(2) of the Act and find that it would not be unfair to postpone the eviction until February 28, 2025 pursuant to subsection 83(1)(b) of the Act.

[7] After full oral hearings and testimony, and after granting the Bankrupt the opportunity to provide evidence to substantiate her allegations and requests under s.83 of the RTA, Priest made the following Orders under the RTA in the Board Decision (the "RTA Orders"):

It is ordered that:

1. The Landlord shall remove the lock box located at the rental unit on or before January 15, 2025.
2. The Landlord shall return the monies collected illegally from the Tenant in the amount of $300.00. This amount has been deducted from the total amount the Tenant owes to the Landlord.
3. The tenancy between the Landlord and the Tenant is terminated unless the Tenant voids this order.
4. The Tenant may void this order and continue the tenancy by paying to the Landlord or to the LTB in trust:
   • $47,986.00 if the payment is made on or before February 28, 2025. See Schedule 1 for the calculation of the amount owing.
5. The Tenant may also make a motion at the LTB to void this order under section 74(11) of the Act, if the Tenant has paid the full amount owing as ordered plus any additional rent that became due after February 28, 2025 but before the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) enforces the eviction. The Tenant may only make this motion once during the tenancy.
6. If the Tenant does not pay the amount required to void this order the Tenant must move out of the rental unit on or before February 28, 2025.
7. If the Tenant does not void the order, the Tenant shall pay to the Landlord $35,186.00. This amount includes rent arrears owing up to the date of the hearing and the cost of filing the application. The rent deposit and interest the Landlord owes on the rent deposit and the rent abatement/rebate awarded to the Tenant are deducted from the amount owing by the Tenant. See Schedule 1 for the calculation of the amount owing.
8. The Tenant would normally pay the Landlord compensation of $60.82 per day for the use of the unit starting January 7, 2025 until the date the Tenant moves out of the unit. Having exceeded the Board’s monetary jurisdiction of $35,000.00, this amount of daily compensation shall not be ordered.
9. If the Tenant does not pay the Landlord the full amount owing on or before February 28, 2025, the Tenant will start to owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from March 1, 2025 at 5.00% annually on the balance outstanding.
10. If the unit is not vacated on or before February 28, 2025, then starting March 1, 2025, the Landlord may file this order with the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) so that the eviction may be enforced.
11. Upon receipt of this order, the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) is directed to give vacant possession of the unit to the Landlord on or after March 1, 2025.

The remainder of the decision continues with detailed factual findings, procedural history, legal analysis, and the court's reasons for granting the motion to lift the stay, as well as guidance to trustees and parties in similar circumstances. For the full text, please refer to the official decision.

Released: June 9, 2025
Associate Justice Anna Ilchenko
Registrar in Bankruptcy, Superior Court of Justice

Schedule A

(Schedule A as referenced in the decision is appended in the original document.)