Holes in the Wall (LTB-Maintenance)
Summary of Damages
| Case Name | Issues | Abatement |
|---|---|---|
| SOT-75954-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 48982 (ON LTB) | a hole in the basement wall adjoining the two (2) units | $650 |
| CET-57953-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 72148 (ON LTB) | the Tenants did not have the use of the basement washroom, and that the rental unit is in a state of disrepair with respect to holes in the walls and floors because of the addition of duct work | 10% |
| TET-75459-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 60474 (ON LTB) | The hole in the floor appears to be approximately 3 feet deep into the ground and is located in the bedroom the Tenant was using for her 2 year old son. | 20% |
| TNL-94712-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 60324 (ON LTB) | the unit has been infested with rats, mice, and cockroaches for over a year. They see the pests running around during the day on the floors and countertops and in their drawers. Rodents eat the food they store in the kitchen. Mice have run across L.S.’s bed. | 40% |
| CET-47334-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 103696 (ON LTB) | I am satisfied on the unopposed evidence that there are four holes in the drywall in the rental unit. | $80 |
| TET-69033-16-RV (Re), 2017 CanLII 48851 (ON LTB) | * The removal of a section of pipe that necessitated much of the floor in the rental unit being removed and replaced; * Flood damage not repaired; * Conflicts with the tenant upstairs about the temperature; * Noise complaints involving the tenant upstairs; and * Disrepair complaints concerning: ants, junk in the backyard, the roof, the carport, the yard, the neighbour’s construction work, leaf removal, and the driveway. | 8% |
| TST-58189-14 (Re), 2015 CanLII 93564 (ON LTB) | The Landlord concedes that there were mice in the unit. M.G. testified that the Landlord was notified that there were mice in the unit in August 2014. He put spray foam and steel wool in the holes in the walls in January 2015. | 12% |
| TST-06502-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 134604 (ON LTB) | holes in the walls and ceiling, the water leakage and the damage to his property | 30% |
| SOT-20877-11 (Re), 2012 CanLII 21952 (ON LTB) | holes in the walls, black mould, the smell of cat and mouse waste, loose light switches, leaking faucets, a rotting front porch and worn kitchen floor | 40% |
| TST-02291 (Re), 2009 CanLII 79087 (ON LTB) | large hole in the wall below the windows, crumbling missing parts of wall between the floor and the wall in the bathroom where one might expect to find baseboard, duct tape underneath all the windows, a missing cover on a non-functioning electrical radiator, a hanging electrical outlet and at least one missing outlet cover. | 50% |
| TST-12781-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 26901 (ON LTB) | mould in the bathroom. There were also large holes in the wall behind the radiator and under the kitchen sink. The holes facilitated the entry of mice. The whole complex had a mice infestation problem. | 20% |
SOT-75954-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 48982 (ON LTB)
15. On or about September 10, 2016, the Tenants noticed a hole in the basement wall adjoining the two (2) units. They looked through and could see through to the other side, which was the basement of unit 9. PDF testified, and I accept, that they spent a lot of time in their basement, where his “man cave” was located. PDF testified, and I accept, that the hole was not there the previous week, as corroborated by KH (below).
25. While not malicious, the hole in the wall was an issue of disrepair, promptly reported to the Landlord. The evidence from KH does not support that the Landlord addressed repairs “on unit 9 side”. KH attended unit 9 on two (2) occasions, on August 31, prior to the hole being discovered, and in December, when the hole had been filled with spray foam.
26. PDF testified, and I accept, that approximately two (2) days later, when nobody came to do anything about the hole, he sealed up the hole with a tube of caulking. I also accept KH’s evidence that the hole had been filled with spray foam on the side of unit 9.
27. The Landlord did not repair the hole. The Landlord thought it was frivolous and not an emergency health and safety issue, warranting their attention. Nobody even came to inspect the hole from the Tenants’ basement in September 2016. While the Landlord reached out to the police regarding the issue, certainly, nothing would have precluded the Landlord from repairing the hole after the police investigation. I find that the Landlord failed to carry out its obligations under subsection 20 (1) of the Act to repair and maintain the rental unit.
