CITATION: Mirza et al v. Abbas, 2026 ONSC 2259
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-00000074-0000 DATE: 2026 04 22
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
Najam Saqib Mirza
Riffat Najam
Appellants
– and –
Saman Abbas
Respondent
Chaudhry Muhammad Ismail, for the Appellants
Self-Represented, Farhan Abbas, appearing on behalf of the Respondent
HEARD: April 13, 2026
Fragomeni J.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] The Tenants, Najam Sajib Mirza and Riffat Najam (‘the Tenants’) appeal to the Divisional Court from the order of the Landlord and Tenant Borad (‘LTB’) under Section 69, Residential Tenancies Act (‘RTA’), 2006, File No. LTB-L-027895-24 and the Review Order File No. LTB-0278895-24-RV under Section 21.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act dated August 14, 2024 and Residential Tenancies Act , 2006, the review order dated August 29, 2024.
[2] The Tenants set out the following grounds in their Notice of Appeal supporting their position that both the Member, LTB, Chrsitopher Lin, and the Vice Chair Camille Tancioco on review made errors in law:
The Member made an error in law in finding that the Tenants had not provided the proper notice of termination in accordance with Section 44 of the RTA, 2006
The Member erred in finding that the Tenants owed rent arrears up to May 31, 2024 as the Tenants had not complied with Sections 47 and 44 of the RTA, 2006
The Vice Chair of the LTB erred by not considering the evidentiary record
The Member refused to consider the notice to vacate dated February 1, 2024
The Vice Chair erred by not making any determination to the fact that the notice to vacate dated February 1, 2024 was served on the Landlord
[3] The respondent submits that neither the Member nor the Vice-Chair committed errors in law and that on a standard of correctness both decisions are legally correct and as such the appeal should be dismissed.
Analysis and Conclusion
[4] I start my analysis by setting out the findings and conclusion of the Vice-Chair in the Review Order issued August 29, 2024.
Review Order:
Determinations:
This application was heard by videoconference on July 25, 2024. The Landlord’s Agent, Farhan Abbas and the Tenant, Najam Saqib Mirza attended the hearing. The Landlord’s application was granted. The Tenants were ordered to pay rent arrears to May 31, 2024.
The Tenants submits that the hearing member seriously erred in the calculation of arrears.
A review of the hearing recording and final order demonstrates that it is undisputed that the Tenants notified the Landlord in February 2024 that they were vacating the rental unit on April 4, 2024. The Tenants vacated the rental unit on April 4, 2024. It was also undisputed that the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy ending on June 30, 2024.
The hearing member found that the Tenants did not provide adequate notice to the Landlord to terminate the tenancy. This was not unreasonable as section 47 and subsection 44(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) requires the Tenants to provide 60 days’ notice before the end of the fixed term. The earliest the Tenants could have terminated the tenancy was June 30, 2024, the end of the fixed term. Therefore, the Tenants were owing rent for that period pursuant to subsection 88(1) of the Act. However, the hearing member found that the Tenants were only owing rent up to May 31, 2024 pursuant to subsection 88(3) and (4) of the Act, as the Landlord re-rented the rental unit commencing June 1, 2024. As such, the hearing member’s determination that rent was owing to May 31, 2024 was in accordance with the Act.
The Tenants further submit that the last month’s rent deposit should have been applied to March 2024. Pursuant to subsection 106(10) of the Act, the last month’s rent deposit shall be applied to the last month of the tenancy. As the tenancy was not properly terminated, the last month of the tenancy was not March 2024. As the tenancy has now been terminated, the order properly subtracts the last month’s rent deposit and interest from the arrears owing as identified in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the final order.
I am not satisfied that the hearing member seriously erred in the calculation of arrears. As such, I am not satisfied that there is a serious error in the order or that a serious error occurred in the proceedings. The review request is accordingly denied.
[5] The Vice-Chair issued the following order:
- The request to review order LTB-L-027895-24 issued on August 14, 2024 is denied. The order is confirmed and remains unchanged.
[6] The order of the Member issued on August 14, 2024 set out the following:
It is ordered that:
The tenancy between the Landlord and the Tenant is terminated as of May 31, 2024, the date the Tenant moved out of the rental unit.
