Rat Infestation (LTB-Maintenance)

From Riverview Legal Group


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-04-26
CLNP Page ID: 672
Page Categories: Maintenance Obligations (LTB)
Citation: Rat Infestation (LTB-Maintenance), CLNP 672, <7T>, retrieved on 2024-04-26
Editor: MKent
Last Updated: 2022/06/15


TST-61589-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 39765 (ON LTB)

39. In light of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s evidence, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the residential complex and the unit were moderately infested with mice. Based on my knowledge of similar cases, the duration of the problem, the impact on the Tenants on a daily basis, I am satisfied that the Tenants are entitled to an abatement of 10% of the rent for the period from February 28, 2015 to July 31, 2015 (154 days), which totals $875.90. I considered awarding a higher abatement amount, however, I did not do so in light of the absence of written complaints by the Tenants and their insistence, contrary to the Act, that they be present during treatments after March 5, 2015.

43. I am giving the Landlord’s evidence about when the Tenants first raised the water issue no weight. BR, the property manager, testified that he attends at the complex every day to deal with different issues and stated that he was first made aware of the water issue in the unit “during the course of these proceedings”. RP was unable to provide the date when he first attended at the unit to address the water issue in the kitchen, but did state that it was “one day before” he attended to address the washroom issue. JP testified that she first became aware of the water issue in mid-March 2015 and “after the rats”. The contradictory testimony offered by BR, RP and JP in this regard gives rise to serious credibility concerns and, for this reason, I prefer the evidence of the Tenants that they brought this issue to the attention of the Landlord early into their tenancy and that the issue was finally resolved on March 16, 2015.

44. In light of the evidence before me, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that there were problems with the hot and cold running water in the unit as described by the Tenants and that the Landlord failed to comply with housing and maintenance standards in contravention of section 20 of the Act in this regard. Not having an adequate supply of hot and cold water is a serious issue, which negatively impacts a tenant on a daily basis and in this case, this breach also substantially interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the unit.

45. Given the Board’s awards in similar cases, the duration of the problem, the impact on the Tenants on a daily basis, and in keeping with the principle enunciated in Offredi, supra, I am satisfied that the Tenants’ request for an abatement of 25% of the rent for the material time is reasonable. As such an Order will issue for an abatement of 25% of the rent for the period from January 15, 2015 to March 16, 2015 (60 days), which totals $853.15.

TST-02871-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87037 (ON LTB)

27. In Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd. (2016 ONCA 477) the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that a landlord is not automatically in breach of their maintenance obligations under section 20 of the Act as soon as a problem arises: rather, a contextual approach is necessary in determining whether or not a landlord has breached their maintenance obligations. That approach involves a consideration of the “entirety of the factual situation”, including whether the Landlord’s attempts to perform the needed repairs were reasonable in the circumstances.

28. I have taken into account the entirety of the factual situation including the scope of the problem and the efforts involved in resolving it. In this context, I find that the Landlord is in breach of his maintenance obligations under section 20 of the Act.

29. At the heart of the problem is the undisputed continuing existence of rat mites in the rental unit since January 2018. Aside from the fact that there was significant delay on the part of the Landlord in providing chemicals for the Tenant to spray the unit due to the Landlord’s insistence on a release for liability for harm to the Tenant’s pets when they had long departed the unit, it is also undeniable that the Landlord has thrown up his hands and decided not to address this problem believing it is impossible to rid the unit of them without first attempting to exterminate rats and mice that may be in the residential complex.

30. The Landlord dallied over obtaining a release from the Tenant; he delayed retaining a pest control service provider with expertise in ridding the unit of rat mites and has not provided any independent evidence from Aetna that it has that expertise. There are also no documents from Aetna regarding the work it has performed. But, more importantly, early on the Landlord recognized the unit would not be fit for habitation for an indefinite period, if ever, because of the difficulty in locating and eliminating rodent nests and rodents and rat mites in the residential complex.

31. I am satisfied there likely are rodents nesting in between the Tenant’s floor and the ceiling of the unit underneath. However, I heard no evidence that the Landlord has attempted even obvious measures such as sealing the residential complex against entry by rodents, including all vents and electric service entry points with rodent-proof material; checking for entry points around chimney and between loose shingles; and sealing doors and windows tightly. Instead, what I saw were photographs of large gaps in the siding near the ground. The Landlord insisted that these could not be entry points for rodents because there is a foundation behind those gaps but did not support this claim with expert testimony.

32. It may be so that there is no lawful way to exterminate rat mites by chemicals in which case I find the rental unit is unfit for habitation. Since it is the Landlord’s responsibility under subsection 20(1) of the Act to provide and maintain 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, I find the Landlord is in breach of this responsibility. Clearly, the rental unit should not be offered for rent to a tenant if it cannot be made fit for habitation. Accordingly, the Tenant is entitled to a rent abatement for the inconvenience and disruption that he has suffered through as a result of the significant continuing existence of rat mites.

Remedy

33. The Tenant is seeking a rent abatement of $11,388.00 based upon a full refund of rent from February 2018 to January 2019, together with $249.48 for treatment of the Tenants’ three cats and one dog to rid them of rat mites and requiring the Landlord to clean out rat/mouse nests inside and outside the rental complex and fill entry holes.

34. I do not fault the Tenant for not accepting the Landlord’s offer to terminate the tenancy early despite the likely existence of rat mites in the rental unit and rodents in the residential complex. That is because it was conditional on the Tenant not obtaining a rebate for some of rent that had been paid and return of only a portion of the last month’s rent deposit.

35. Since the Landlord was unable or unwilling to fulfill his maintenance obligation he is obliged to return the rent paid by the Tenant for the period the Tenant has not been able to occupy the rental unit free and clear of rat mites which began on January 25, 2018 when the Landlord was first notified of the problem to the present. The Landlord is not required to reimburse the Tenant for the treatment of his pets as the Landlord was unaware of the problem prior to their having become infested. The Landlord is obliged to return the last month’s rent deposit to the Tenant.

36. Because of the lack of any predictable date for eradication of the problem of rat mites and rodents, the tenancy is terminated.

It is ordered that:

1. The tenancy is terminated effective January 31, 2019.

2. The Landlord shall pay to the Tenant a rent abatement of $11,388.00 and return the last month’s rent deposit of $949.00.