28. The hole was approximately 2 centimeter in diameter and approximately 5 feet off the floor, pursuant to the police report. While it was not a large hole, and was located behind the Tenants’ furnace, I do not find that this issue constituted a minor inconvenience which should be considered a normal part of life under the de minimis concept. In the context of the ongoing conflict between the neighbours, the hole, regardless of its size or its location, was an issue serious enough to cause great discomfort and a sense of insecurity. The hole was a point of “contact” or exposure between the parties, which the Landlord insisted that the parties avoid. I find that the Landlord’s failure to inspect and fix the hole, given the conflict between the neighbours known to the Landlord, was serious enough to constitute a breach of the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment of their unit.
33. I shall award abatement inclusive of damages for breach of the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment, on account of the September 6 incident (taking photographs of ADF’s company vehicle) and the hole in the wall. I fix the abatement in the global sum of $650.00, considering that the Tenants were able to mitigate their damages by covering the hole in two (2) days and considering that the Tenants did not establish “causation” in respect of their more serious mental health issues. I also consider that this award does not cover the incidents between July 1, 2016 and August 22, 2016, given my finding that the Landlord responded to these incidents by meeting with the Tenants and unit 9 tenants.
CET-57953-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 72148 (ON LTB)
1. It was undisputed that the Landlord installed a new gas furnace in the rental unit, in November 2014. As a result of this installation, the walls and ceiling surrounding the basement bathroom were removed and duct work was added throughout the unit. The walls to the bathroom in the basement were never restored and remain in a state of disrepair, with electrical wiring still exposed. Further, as a result of the addition of duct work throughout the rental unit there are holes in the walls and floor.
7. In the case of Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Vlahovich (2010) O.J. No. 1463 the Ontario Divisional Court stated as follows:
- In light of the one year limitation period in s. 29(2), the Board can only make a determination that a landlord has breached an obligation under s. 20(1) during the one year period before the making of the application. Accordingly, the remedy that may be granted may only be granted in relation to breaches during that one year period [our emphasis].
8. It was uncontested that the Landlord was aware of the outstanding repair issues as a result of the furnace repair in November 2014. Therefore, I find that an abatement of rent is warranted in these circumstances. I can only consider an abatement of rent for the previous twelve months prior to filing the application being May 10, 2015 to present in accordance with subsection 29(2) of the Act.
9. The Tenants expected to be able to utilize the basement washroom and without it, there was only one bathroom in the rental unit. The Tenants submitted that there were a number of safety concerns with the duct work added throughout the rental unit; however they did not submit any supporting evidence regarding a breach of safety standards. Therefore, I find that the impact of the holes in the walls and floor to be mostly cosmetic in nature.
10. Given that the Tenants did not have the use of the basement washroom, and that the rental unit is in a state of disrepair with respect to holes in the walls and floors because of the addition of duct work, I find that the Tenants are entitled to an abatement of rent equal to 10% of their monthly rent of $1,450.00, being $145.00 for the period of May 10, 2015 to June 30, 2016 totaling $1,885.00.
TET-75459-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 60474 (ON LTB)
7. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the facts of this disrepair issue. The site administrator and the Tenant discovered a large leak behind the wall in the second bedroom on September 15, 2016. The plumber who came in the next day to repair the leak had to remove large sections of the drywall to expose the pipe in the bedroom wall. The plumber also had to tear up what appears to be about a two foot long section of flooring to expose the underground pipes. The plumber’s actions resulted in very large holes in the wall and a large and dangerous hole in the floor at the entrance of the bedroom. The hole in the floor appears to be approximately 3 feet deep into the ground and is located in the bedroom the Tenant was using for her 2 year old son.
8. There is no dispute between the parties that these holes constitute breach of the Act and there is no dispute between the parties that the Landlord took too long to repair these holes.
9. The Landlord’s then superintendent was with the plumber when the holes were created and there is no dispute that he failed to respond properly and either cover the hole in the floor or properly follow up with the Tenant and the Landlord to address the obvious safety concern. The parties agree that the holes in the walls and the floor were created on September 16, 2016, and were not repaired until November 18, 2016.