The Tenant shall pay to the Landlord $6,489.71. This amount includes rent arrears owing up to the date the Tenant moved out of the rental unit and the cost of filing the application. The rent deposit and interest the Landlord owes on the rent deposit is deducted from the amount owing by the Tenant. See Schedule 1 for the calculation of the amount owing.
if the Tenant does not pay the Landlord the full amount owing on or before August 25, 2024, the Tenant will start to owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from August 26, 2024 at 7.00% annually on the balance outstanding.
[7] The Member noted at para 6 of his reasons that it was undisputed that the parties had signed a lease agreement with a fixed term ending on June 30, 2024.
[8] At para 8 of the Member sets out the following:
- The Tenant did not provide a notice of termination to comply with section 44 (4) of the Act as the earliest termination date that could have been specified on the Tenant’s notice was June 30, 2024, the last day of the fixed term of the tenancy.
[9] Section 88(1) of the RTA states:
If a tenant abandons or vacates a rental unit without giving notice of termination in accordance with this Act and no agreement to terminate has been made or the Landlord has not given notice to terminate the tenancy, a determination of the amount of arrears of rent owing by the tenant shall be made in accordance with the following rules:
- If the tenant vacated the rental unit after giving notice that was not in accordance with this Act, arrears of rent are owing for the period that ends on the earliest termination date that could have been specified in the notice, had the notice been given in accordance with section 47, 96 or 145, as the case
[10] June 30, 2024, therefore, is the earliest termination date that the tenant could have properly specified on the notice of termination.
[11] In the case at bar the Landlord re-rented the unit as of June 1, 2024. The Member found the Landlord took reasonable steps to rent the unit on or after the April 4, 2024 termination date set out by the tenant. At para 13 the Member stated:
- FA asserts that the Landlord, upon receiving the keys back on April 6, 2024, immediately contacted a real estate agent and listed the unit for rent through the real estate agent. The Landlord began showing the rental unit three days after the Tenant vacated. The Landlord testified he showed the unit between 6 to 10 times and was able to re-rent the unit as of June 1, 2024.
[12] The Member did not err in law in finding that the termination date is properly set at May 31, 2024 and that rent arrears are calculated up to that date.
[13] Schedule 1 of the Member’s decision sets out the Summary of Calculations as follows:
Schedule 1
SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS A. Amount the Tenant must pay as the tenancy is terminated
A. Amount the Tenant must pay as the tenancy is terminated
Rent Owing To Move Out Date
$8,500.00
Application Filing Fee
$186.00
NSF Charges
$0.00
Less the amount the Tenant paid to the Landlord since the application was filed
-$0.00
Less the amount the Tenant paid into the LTB since the application was filed
-$0.00
Less the amount of the last month's rent deposit
-$1,950.00
Less the amount of the interest on the last month's rent deposit
- $246.29
Less the amount the Landlord owes the Tenant for an {abatement/rebate}
-$0.00
Less the amount of the credit that the Tenant is entitled to
-$0.00
Total amount owing to the Landlord
$6,489.71
[14] The Member did not err in law in finding that the total amount owing to the Landlord is $6,489.71
[15] In the Review Order the Vice-Chair sets out the following at paras 5 & 6:
The Tenants further submit that the last month’s rent deposit should have been applied to March 2024. Pursuant to subsection 106(10) of the Act, the last month’s rent deposit shall be applied to the last month of the tenancy. As the tenancy was not properly terminated, the last month of the tenancy was not March 2024. As the tenancy has now been terminated, the order properly subtracts the last month’s rent deposit and interest from the arrears owing as identified in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the final order.
I am not satisfied that the hearing member seriously erred in the calculation of arrears. As such, I am not satisfied that there is a serious error in the order or that a serious error occurred in the proceedings. The review request is accordingly denied.
[16] In all of these circumstances and for the reasons set out herein the appeal is dismissed.
[17] The parties shall file with their submissions on costs as follows:
a) The Respondent shall serve and file her written submissions on costs within 15 days
b) The Appellants shall serve and file their responding submissions on costs within 15 days thereafter
c) Any reply shall be served and filed withing 10 days thereafter
Fragomeni J.
Released: April 22, 2026
CITATION: Mirza et al v. Abbas, 2026 ONSC 2259
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-00000074-0000 DATE: 2026 04 22
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
Najam Saqib Mirza
Riffat Najam
Appellants
-and-
Saman Abbas
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Fragomeni J.
Released: April 22, 2026