3. The Landlord shall pay to the Tenant the application filing fee in the amount of $45.00.

4. The total amount the Landlord owes the Tenant is $12,382.00.

TNT-82109-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 72021 (ON LTB)

1. The rental unit is a house. The monthly rent is $900.00. The Tenants are responsible to pay all utility costs except the hot water heater rental.

2. The parties entered into a written agreement to lease on April 12, 2015. The tenancy is for a one year term commencing on April 15, 2015.

3. At the outset of the tenancy the Tenants paid a last month rent deposit in the amount of $900.00 and paid rent for the period April 15 to April 30 in the amount of $450.00. The intention of the parties was to adjust the rent period so that instead of the rent coming due on the 15th of each month it would come due on the first of each month.

4. The Landlord JR is a real estate broker. The lease documents were drafted by him or by someone on his behalf.

5. As part of the rental agreement, the parties signed an “agreement” dated April 12, 2015, in which the Tenants agreed that they were aware of the condition of the house; that they accepted responsibility for maintenance of the septic tank; that they agreed to maintain the property including the outside grounds in a “respectable manner”; that they agreed that any minor work to be done on the house is the Tenant’s responsibility; and that they agreed to allow the Landlords access to the cold water hose outside of the house for the Landlord’s personal use.

6. To the extent that any of the terms of the foregoing agreement purport to relieve the Landlords of the obligation to maintain and repair the rental unit, they are void and unenforceable by reason of S. 4 of the Act.

7. The Act requires the Landlords to provide and maintain the rental unit and the residential complex in a good state of repair and fit for habitation, and requires the Landlords to comply with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards. Any provision in a rental agreement that is inconsistent with this requirement is void.

8. Although the tenancy was to begin on April 15, 2015, the Tenants did not receive the keys for the unit until April 27, 2015 as it was not ready for occupancy until that day.

9. The Landlords have a garden centre at the rear of the property. In order to have an adequate water supply for the garden centre the Landlords created a hole in the outside of the rental unit so that they could attach a hose to the Tenants’ kitchen sink, which serves the Landlords’ garden centre. The hole in the house allowed rats to enter the rental unit.

10. The Tenants advised the Landlords of a rat infestation in the house. The Landlords refused to address the problem and told the Tenants to deal with it themselves.

11. The Tenants called two extermination companies in May and June 2015, both of which advised the Tenants that they could not effectively rid the house of rats because the hole created by the Landlords was not properly closed and sealed.

12. The Tenants purchased poisons and traps at a cost of $300.00 and ultimately were able to rid the house of rats by September 2015. The infestation was significant and caused distress and discomfort for the Tenants. The rats were the size of a woman’s size 10 shoe, as demonstrated by the photos submitted by the Tenants. They chewed a hole in the bottom of a door inside the house, left dirt and feces in the house and caused the Tenants to be concerned for their health and well being.

13. The Landlords refused to acknowledge that the pests were rats despite having been shown evidence of their size by the Tenants. The Landlords’ attitude was that the Tenants lived in the country and should get used to “field mice”.

14. The Tenants brought their own stove and refrigerator to the rental unit, as the ones supplied by the Landlords did not function properly. The Landlords advised the Tenants to discard the appliances that belonged to the Landlord at the time the tenancy began.

15. The rats chewed and damaged the wiring and other parts of the Tenants’ stove and refrigerator, rendering them unusable, and beyond repair.

16. The Landlords supplied the Tenants with a stove and refrigerator for their use after the Tenants’ appliances were destroyed by the rats.

17. On September 30, 2015, the tile and faucet in the bathroom shower collapsed, causing water to spew out of the broken faucet connection. The Tenants called the Landlords immediately to advise of the problem. The Landlords refused to repair the problem, advising the Tenants that the house was “as-is” and any repairs were the responsibility of the Tenants.

18. The only way to stop the water from gushing out of the broken faucet connection was to turn off the main water supply for the house. This was impractical as the Tenants required use of the water for day to day needs.

19. Ultimately on October 21, 2015, the son of one of the Tenants repaired and renewed the shower and the faucet system, and repaired the consequent damage to the tiles and plaster. The cost of the parts alone was almost $300.00. The Tenants’ son is a supervisor for a construction company. He charged a total of $717.60 for the parts and labour to complete the required work, which I find to be reasonable.

20. In the month of April 2016, the Tenants did not pay the full rent. For 16 days in April the Landlords called the Tenants numerous times each day and as late as midnight, demanding the rent and threatening to evict the Tenants without due process. The Landlords physically threatened the Tenants, resulting in the involvement of the police.

21. I find that the Landlords have failed to meet their obligation to repair and maintain the rental unit as required by the Act.

22. The Tenants are entitled to a refund of $300.00 for the poisons and traps required to kill the rats in the rental unit. They are also entitled to compensation in the amount of $350.00 for the loss of their stove and refrigerator which were destroyed by rats. The Tenants are also entitled to an abatement of rent of $150.00 per month for 5 months during which rats were present in the rental unit.

23. The Tenants are entitled to reimbursement in the amount of $717.50 for the repairs to the bathroom plumbing. They are also entitled to an abatement of rent in the amount of $150.00 for the interference with their use of the plumbing systems and bathroom for a 3 week period.

24. I find that the Landlords harassed and interfered with the Tenants in the month of April 2016 by their persistent and haranguing demands for money and threats of illegal eviction. While the Landlords are entitled to be paid rent and are entitled to request payment of rent they are not entitled to call insistently and persistently on a daily basis. Their proper remedy is to bring an application to the Board for non-payment of rent. The Tenants are entitled to an abatement of rent in the amount of $200.00 for the harassment and interference with enjoyment for this conduct.

25. The Tenants requested a refund for the rent paid for the period April 15, 2015 until April 27, 2015, as they did not obtain possession of the rental unit until April 27, 2015. This claim is outside the one year limitation period imposed by the Act, as the Tenants claim was filed with the Board on May 25, 2016, more than one year after the retention of these funds by the Landlords.

26. The total amount of rebates, compensation and abatement of rent to which the Tenants are entitled is $2,467.50. (5 x $150.00 + $300.00 + $350.00 + $717.50 + $150.00 +$200.00).