10. Based on the evidence before me, and based on the agreement of the parties, I am satisfied that Landlord has failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act as the bedroom floor and wall in the Tenant’s unit was in disrepair.
11. The Tenant says that the Landlord’s actions during this delayed repair job also substantially interfered with her reasonable enjoyment of the unit. With the hole in her son’s bedroom floor and walls, the Tenant decided it was safer for the both of them to stay with her mother while they waited for the repairs to be complete.
12. However, while the Tenant was staying with her mother, she says there was a complete lack of communication from the Landlord regarding what to expect or when the repairs would be complete and this made the experience even worse for her.
13. The property manager explained at the hearing that, because the repair job cost over $1,200.00, the Landlord had in place a double-staged approval process which took several weeks for the Landlord’s staff to complete. This process was lengthened even further because the second approver went on vacation for at least one week and then took several days to catch up on her workload once she returned.
14. The property manager’s explanation is valid, but the parties agree that none of this process was ever explained or communicated to the Tenant at any time during the 2 months she was waiting for the repairs. This meant that the Tenant went weeks without knowing what was happening, who was processing her requests or when she could expect the repairs to be completed. She was not able to tell her son when they could go home and she was not able to tell her mother when they would be leaving. Without any knowledge of what was happening, the Tenant was forced to get the city by-law officer involved and call numerous social services and departments for assistance. The Tenant called her insurance company, the public health department, the social services hotline and the city by-law office all in an attempt to get answers and all while she was living away from her home. All of the Tenant’s efforts could have been avoided if one of the Landlord’s staff simply called her to explain the approval process that was taking place behind the scenes.
15. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Landlord’s lack of communication with the Tenant substantially interfered with her reasonable enjoyment of the unit and I am satisfied that the Landlord has failed to meet the Landlord’s obligations under section 22 of the Act.
16. The remedy for this disrepair issue and this substantial interference issue will be discussed below.
23. The Tenant is requesting an abatement of rent in the amount for 100% for 3 months as compensation for disrepair to the living room floor, and the holes in the walls and floor of her son’s bedroom and for the substantial interference to her reasonable enjoyment of the unit.
24. In order to award an appropriate abatement, I must consider the impact on the Tenant of these areas of disrepair and of the Landlord’s actions in failing to communicate with the Tenant.
25. Regarding the living room floor, the evidence, which includes the Tenant’s testimony, her pictures and the Landlord’s quote for the repair, all indicate that the area of disrepair was limited to one or two pieces of hardwood floor in the living room. For the average tenant, the impact of this small area of lifted flooring would be minimal and, other than the length of time to repair, there was nothing in the Tenant’s testimony to suggest that she or her son were unusually impacted by this small area of living room floor.
26. As a result of the lengthy repair time, but the minimal impact to the Tenant, and based on my knowledge of similar cases, I am satisfied that a nominal amount of $100.00 should compensate the Tenant for the living room disrepair.
27. The impact of the holes in the second bedroom had a significant impact on the Tenant and her young son. The large hole was exposed and created a significant safety concern for the Tenant; even one moment of curiosity by her young son opening his bedroom door could result in him falling in the hole and severely injuring himself.
28. The holes in the walls of his bedroom also created a significant safety concern and the Tenant could not reasonably have been expected to allow her son to enter his room, let alone spend his nights sleeping alone in that room.
29. As a result, the Tenant was forced to have her son stay with her mom until the repairs were completed. This also meant that the Tenant herself was rarely able to come home because she was constantly staying with her mom to look after her son. Both the Tenant and her mother work outside the home and they both spent almost three months co-ordinating around each other’s work schedules to make sure they were caring for the Tenant’s son. In addition, the stress of going back and forth to the rental unit to try to resolve the repair issue caused the Tenant a great deal of anxiety and pressure.
30. It should be noted at this point that the Tenant did not move back into the unit until December 22, 2016. However, the Tenant waited to move back in for reasons unrelated to the applications before me. As a result, any abatement that is awarded will end on November 18, 2016, which is the day that all of the repairs were completed.
