Outcomes in law are not guaranteed but they are also rarely accidental. They follow from knowing the file, understanding the forum, and being ready when it matters. The following are selected decisions from matters handled by Vinoth Kumar.
Summary: A landlord sought to evict tenants from a North York apartment complex, alleging a tenant stole a neighbour's package from the lobby. Vinoth Kumar represented the tenants. The Board found the landlord's circumstantial evidence — limited to two security camera still images — was insufficient to establish theft on a balance of probabilities. The tenant's alternate explanation was accepted, and the application was dismissed in its entirety.
Citation: 1597180 Ontario Inc v Rajpaul, 2025 ONLTB 89996 | LTB-L-014218-23 | December 9, 2025
Summary: Landlords sought eviction of tenants following a threatening and aggressive confrontation during a lawful property inspection. Vinoth Kumar represented the landlords. The Board found the tenants' conduct — which included verbal threats and harassment captured on video — constituted substantial interference, even based on a single incident. Eviction was held in abeyance subject to a strict 12-month no-repeat condition, with filing costs awarded to the landlords.
Citation: Brhane v Kaarto, 2025 ONLTB 80638 | LTB-L-045327-25 | October 23, 2025
Summary: Landlords sought possession of a Barrie rental unit following an agreement of purchase and sale, where the purchasers genuinely intended to occupy the property with their parents. Vinoth Kumar represented the landlords. The tenant raised multiple preliminary challenges — including non-disclosure of prior N12 notices and a defective certificate of service — all of which were addressed and dismissed. The Board accepted the purchasers' good faith intention and ordered the tenancy terminated, with compensation awarded to the landlords.
Citation: Priya v Langdon, LTB-L-024225-25 | September 17, 2025