It is ordered that:

1. The Landlords shall pay to the Tenants $2,467.50 as detailed above.

TET-85535-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42613 (ON LTB)

21. The Tenants seek compensation for the damage done to their fridge and stove and couch. All of these items are still in the Tenants’ possession. The fridge and stove are in storage because the Tenants’ new apartment came with appliances. That being said the Tenants fear using them would be hazardous due to the frayed cords.

22. The couch is no longer comfortable although it is usable and it is in storage because the Tenants do not know if it is still infested.

23. The couch was purchased for $4,000.00 two to three years prior to the Tenants moving into the rental unit. The fridge and stove were above five years old and cost $3,200.00 and $2,600.00 respectively when purchased new.

24. Clearly the Tenants are not entitled to the replacement costs for these items but they are entitled to the additional depreciation that can be attributed to the rat damage.

25. According to Ontario Regulation 516/06 the fridge and stove have a useful life of 15 years and the couch a useful life of 10 years.

26. This means that when the Tenants moved in the fridge and stove were depreciating at a rate of about $390.00 a year and should have another seven years of useful life. In other words, they should be worth about $2,700.00 now but are not. Given the condition of the appliances now and my knowledge of similar like cases it is fair to say that the combined value of the appliances is currently less than $1,000.00. The Tenants are entitled to the loss of value or $1,700.00.

27. Similarly the couch should have a current value of about $1,600.00 but instead is probably worth less than $500.00. The Tenants are entitled to the lost value of $1,100.00.

28. Finally, the Tenants are entitled to abatement of the rent.

29. In landlord and tenant matters the normal monetary remedy is abatement of the rent. Abatement is a contractual remedy. It represents the idea that rent is paid in exchange for goods and services and where those goods and services are not being provided the rent should be abated proportional to the difference between what is being paid for and what is being received.

30. Given the evidence of impact on the Tenants of the Landlords’ breaches, and my knowledge of previous like cases I believe a reasonable abatement of the rent may be calculated as follows:

  • For the leak in the master bedroom which is one of four bedrooms for the period commencing October 24, 2016 to November 12, 2017 when the Tenants moved out 10% of the monthly rent of $1,400.00 which totals $1,772.00;
  • For the leak in the kitchen ceiling and its collapse the e-mails exchanged indicate the Tenants complained about this problem in July of 2017 but it is unclear when the collapse occurred or when the tenants repaired it. As a result, given the work the Tenants did to fix the damage on their own it seems to me a reasonable abatement of the rent would be $500.00;
  • For the loss of heat that problem started in February of 2017 and continued until the tenancy ended in mid-November but would have had little impact on the Tenants during the warm weather months. Given the proportional of the home affected and the impact on the Tenants of the problem, it seems to me a reasonable abatement of the rent would be 25% of the rent charged for 6 months or $2,100.00;
  • With respect to the rat infestation the problem was reported to the Landlords by July of 2017 at the latest. The e-mails between the parties indicate how disruptive and unpleasant dealing with that problem was for the Tenants. As a result, it seems to me that a further abatement of 15% is warranted for the four month period between July and November, 2017 or $840.00.

31. The amounts awarded for abatement, compensation for damaged property and out of pocket expenses total $8,622.00.

32. This amount exceeds the amount claimed in the application which is $6,721.48. The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to the amount claimed. So an order will issue requiring the Landlords to pay to the Tenants a total of $6,721.48.

SWT-98606-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28765 (ON LTB)

2. The Tenants raise 14 issues in their application:

a) Exterior side door damaged;
b) Front door;
c) Front screen door damaged;
d) Sliding back door damaged;
e) Leak in basement under sliding back door;
f) Threshold transition strip missing;
g) Sod in rear yard;
h) Furnace filter;
i) Basement Bathroom wall;
j) Water softener;
k) Bathroom cabinet;
l) Dryer vent under deck;
m) Rats;
n) Deck railing.

3. The Tenants are seeking the following remedy;

a) Front door fixed;
b) Screen door window repaired;
c) Railing on deck installed;
d) Professional pest control company to treat outside for rats;
e) Sod rear yard;
f) Repair water softener;
g) Abatement of 50% plus a discount in rent of $200.00 per month;
h) Payment for the rat traps;
i) $475.00 for the cost to replace a bbq.

5. The parties agreed that the Landlord repaired the following items that were listed in the email of October 15, 2015 by the following dates.

a) Side door October 4, 2016
b) Furnace filter Tenant replaced October 2015
c) Hole in basement bath wall October 4, 2016
d) Sliding back door and leak January 3, 2017

7. I find that the Landlord failed to meet their obligation to repair and maintain the premises under section 20 of the Act. with respect to the items in paragraph 5. I find that the Tenants’ remedy of a 50% abatement in the circumstances is excessive and that an abatement of 10% or $1,575.39 for the period from January 20, 2016 to January 3, 2017 is reasonable.

TST-64640-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 77842 (ON LTB)

1. The Tenant was informed at the hearing, by virtue of subsection 29(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) a tenant cannot be awarded a remedy with respect to a period more than one year prior to the date of application. As the Tenants filed their application on July 15, 2015, the Board is statute barred of issuing a remedy based on the Landlord’s breach prior to July 15, 2014.

5. The Tenant testified that there has been a rat infestation in the residential complex since November, 2014. The rats could be frequently seen in the garage and heard within the walls of the Tenants’ rental unit. At first the exterminator attempted to set traps however this method was insufficient to effectively deal with the infestation. The exterminator then began to use poison in May 2015.

6. The Tenant testified that the stench from the dead rat carcasses within the walls of her unit was overwhelming. The building management placed odour releasing machines around the complex without much success. When the smell began dissipating in mid- July, thousands large black bottle flies appeared in the unit and residential complex feeding on the dead rats. The Landlord placed sticky pads up to catch the flies. When the black bottle flies began to subside thousands of what appeared to be fruit flies took their place.

7. I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to maintain the rental unit and failed to comply with health and housing or maintenance standards.

8. The only remedy sought by the Tenants is a rent abatement. An abatement of rent is a contractual remedy based on the principle that if you are paying 100% of the rent then you should be getting 100% of what you are paying for and if you are not getting that, then a tenant should be entitled to abatement equal to the difference in value. The lawful rent for the unit is $1,091.00. Having regard for the nature of the maintenance issue, the steps taken by the Landlord and the impact statement of the Tenants, I am of a view that a reasonable abatement in this instance to be $1,691.05. This amount represents a 5% abatement from November, 2015 to May, 2015 ($381.85), a 50% abatement for June and July ($1,091.00) and finally a 20% abatement for the month of August, 2015 ($218.20).