31. Both of the representatives made lengthy submissions at the hearing regarding the appropriate quantum of remedy to award in these circumstances. In particular, the representatives made submissions regarding when the abatement should begin and whether I should consider any efforts made by the Tenant to mitigate her damages pursuant to section 16 of the Act. I will address both of those issues in turn.
38. Once the Tenant chose to leave the unit, she did not stay in an expensive hotel, she did not eat at a restaurant for every meal, she did not claim extra transportation costs from her location to her job. All of these examples are ways in which the Tenant mitigated her losses and kept her expenses to a minimum in light of her choice to leave the rental unit. The Board does not punish tenants by giving them less abatement if they reasonably choose to leave their unit during a disrepair situation.
39. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Tenant chose to remove her son from the rental unit and live with her mother as a direct result of the level of disrepair in her son’s bedroom, the lengthy delay in completing the repair and the Landlord’s lack of communication regarding when the floor would be fixed. I am not prepared to say her behaviour in doing so was unreasonable and she failed to mitigate her damages. If the Landlord wanted to make the unit safe enough for her to remain it was open to the Landlord to make an offer to put a child lock on the door or take other steps to make the Tenant more comfortable about staying in the unit.
40. Even though the Tenant made a reasonable decision to leave, the concept of abatement is about the loss of value due to the disrepair. As the Tenant lost the use of one room and there are 5 rooms in the rental unit, this means that she lost the value of 20% of the rental unit and is entitled to compensation for that 20%. As a result, the Tenant should be awarded an abatement of rent in the amount of 20% from September 16, 2016, to November 18, 2016. As the monthly rent is $1,690.00 the abatement is calculated as follows:
($1,690.00 x 12 ÷ 365 days/year) x 20% x 63 days = $700.06.
TNL-94712-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 60324 (ON LTB)
3. In application TNL-86332-16, the Landlord sought to evict the Tenant for arrears of rent. That application was resolved by an order issued on October 31, 2016. The Board found that the Landlord was in serious breach of his obligations because of disrepair with respect to cockroaches, rats, and holes in the walls. Eviction was denied pursuant to subsection 83(3)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘RTA’).
4. The Landlord then filed application TNL-88808-16 seeking to evict the Tenant for rent arrears. I heard that application on January 19, 2017. At the hearing, the Landlord stated that he had not done anything to address the cockroaches, rats, or holes in the walls. I therefore found that he was still in serious breach of his obligations, and again denied eviction pursuant to subsection 83(3)(a) of the RTA.
5. The Landlord now brings the present application seeking to evict the Tenant for rent arrears. This time, in addition to arguing that the Landlord is still in serious breach of his obligations, the Tenant also seeks remedies pursuant to section 82 of the RTA. That section permits her to raise any issues, and seek any remedies, that could have been the subject of her own application to the Board. The Tenant seeks compensation for the Landlord’s ongoing failure to remedy the cockroaches, rodents, and holes in the walls.
15. The Tenant and her daughter, L.S., testified that the unit has been infested with rats, mice, and cockroaches for over a year. They see the pests running around during the day on the floors and countertops and in their drawers. Rodents eat the food they store in the kitchen. Mice have run across L.S.’s bed.
16. The Tenant also introduced a photo of a glue trap she put down. The glue trap has a dead rodent and is also covered with a very large number of cockroaches. There is also a recent photo of a mouse in the Tenant’s kitchen sink.
17. The Tenant testified that the Landlord sent a pest control company to treat for cockroaches twice in February, but the problem was not solved. The Landlord has not treated the unit for rodents at all, except by giving the Tenant glue traps. The Landlord sealed some of the holes in the walls, but the rodents chewed new holes.
18. I find the Tenant’s testimony to be credible, and I accept it as true. The testimony was corroborated by photos, and was plausible given that the Landlord has done almost nothing to treat the problems for more than a year. Glue traps are not an adequate response to a serious rodent infestation.
19. Overall, I am satisfied that the rodent and cockroach infestations in the unit are extreme.
Remedies
20. The Landlord is still in serious breach of his obligation to maintain the unit. His application will be dismissed pursuant to subsection 83(3)(a) of the RTA. He will also be ordered to remedy the problems.