TET-81380-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 60346 (ON LTB)

1. The Tenant testified at the hearing that they moved into the rental unit on March 31, 2017.

2. The Tenant testified that the fridge was leaking when they moved in, there were bedbugs and rats in the rental unit, the toilet seat was broken and the bedroom door was broken.

3. The Tenant testified that the fridge, the toilet seat and the door have been fixed but the problem of bedbugs and rats is still unresolved.

4. The Tenant testified that the fridge, the toilet seat and the door were repaired about two weeks ago, but the Landlord testified that these issues were resolved in May 2017.

8. I have considered all of the relevant evidence provided at the hearing and find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to repair or maintain the rental unit and failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards . The Landlord admitted that the rental unit was a disaster. I find that the Landlord repaired the fridge, the toilet seat and the door in May 2017. The issue of bedbugs and the rats is still outstanding.

9. The Landlord testified that the rental unit was treated for pest control in January 2017. The Tenants moved into the rental unit on March 31, 2017 and the Landlord could not produce any evidence of the rental unit being treated for bedbugs after March 31, 2017 when the Tenants complained about bedbugs. Therefore the Tenants are entitled to rent abatement of $440.00 which is 10% of the monthly rent for a period from April 15, 2017 to August 16, 2017. If the Landlord does not resolve the issue of bedbugs, the Tenants shall be entitled to rent abatement in the future.

TST-06559-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 134518 (ON LTB)

11. On September 24, 2018 the Tenants reported the presence of rats to the Landlord.

12. The Landlord did not do anything to address this issue, other than tell the Tenants to get traps and poison.

13. The rats left droppings in the cutlery drawer, so the Tenants had to repeatedly wash the cutlery. They had to do so by hand because the dishwasher did not work.

23. The Tenants claim a total rent abatement of $400.00 per month for all of the issues raised in their application. After considering the duration of all of the problems and the impact on the Tenants’ enjoyment and use of the rental unit, I find that the abatement requested by the Tenants, which amounts to less than a 10% abatement, is more than justified.

TEL-85349-17-RV (Re), 2018 CanLII 111840 (ON LTB)

7. The Tenants’ application claims the Landlord breached his obligation under section 20 of the Act regarding the following issues:

a) Mice and rats;
b) Furnace and Air conditioner;
c) Windows; and
d) Hydro and water.

8. By way of background, the Tenants moved into the rental unit August 1, 2017, but they were unable to actually sleep there due to a few of the issues listed in paragraph 7. The parties were familiar with each other because the Tenants had rented a gas station from the Landlord prior to renting this location. The lease provided by the parties shows the rented area as the house with steel garage and one acre of land.

Rodents

9. The Tenants testified that there was evidence of mice and/or rats upon move in August 1, 2017. They found feces and they saw rats come into the rental unit when it became cold. The Tenants submitted pictures of their clothing with holes eaten out of them, feces in cupboards and a large hole in the wall. The rodents were making nests in the clothing and blankets and ate through the Tenants’ mattress.

10. The Tenants told the Landlord face to face of the issue with the rodents when the Landlord was at the house. According to the Tenants, the Landlord took no action to remedy the situation. The Tenants attempted to mitigate by placing traps around the home.

11. The Landlord admitted that the Tenants did tell him about the rodent situation; however, he says it was not until November 20, 2017 in an email from the first-named Tenant. He further stated that he spoke with the second-named Tenant and he told the Landlord that they would deal with it. The second-named Tenant denies this making this comment.

12. The Landlord further stated he believed the Tenants were the ones who brought the rodents in their 10 truckloads of items. The Landlord admittedly did not call or hire a pest control company to inspect the situation or attempt to fix the problem.

13. The Landlord relied on a letter signed by the Tenants saying they have inspected the house and were satisfied with the condition. This letter is not dated and it is unclear when it was signed. The Tenants stated they did not see inside the home prior to getting the keys, but they did drive by to view the outside.

14. Given the Landlord’s own testimony that he did not take any steps to figure out, first, whether there was a rodent issue, and second, how to fix it, I am satisfied the Landlord failed to meet his maintenance obligation with respect to keeping the unit rodent free. His claim that the Tenants brought the rodents is unfounded and it is clear by the pictures there was a severe rodent issue.

15. I find it difficult to believe that the Tenants would tell the Landlord about the problem only to turn around and say that they will deal with it. It begs the question as to why the Tenants would tell the Landlord in the first place. Aside from this, the Landlord has an obligation to fix the problem. For this reason, remedy is granted below.

30. Here the Tenants went without proper heat, had a rodent problem, had broken windows, and had no hydro.

31. The Tenants requested 50% abatement for the month of August because they were unable to stay in the unit for half of the month due to lack of hydro. Based on their testimony, I am not satisfied they had to remain out of the unit for the amount of time as claimed. I believe the appropriate period is August 1, 2017 to August 5, 2017 at 100% abatement, or when they said the hydro was back on, or an amount of $369.86.

32. For the remaining claimed items, the Tenants requested an abatement of 20% of the rent from September 2017 to January 2018. Given the merits of the application and my knowledge of previous similar applications I find this abatement amount to be reasonable. The abatement of 20% for the period of September 1, 2017 to January 31, 2018 is granted in the amount of $2,263.56.

33. The Tenants’ claim for cost in the amount of $900.00 to repair and/or replace damaged items include, but are not limited to, the following items: mattress, children’s clothing, hats, mittens, lunch bags, food, lamp, perfumes, and jewelry box. Although the Tenants did not submit receipts for these items the Board may grant reasonable costs. In this case, based on the pictures submitted by the Tenants there is extensive damage to some of these items due to rodent activity. I find the cost to be reasonable and as such, are granted.

TST-09224-19 (Re), 2020 CanLII 31334 (ON LTB)

12. The Tenant testified that she had a rodent infestation (mice and rats) in the unit since the outset of the tenancy in July 2018. The Tenant reported the rodents to the Landlord’s son H, who manages the rental property, on June 19, 2019.