21. The Tenant’s rent of $1,030.00 monthly will be abated by 40% to compensate her for the cockroach and rodent problems in her apartment. I find a large abatement to be appropriate due to the severity of the problem, and because the Landlord has done almost nothing to address it for more than a year.
22. The Tenant first raised her issues pursuant to section 82 of the RTA on July 13, 2017. The abatement will therefore apply from July 13, 2016 to the date of the hearing. The Tenant is barred by subsection 29(2) of the RTA from seeking a remedy for anything prior to July 13, 2016.
23. The Tenant’s complaint regarding holes in the walls is ancillary to her complaint about rodents. She says that the rodents are chewing through the walls. No additional remedy is needed for the holes.
24. The Tenant seeks reimbursement for expenses that she incurred regarding lost food. However, there was no evidence that she incurred those expenses, so reimbursement will not be awarded.
25. The Tenant also seeks general damages for pain and suffering. However, there was no evidence that the Tenant has suffered anything beyond a reduction in the use and enjoyment of her unit resulting from the pests. An abatement is therefore adequate compensation, and no further damages are warranted.
CET-47334-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 103696 (ON LTB)
19. A.A. stated that there are four holes in the drywall in her unit, she described them as possibly holes cut in the wall for speakers and submitted pictures of each hole. The Landlord’s Legal Representative stated that the holes were there at the time of move in.
20. I am satisfied on the unopposed evidence that there are four holes in the drywall in the rental unit. Therefore, I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to maintain the walls in the rental unit. The Tenant stated that she believes bugs are entering her unit from these holes. I find that the Tenant is entitled to a lump sum rent abatement of $80.00 because of the holes in the wall. Also, I find that the Landlord must repair the holes in the drywall in the rental unit.
It is ordered that:
3. The Landlord shall inspect and complete any necessary repairs to the dishwasher, holes in the walls and the floor seams in the Tenant’s rental unit on or before May 31, 2015.
TET-69033-16-RV (Re), 2017 CanLII 48851 (ON LTB)
1. This application involves the lower or basement unit of a single family home divided into two rental residential units. The tenancy began in July of 2014. The rental unit has two bedrooms and the monthly rent is $1,000.00.
2. In very broad terms the Tenant’s application alleges the Landlord is dismissive, slow or unresponsive towards the Tenant’s complaints and needs, and that the Landlord has failed to deal effectively with the behaviour of the tenant living upstairs.
3. The specific complaints that the Tenant led evidence about at the hearing include:
- The removal of a section of pipe that necessitated much of the floor in the rental unit being removed and replaced;
- Flood damage not repaired;
- Conflicts with the tenant upstairs about the temperature;
- Noise complaints involving the tenant upstairs; and
- Disrepair complaints concerning: ants, junk in the backyard, the roof, the carport, the yard, the neighbour’s construction work, leaf removal, and the driveway.
12. The other damage caused by the flood involved walls where drywall had to be removed and cut away. The Tenant did some wallpaper replacement herself but there are still two holes in the walls needing repair.
13. The photographs of the walls in question show that the lower foot or so of drywall on one wall has been removed entirely essentially leaving one bedroom open to the next room. The other hole is at the entry way. The drywall needs to be replaced, mudded, sanded, repainted and the wallpaper re-done.
14. Since this damage occurred the Tenant has sent the Landlord at least five written complaints asking for the walls to be repaired. On December 20, 2015, she literally begged the Landlord to fix it before Christmas as she had family coming. The Landlord’s response was to write back and say she was loaded with very important and time pressing stuff and promised to address it as soon as she could.
15. The Landlord says she tried to send the Landlord’s Witness to the rental unit to do the repairs but the Tenant refused entry. The Landlord’s Witness does not corroborate this testimony of the Landlord and the Tenant denies it. The Landlord can produce no records of notices of entry served or any other correspondence indicating she did anything to address the holes in the walls in the rental unit.