13. At the hearing the Tenant submitted a copy of an e-mail she sent to H on June 19, 2019, and his response of June 20, 2019. H responded by stating that he was not aware of this issue and he would speak to the Landlord about getting an exterminator involved, but he did not know if that would be effective because of the “condition of the surrounding area.”

14. The Tenant testified that the Landlord came to the unit to inspect the problem some time between June 20, 2019 and June 30, 2019 and that the Landlord said that she could not do anything about it. The Landlord did not give any evidence to contradict this.

15. The Landlord told the Tenant to call public health about the issue.

16. The Tenant testified that the rodent problem was not resolved before she vacated the unit. The Tenant has three school aged children. The Tenant testified that the rodent problem caused her and her children anxiety and fear and that one of her children refused to sleep in her room after seeing a rat in June 2019.

17. In her testimony, the Landlord did not deny that there is a rodent problem in the rental unit. She testified that the area has many rodents because there a lot of the neighbours put food waste outside (she referred to the neighbourhood as a “food court”).

18. The Landlord testified that she called 311 to complain to the City about the rodent situation in the neighbourhood at the end of July 2019.

20. Based on the uncontested evidence, I find that there was a rodent problem in the rental unit, that the Landlord was aware of it on June 19, 2019, and that the Landlord did not do anything appropriate in response to the issue. The Landlord already knew that there were a lot of rodents in the area because of her neighbours’ conduct. When the Landlord became aware that there was a rodent problem in the rental unit, the fact that there is a rodent problem in the neighbourhood should have caused her to take more aggressive action to address the issue, not less. Based on the Landlord’s lack of evidence, I cannot find that the Tenant caused or contributed to this problem by leaving uncontained food in the unit. However, even if this was the case it does not relieve the Landlord from her obligation, under s.20 of the Act, to make reasonable efforts to ensure the unit is free of pests.

21. I therefore find that the Landlord breached her obligation under s.20 of the Act.

22. Based on the nature and duration of the problem and on the impact on the Tenant and her family, I find that the Tenant is entitled to a rent abatement in the amount of 15% for the period of June 20, 2019 to August 23, 2019, for a total of $347.14. The Tenant is not entitled to any remedy for this issue prior to the date that she complained about it to the Landlord. There was no evidence before me that the Landlord ought to have been aware of it in the absence of a complaint.

SWT-10531-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42481 (ON LTB)

1. The Tenants’ application cited broken and leaky windows, leaky bathtub, insufficient electrical outlets and rats.

10. The Tenants had not seen any rats inside since the fall, so the parties agreed to leave the issue until there is another sighting reported to the Landlord. At that time the Landlord would provide pest control to rectify the situation.

11. The parties further agreed the Landlord would contact the Tenant’s Legal Representative 48 hours before he needed access to the rental unit and the Tenant’s Legal Representative would provide notice to the Tenants. Given the Landlord lives in Toronto and English is not is first language and although he can speak English, he is unable to read or write in English this was an agreed solution to the notice issue.

16. The Tenants were seeking an abatement of $1,920.00 which represents a rental abatement of 20% for one year. The Landlord made no submissions with respect to the abatement.

17. Given the Landlord admits that the work has not been completed and given the city was required to issue an order because the Landlord had failed to address his responsibilities under section 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and given the Tenants have had to live with no outlets in some rooms and inadequate outlets in other rooms, a leaking bathtub with little water pressure and windows that are broken and leak, I find the amount of $1,920.00 which represents an abatement of 20% for one year reasonable in the circumstances.

CET-71273-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 41838 (ON LTB)

2. The Tenant testified about the following maintenance issues that she claimed were brought to the attention of the Landlord when they moved in in July 2015:

a) Washer and dryer: Tenant stated she had to replace on her own at a cost of $625.00 date unspecified because from the day she moved in the dryer wouldn’t heat up and water pressure was low. The Tenant stated the Landlords told her to remove the washer and dryer and put them behind the shed. The Landlords testified the washer and dryer were working and they never talked of the washer and dryer but they assumed the Tenant had replaced them. The Landlord CM stated she thought the Tenants had resolved the washer and dryer issue, because according to their lease the Tenant was responsible for the maintenance of all appliances.
b) Holes in the Kitchen ceiling: The Tenant stated since she moved in there was a hole in the wall just above the stove which is still not fixed. The witness DC corroborated this. The Landlord did not respond to this specific allegation.
c) Stove top element not working and oven not working: The Tenant stated the stove hasn’t working properly since she moved in and needs to be replaced. The oven doesn’t work and for a while one element wasn’t working. The Landlord responded that only one burner is not working.
d) Rotten carpets: The Tenant testified that the carpets became rotten and mouldy due to leaking from the rain and snow and animals. The Landlord stated they were informed about the carpets in July 2017 and struggled to get someone to come and address them. The carpet was replaced from both bedrooms and the hallway on the second floor on November 25, 2017 as substantiated by receipts submitted by the Landlord.
e) Leaking and mould in master bedroom window and in ceiling lights in both bedrooms and bathroom, walls damaged due to the leaking: The Tenant stated that when it rains or snows, water leaks around the ceiling lights walls in the bedrooms and bathroom. The Tenant stated she had not been sleeping in the master bedroom because of the mould and smell from the leaking. According to the Tenant the problems have not been fixed. The Landlords claimed when they inspected the rental unit they did not see any evidence that the Tenant was using the living room as her bedroom. The Landlords did not comment regarding mould and leakage.
f) Animals, rats, mice, bed bugs and birds in the rental unit: The Tenant stated that animals were living in the walls and the bedroom. She stated there were 4 types of bugs, bed bugs, potato bugs, centipedes and moisture bugs. The Tenant further stated an ice cream place opened recently (date unspecified) and when they (ice cream place) put their garbage out it worsened the situation because rats and mice would leave the garbage and come into the house. There Tenant further stated there was mould and bad odour as a result of the animals which made it difficult for her to sleep in her bedroom. The Landlord confirmed the problem with the ice cream place and stated that is why they had a tree removed. The Landlord responded stating they only became aware of the issues with bed bugs and other maintenance issues in July 30, 2017. The Landlord sent pest control technicians to the rental unit 3 times in August 2017 and once a month since then.
g) The Tenant stated there were minor repairs that were done by her father over the years but she was not seeking compensation for that minor work

9. The Tenant is seeking is an abatement of rent in the amount of $1,600.00 and cost of replacing the washer and dryer of $625.00, for a total of $2,225.00 The Tenants also claimed $65 for bug spray and $75.00 for cleaning carpets. No proof of those expenses was submitted. It was also not disputed that the carpets and pest control were addressed by the Landlords.