16. Given all of the above, I am satisfied that the Landlord breached s. 20(1) of the Act with respect to the floor of the rental unit and the flood damage to the walls.
22. With respect to the holes in the walls the Tenant is entitled to an ongoing abatement until the repairs are completed. The Landlord appears not to have taken her obligation to do this repair seriously. She had more important things to deal with at the time. That may well be true, but it does not change the legal obligation the Landlord has to respond to disrepair in a timely and effective manner.
23. In terms of quantum, the problem with the walls is mostly a cosmetic one albeit a trying one for the Tenant. Given the evidence before me, the impact on the Tenant of the problem, and my knowledge of like similar cases before the Board, I believe a rent abatement of approximately 8% is reasonable in all of the circumstances. As far as I can tell from the evidence the walls were opened by the Landlord’s contractors no later than September 5, 2015. So an order will issue requiring the Landlord to pay to the Tenant abatement of the rent with respect to the walls totalling $1,520.00. If the walls are not repaired by March 31, 2017 the Tenant will be entitled to deduct 8% of the rent charged until the repair is complete.
TST-58189-14 (Re), 2015 CanLII 93564 (ON LTB)
8. The Tenant’s spouse says that there were mice and cockroaches in the unit. She says she first observed mice in her unit in either August or November 2014, and notified the Landlord about the issue in November 2014. The Tenant’s spouse attributes the problem to there being holes in the walls. The Tenant’s spouse says that she found two dead mice in her unit in December, and two in January 2015. The Landlord provided her with sticky pads on both occasions to be used to trap the mice. Post January 2015 the Tenant’s spouse did not observe any more mice. The Landlord concedes that there were mice in the unit. M.G. testified that the Landlord was notified that there were mice in the unit in August 2014. He put spray foam and steel wool in the holes in the walls in January 2015.
12. Further, it is problematic that the Tenant’s spouse disposed of some of her property before she gave the Landlord an opportunity to fully address the pest issue. It is possible that the items may have been salvageable, and the Landlord’s losses mitigated. However the Tenant’s spouse simply took matters into her own hands before a pest control technician could address the issues. Nonetheless, I am persuaded that an abatement to address the pest issues is warranted under the circumstances. The various pests negatively affected the Tenant’s spouse, and were not part of the agreement that the parties struck when the lease or contract was formed. The evidence suggests that the Tenant and his spouse had some disruption in their ability to normally reside in the unit, and that there was a moderate impact on their use and enjoyment of the unit. The remedy determination is based on the period March 2014 to January 2015. I find that an abatement of rent for this period at 12% of the monthly rent is appropriate in the circumstances; given the ongoing presence of insects, and short term presence of mice the Tenant and his spouse had a moderate impact on their enjoyment of their unit.
TST-06502-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 134604 (ON LTB)
1. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Landlord (1) failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006 c.17 (‘Act’) to repair or maintain the rental unit, (2) the Tenant is entitled to reimbursement resulting damaged to his property, (3) the Landlord will be required to complete the repairs; and (4) that the landlord substantially interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of his unit by repeatedly requesting that he vacate the rental unit.
9. The Tenant testified that on several occasions since March of 2018 he advised the Landlord of the holes in the walls and ceiling, the water leakage and the damage to his property. In response to the Tenant’s complaints about the state of the unit the City of Toronto issued a work order requiring the Landlord to make all repairs by January 7, 2019. The Tenant’s legal representative also advised the Landlord of the maintenance issues by correspondence dated June 24, 2019. (Exhibit 7)
10. The Landlord’s representative responded to the maintenance allegations by testifying that: the Landlord had requested that the Tenant vacate the unit so that the repairs could be completed; the Landlord served an N12 to have the Tenant vacate the unit; and that the Landlord, by correspondence dated February 12, 2019, offered the Tenant an alternative unit during the period of repairs, on the condition that the Tenant would have to vacate the unit at the end of the repairs.
11. It was uncontested that the letter of February 12, 2019 was returned to the Landlord by Canada Post as undelivered. The Tenant testified that he was not aware of the letter and had not received it.