10. I find that the Tenant is entitled to a rent abatement equal to 25% of rent as a result of the number of relatively serious ongoing maintenance issues in the rental unit which have significantly affected the Tenant’s use and enjoyment of the rental unit. The rent abatement period starts on November 7, 2016 and ends on the date this order is issued. As the rent is $1,600.00 per month, the total rent abatement awarded to the Tenant is $6,000.00. The Landlords will also be ordered to make the necessary repairs.

11. The Landlords will also be ordered to compensate the Tenants for the cost of the washer and dryer as they failed to meet their legal obligation to repair the washer and dryer that were in the rental unit at the beginning of the tenancy. As the Landlords are being ordered to pay for the washer and dryer they become property of the Landlords and must be left in the rental unit at the end of the tenancy.

SWT-99175-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 60506 (ON LTB)

1. The Landlord failed to remedy a rodent infestation. Therefore, I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to repair and maintain the rental unit and failed to comply with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.

2. As set out in the attached reasons, some food and property was destroyed as a result of the Landlord's failure to repair and maintain the rental unit and comply with applicable standards.

37. The Health Unit report, dated September 8, 2017, states:

“Significant structural damage apparent from exterier [sic] suggesting lack of routine repairs that has resulted in numerous areas where rodents can gain assess [sic] to interior. A low rise wooden deck, foundation cracks, cracks/ holes in concrete pads, piled rough hewn wood, a wooden shed, scrub shrubbery and stored lumber outside all provided ‘hiding places’ for rodents.
Although lifestyle issues were apparent relative to pet food and food storage inside the house, tenants were considered to keep a relatively tidy and clean house despite structural damage (wear and tear) to wall, floor- including concrete based slab with numerous holes appropriate for rats to have access to ‘safe’ habitat. A large amount of rat feces and a strong odour of urine was apparent in the basement. Rodent damage to insulation and dry wall in the basement was also apparent.
One live rat was observed hiding in a shelf unit in the basement.

38. Although there was some lack of agreement over when the Landlord first learned of the rat infestation, the Tenant’s text of April 13, 2016, describes a serious state of mouse infestation. The emails of April 13 & April 14, 2016, confirm that the problem was very serious at that point although the tone of the email “Hey Mike I hate to be a pain in the butt…..” and “all the blocks of passion [sic] are gone….every brick!” suggest that the Landlord has not been very receptive to the Tenant’s requests for help other than, perhaps to supply poison. The emails do suggest that she was actively engaged in trying to take care of the house herself as she notifies the Landlord that she used the extra floor tiles and took out part of a counter because it was full of mice feces.

39. I am satisfied by the opinion of the Health Inspector that it was the lack of regular routine maintenance, in an old house that allowed the rats to enter and establish a serious infestation. Although the goods, in particular the dog and cat food that the Tenant stored in the basement, may have encouraged the rats to nest in the basement rather than move sooner and more freely throughout the house, I am also satisfied that it was the holes and cracks in the foundation that allowed them to enter and that once the Tenant became aware of the problem and the recommendations for its solution she took serious and aggressive steps to remedy it. Not only did she dispose of some of her property and re-package and properly store the remainder, she also cleaned up the exterior wood and tree stumps as instructed to prevent the rodents from nesting in the yard.

40. I am satisfied that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to repair and maintain the rental unit and failed to comply with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards primarily due to the infestation of rats of which the Landlord was aware, at the very latest, by mid-April 2016. Although the Landlord took some minor steps, such as inspecting the foundation and plugging a hole, he failed to take the steps necessary to remedy the problem.

41. The infestation of rats caused the Tenant to be at risk of having her children apprehended by the CAS which prompted her to undertake major significant remedial efforts including thorough cleaning inside and the removal of tree stumps and other backyard debris that was not her responsibility. The Landlord said that he could have done that work at less expense by using his own company. However, he had failed to do so and I find that the Tenant was justified in undertaking the work herself and paying reasonable expenses to do so.

42. I am satisfied that the rat infestation was significant, and the Landlord was aware of it and took inadequate steps to respond from April 14, 2016 to October 31, 2016. I am satisfied that a 50% abatement is appropriate for that time period because of the severity of the problem. Abatement = $3,250.00.

TSL-37666-13 (Re), 2013 CanLII 52174 (ON LTB)

At the hearing the Tenants raised the following issues pursuant to section 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'): deteriorated and mouldy walls; rats; hole in floor/damp bedroom; spiders; deteriorated bathroom ceiling and bathtub tiles; and, kitchen cabinets that are no longer attached.

All the reasons for this order appear below and no further reasons shall be issued.

3. This tenancy was the subject of an order by the Board issued July 23, 2012. The application was an arrears application and the Tenant raised the same issues pursuant to section 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’). The Member in that matter determined that the unit was uninhabitable and the Tenant was entitled to a rebate equivalent to the amount claimed by the Landlord.

4. As such the Tenant’s current section 82 claim will be considered only for the period since the previous order; that is, from August 2012.

5. The Tenant’s evidence is that the wall between the kitchen and washroom is deteriorated and mouldy. The bottom portion is completely gone to the point that you can see into the next room. Tiles have and are falling off and there is a mouldy odour.

6. There are rats in the unit, particularly in the washroom.

7. When it is raining, water comes up through the floor in the Tenant’s bedroom. The room is so damp that the Tenant’s bed was ruined from the damp. The tiles have come up and the floor is all concrete.

8. There are many spiders in the bathroom.

9. The bathroom ceiling is coming apart. When people upstairs shower, the water leaks into the bathroom as well as the living room. The Tenant slipped on the wet floor and visited the emergency department as a result on June 8, 2013.

10. The kitchen cabinets are falling off the walls.

11. The Tenant submitted photocopies of photographs showing the extreme disrepair of the washroom walls and ceiling and the kitchen ceiling. There are also photographs of a hole in the floor, rats and one of a spider. The photographs are date stamped 2009 but I accept the Tenant’s explanation that the camera was not set properly and they were actually taken in 2011. Most if not all of these photographs were submitted into evidence at the previous hearing. The Tenant’s evidence is that the condition of the unit is essentially unchanged since the photographs were taken.