12. On the basis of the evidence before the Board, I find that the Landlord did not make an offer to the Tenant for alternative accommodation during a renovation/repair period and if he did, it was made conditional on the Tenant agreeing to terminate his tenancy.
13. It was uncontested that the roof was repaired in 2016, it still continued to leak and there are very large holes in the rental unit ceiling and walls that had not been repaired by the Landlord.
14. The Tenant testified that he has been negatively impacted by the leaks and holes in the walls and ceiling. He testified that he is not able to sleep in his bedroom when it rains or snows and has buckets through out the unit to catch water and plastic bags over holes to stop insulation from falling onto his stove and into his cooking.
15. I find that the Landlord failed to respond reasonably to repair and close the very substantial holes in the ceiling and walls of the unit. The Landlord has an obligation to do so, was ordered by the City of Toronto to do so and he failed to take any action to do so. The Landlord may not wait unit the Tenant moves out of the unit to conduct the repairs.
20. Rent abatements are a contractual remedy based on the principle that rent is charged in exchange for a bundle of goods and services and if a tenant is not receiving those goods and services then the rent should be abated in a sum proportional to the difference between what is being charged and what is being received.
21. In the T6 Application, the Tenant requested a 30% rent is abatement for the period May 2018 to the hearing, which I find reasonable. Accordingly, the Tenant is entitled to a total rent abatement of $3,519.00 for the 17 months the Tenant has lived with the holes and leaking in the unit.
22. The Landlord will be ordered to conduct repairs to the rental unit to repair all holes in the ceiling and walls of the rental unit.
SOT-20877-11 (Re), 2012 CanLII 21952 (ON LTB)
2. The Tenant testified that she first looked at the rental unit in March of 2011. At that time, the rental unit was in a state of disrepair. She observed holes in the walls, black mould, the smell of cat and mouse waste, loose light switches, leaking faucets, a rotting front porch and worn kitchen floor, among other things.
3. The Tenant recalled agreeing to rent the rental unit for $695.00 per month, but also that she would clean and repair the rental unit in exchange for reimbursement. She took possession of the rental unit in June. Cleaning took several days, as did painting the walls. It took the Landlord two months to offer reimbursement, offering $25.00 off the monthly rent.
4. The Tenant moved out in December. At that time, the rental unit was still in a state of disrepair.
5. The Tenant's friend, Sean Swayze, testified that he had also participated in the repair work, and that the Landlord had promised to reimburse him for the work.
7. Based on the evidence of both parties, I have no difficulty concluding that the rental unit was in a state of disrepair when the tenancy began. The Tenant provided pictures that document the extensive cleaning and re-painting that was required at that time.
8. While I accept that the Tenant agreed to take possession of the rental unit in the condition that it was in at that time, and that she agreed to clean and repair it on her own, this does not absolve the Landlord of his maintenance and repair obligations under the act. The Landlord's maintenance obligations cannot be waived, even where a tenant agrees to move into a rental unit "as is."
9. The evidence indicates to me that the Tenant did agree to clean the rental unit and perform repairs when she agreed to rent the unit. The evidence also indicates to me that the parties did not form a full agreement with respect to the degree of repairs that the Tenant would perform and be reimbursed for. Through incomplete communication, the Tenant formed the view that she could perform substantial repairs to the rental unit, while the Landlord appears to have limited his view of necessary repairs to cleaning and painting.
10. I am mindful that the Landlord agreed to deduct $25.00 from the monthly rent for the maintenance issues, and for the repair work done by the Tenant. I consider this amount inadequate under the circumstances. In view of the condition of the rental unit, as well as the cleaning and repair work performed by the Tenant, I am of the view that a rent abatement of 40% is justified for the months of June and July, and 20% for the months from August to November. Based on a monthly rent of $695.00, the total abatement is $1,112.00.
11. As I have found that there was no substantive agreement between the parties with respect to much of the Tenant's repair work, I am unable to grant compensation for all of the supplies claimed by the Tenant, and documented by her receipts. However, having found that the Tenant did clean and paint the rental unit with the Landlord's consent, I am prepared to order compensation for materials related to the initial cleaning and painting, in the amount of $447.04. Lastly, I am unable to order compensation for repair work by Sean Swayze, as he was not a landlord or a tenant, rendering his claim outside of this Board's jurisdiction.