12. There is no dispute that there is an outstanding order form the City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards department setting out 13 violations. Six items deal with the walls and ceilings which are not maintained free of holes, cracks, damaged and deteriorated materials. The kitchen cupboards are also included in the order as not maintained in good repair and good working order.

13. The Landlord denied that the unit looks anything like the photographs submitted by the Tenant. The Landlord also submitted that the Tenants purposely caused the damage by putting a chemical on the tiles causing them to fall off, by purposely throwing water around the unit, and by kicking doors. The Tenant has never complained of spiders or rats. It is not possible for water to come into the unit,

14. The Landlord does not dispute repairs are needed as per the order from the City; however, submitted that the City has given him one year to complete the repairs because the unit was in ‘perfect repair’ in 2010.

15. I find the Tenant has provided sufficient evidence that there are maintenance issues related to all of the issues claimed. The Landlord’s evidence was inconsistent, contradictory and not supported by any documentary or other supporting evidence. The order from the City clearly states that the defects are to be repaired by December 12, 2012. The issue with rats was raised at the previous hearing. The Landlord did not dispute that he has not fixed anything in the Tenant’s unit since the previous Board order was issued. The Landlord did not provide any photographs to support his view of the state of repair of the unit, an issue noted in the previous order.

16. Pursuant to section 20 of the Act:

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 and housing standards.

17. Clearly, while the walls and ceiling are in disrepair, there is a hole in and water penetration from the floor, leaks from above, a disconnected cabinet, and rats and spiders, the rental unit cannot be said to be in a good state of repair, fit for habitation or complying with standards. As a result, I am satisfied that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord’s obligations under section 20 of the Act.

21. The Tenant requested a 64% rent abatement. She can cook in the unit but it is otherwise not suitable for habitation. The Tenant cannot have family over. The effect of the disrepair is accentuated by the fact the Tenant’s medical condition. The Tenant is undergoing cancer treatment and requires 6 ‘sitz’ baths per day. She cannot use the bathroom for this purpose and goes to her mother’s house to bathe. She is unable to take the required number of baths as a result and is also concerned about the effect of the unsanitary condition of the unit on her health. Having considered all of these circumstances, and the extent of the disrepair, I find the rent abatement requested is appropriate from August 2012 to July 2013. The total amount is $6,912.00 (65% x $900.00 x 12 months).

It is ordered that:

4. The Landlord shall repair, replace and/or treat as required the walls and ceiling in the kitchen and bathroom; fix the hole in the floor; reattach and repair the kitchen cabinets; and have the unit professionally treated the unit for spiders and rats. The Landlord shall also investigate and remedy water penetration through the washroom ceiling and the bedroom floor.

5. Until the Landlord complies with this paragraph 5 of this order in full, the Tenant is entitled to an ongoing rent abatement of 64%.

EAT-49893-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 59961 (ON LTB)

25. The Tenant alleged other maintenance breaches not covered in the City of Kingston’s “Notice”. In particular, he alleged that:

a. A pipe in the kitchen is rusty;
b. There have been weeds in the gutters;
c. Other tenants consistently leave their garbage outside the residential complex; and
d. Rats have infiltrated the rental unit.67

29. Finally, the parties agree that rats have been a problem in the rental unit in the past year. In particular, for approximately three months in the summer of 2014, and since June of 2015, rats have made their way into the rental unit. Dead rats have caused the apartment to smell, the rats have gnawed through the walls and even one of the Tenant’s pillows.

30. The Landlord testified that he has attempted to plug any holes in the residential complex by which the rats have been gaining entry, and has put rat traps in the basement of the residential complex. The Landlord testified that he did not put rat traps in the rental unit because he was afraid that the Tenant might get hurt. The Landlord further testified that he did not have a pest control company come in to treat the residential complex because the Landlord and TH were already doing what a pest control company would do (i.e., lay traps and fill holes through which the rats would gain entry).

31. The Tenant testified he has seen rats on two occasions inside his rental unit. He also testified that as a result of the rat problem, he has never had “relaxation” inside the rental unit and that he wants the rodent problem fixed.

32. The failure of the Landlord to have a professional company assess and treat the problem with the rats is not only a serious breach of the Landlord’s maintenance responsibilities under subsection 20(1) of the Act, but is also a serious breach for which remedies are appropriate.

33. In this regard, I will order the Landlord to have a professional pest control company treat the rodent problem and to make any repairs required to keep the rodents out.

34. I will also order an abatement of rent worth 25% of the Tenant’s $701.56 monthly rent for three months in 2014 and for a further three months in 2015 – I arrived at this figure by considering the stated impact (the smell, destruction of property; unease) the rats have had on the Tenant’s ability to enjoy his rental unit. Thus, the Landlord will be ordered to pay the Tenant $1,052.34 ($175.39 times 6 months).

35. The Landlord will also be prohibited from increasing the rent for the rental unit until the Landlord has completed the work necessary to rid the rental unit of the rats.

36. Although the Tenant requested a lump sum award of $450.00 for his “pain and suffering”, the rent abatement I have ordered has already taken into account the Tenant’s distress in having rats in his unit, and no further award for his suffering will be made.

TET-90075-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113932 (ON LTB)

2. At the beginning of the hearing I raised as a preliminary issue identification of the Tenant’s claims as some appear to be out of time and some not related to disrepair. After a brief discussion the Tenant agreed that her disrepair claims include the following:

  • Vermin (rats and cockroaches);
  • Leaking windows;
  • Cracked walls;
  • Electrical fuses;
  • Lack of heat;
  • Handrails; and
  • Cupboards.

3. During the course of her testimony the Tenant indicated the issue with respect to the electrical fuses was also out of time as it had been resolved more than one year prior to the filing of the application. So that claim is dismissed accordingly.

4. The application as filed is only signed by the Tenant but names two. As the second named tenant in the application did not sign the application or attend the hearing I have amended the application to remove him as a named party.

5. The Tenant says in December of 2015 the Tenant first started observing rats and cockroaches entering the rental unit through the ductwork. She complained to the Landlord on or about December 9, 2015.