TST-02291 (Re), 2009 CanLII 79087 (ON LTB)
2. The sole legal issue in this application is whether or not the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act. The relevant provision says: “A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.
12. In addition it was also the evidence before me that when the rental unit was rented to the Tenant there was large hole in the wall below the windows, crumbling missing parts of wall between the floor and the wall in the bathroom where one might expect to find baseboard, duct tape underneath all the windows, a missing cover on a non-functioning electrical radiator, a hanging electrical outlet and at least one missing outlet cover. As a result I am satisfied that the Landlord was in breach of his responsibilities under section 20 of the Act with respect to these items. In response to the Tenant’s complaints, a light fixture in the bathroom was repaired and some of the holes in the walls were fixed; and those repairs happened in a prompt manner. However, nothing else appears to have been done to the rental unit after the Tenant took possession.
17. As I also stated at the hearing, the photographs are compelling evidence that the rental unit was in substantial disrepair. Given the Landlord’s failure to respond to the Tenant’s complaints, in particular with respect to the deplorable state of the windows, I am of the view the Tenant is entitled to some abatement of the rent. That being said, the Tenant is not entitled to 100% abatement as requested in her application. This is because abatement is a contractual remedy which is supposed to be proportional to the difference between what the tenant is paying for and what he or she is receiving. The Landlord’s representative correctly pointed out that the Tenant had the use of the rental unit from October 1 to October 31, 2008. She may have chosen not to move in, but she had access to the unit and could have lived there if she wished to. In addition, she stored some of her possessions there, including her cats, for the entire month. Although the Tenant may not think so, this means that she had some value in exchange for her rent and as a result is not entitled to abatement of the full rent paid.
18. Unfortunately, neither party made any submission as to the appropriate abatement amount. It seems to me that because the rental unit was a bachelor apartment the serious disrepair to the windows significantly decreased the value of the rental unit to the Tenant. This is because they were in the main living area which was the overwhelming majority of the space rented to the Tenant and where she would have expected to sleep, cook, eat, relax, and entertain. As a result, it seems to me that a reasonable abatement of the rent given all of the evidence and circumstances before me would be 50% of the rent paid for the period October 1 to October 31, 2008.
TST-12781-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 26901 (ON LTB)
1. The Tenants moved into the unit on July 1, 2010. At that time there was mould in the bathroom. There were also large holes in the wall behind the radiator and under the kitchen sink. The holes facilitated the entry of mice. The whole complex had a mice infestation problem. Another tenant, SC (SC), represented himself as the Landlord’s superintendent and actually gave the Tenants a letter confirming their tenancy. The Tenants reported their problems to SC, but very little was done until the end of September 2010. While the Tenants were away in early August 2010, mice took over the unit and they returned to find mice droppings all over their beddings and carpet. The Tenants disposed of the beddings and carpet. In late September 2001, the Landlord started work on the bathroom. It took 13 days, but the work was not completed. The tiles at the top were exposed, so water could get behind the tiles, and the ceiling was still mouldy. The work was not completed until February 2011, along with other outstanding maintenance issues such as repairing the bathroom sink, replacing missing screens, repairing the kitchen cabinets (frame and drawers), sealing holes in the unit and painting the ceiling and walls of the unit.
2. In light of the above, I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) to maintain the rental unit. While the Landlord did not personally know of these problems until the application was filed, the Landlord did not provide the Tenants with a contact address and relied on SC to deal with maintenance issues raised by tenants.
3. The Tenants are entitled to an abatement of rent in the amount of $1,300.00. This is calculated on the basis of 10% of the rent for July 2010, 20% for August and September 2010, and 10% October 2010 to February 2011. The abatement takes into account the fact that the Tenants suffered more stress and inconvenience in August and September 2010. The abatement also acknowledges the Landlord’s attempt to address the issues with the bathroom and kitchen cupboards in late September 2010. However, these issues along were other maintenance issues were not finally resolved until February 2011.