6. She says she was told the unit is physically located above a restaurant so there is not much can be done about it.

7. The Landlord did not rebut this testimony of the Tenant but other evidence was led to indicate the unit is physically above a spa. The Landlord says the building is a 9-plex so it is possible one of the lower commercial units is in fact a restaurant but not the one directly below. Nothing in this order turns on this discrepancy in the evidence.

8. The Landlord says when the Tenant complained of vermin he went to the unit to check for possible entry points but could not find any so he told the Tenant to ensure the door is fully closed. He also says he purchased traps for mice and cockroaches and spray. He further says that he told the Tenant to keep the kitchen clean.

9. The Tenant says the Landlord never provided traps or spray.

10. Text messages between the Landlord’s spouse and the Tenant’s roommate mostly corroborate the Tenant’s evidence.

11. On March 17, 2016 texts were exchanged in which the Tenant’s roommate complains that the Landlord did nothing in response to complaints about insects and having rats is a health hazard. The Landlord’s spouse replies saying she has spoken to the management office in the video store, “there are insects on the street”, he needs to spray his property, the whole neighbourhood needs to be done, and do not leave the doors open. The Tenant’s roommate replies denying they leave the door open; given the neighbourhood and the time of year, why would they?

12. On March 2, 2017, the Tenant sent a long text to the Landlord’s spouse expressing her frustration over maintenance issues. The text says in part:

We had to pay to get rid of the roaches and rodents which you said we should Google because you can’t do anything about that. When we told you they were coming through the vents.

13. The Landlord’s spouse replied:

For the rodent, I am really upset about that. I talked to the city, talked to the management guy, the video shop. I even found a guy willing to do, but need every unit to cooperate.

14. Given the text messages with the Landlord’s Spouse confirm the Tenant’s testimony I accept it over that of the Landlord. I am satisfied the Landlord did nothing to treat the unit for rats or cockroaches prior to March of 2018.

15. On March 14, 2018 the City issued a Notice of Violation that noted the property was not being kept free of vermin and pest control services were needed.

16. The Landlord impliedly blames the Tenant for her pest control problems because she leaves root vegetables exposed and garbage in the kitchen. He provided photographs of the unit’s kitchen and her garbage.

17. As a result of the City’s Notice of Violation the Landlord hired a pest control company and the unit was treated March 25, 2018 with a follow up treatment on April 28, 2018.

18. The pest control company invoice for the March 25, 2018 treatment says the cockroach infestation was “very heavy” and it was “very dirty” behind the fridge and stove and cleaning and de-cluttering was recommended. The follow up invoice says no cockroaches were seen but the unit was treated anyway and more cleaning was needed as there was a lot of grease behind the stove and the inside of the kitchen cupboards need cleaning.

19. Although the pest control invoice for March 25, 2018 refers to mice, the Landlord says there are no mice. Given the content of the invoice corroborates the presence of mice I am satisfied the rental unit had both mice and cockroaches.

20. The Tenant says for the most part, the pest control treatment resolved her vermin issues. So I am satisfied that by April 28, 2018 the unit was vermin free.

57. This application is based on the rights set out in s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) which 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.

58. Given the finding of facts set out above I am satisfied that:

  • The rental unit was infested with vermin during the entirety of the period the Board has jurisdiction over up to April 28, 2018 which is a breach of housing and health standards;
  • The window or windows in the Tenant’s bedroom were in a state of disrepair from January 14, 2018 to May 5, 2018;
  • The ceiling or wall adjacent to the window in the bedroom was damaged and in a state of disrepair from sometime after January 14, 2018 to early April of 2018;
  • From October 17, 2017 to November 13, 2017, the furnace was not working properly;
  • Throughout the entirety of the tenancy up to sometime in April or May of 2018 the handrail from the first floor up to the rental unit was not in compliance with housing standards; and
  • The kitchen cupboards have been in a state of disrepair since at least March 2, 2017 up to the date of hearing before the Board.

59. As a result, I am satisfied the Landlord breached s. 20(1) of the Act.

71. Given all of the above, I am satisfied the Landlord did not address the vermin issue in a timely or effective manner. The Tenant is entitled to a monetary remedy.

72. Abatement of the rent is a contractual remedy intended to address the idea that rent is purchasing a bundle of goods and services and if those goods and services are not being received then the rent should be abated proportional to the difference between what is being paid for and what is being received.

73. Assessing quantum of abatement of the rent is something of an art and not a science. The Board primarily looks at evidence of impact on the tenant of the disrepair but will also consider the length of time the disrepair continued, the area or square footage of the unit affected, and other relevant factors including prior like cases before the Board.

74. The text messages and the evidence indicates the Tenant was frustrated over the vermin problem but it was not sufficiently serious for her to complain to the City or take extensive steps to deal with it on her own. As a result, and given my experience of like similar cases before the Board it seems to me a reasonable abatement of the rent would be about 2% of the rent charged from April 6, 2017 to April 28, 2018.

75. There is some discrepancy in the evidence as to the amount of the monthly rent charged during this period but the discrepancy is very minor. I accept the Landlord’s evidence that the monthly rent is currently $964.74 and not $964.76 as set out in the application. I say this because the Landlord was very precise in his evidence on this point and the Tenant could not actually remember the amount of the lawful monthly rent. There is no dispute between the parties that the Landlord increased the rent every year annually on April 4 by the guideline amount which means the lawful rent prior to April 4, 2018 would have been $947.68.

76. As a result, I believe the Tenant is entitled to abatement of the rent with respect to the vermin problem in the amount of $242.66.

TET-86913-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113211 (ON LTB)

1. By way of background, the rental unit is a house in which the Tenants live with their three children ages 13, 12 and 2 years old. The Tenants occupy the entire house which has 3 bedrooms, 1 ½ bathrooms, a kitchen, dining room, living room, a large unfinished basement and a backyard. The Tenants used the basement as an office, a play area and an extra storage space.

24. There is no dispute that the leaking bathroom was the catalyst for a long and complicated serious of events. As a result of the leaky bathroom, EW took it upon herself to hire a contractor to remedy the situation. With the Tenants' consent, EW hired the contractor to build an additional bathroom in the basement because he told her that the upstairs bathroom was “leaking so badly”, he would need to completely renovate that bathroom which would leave the Tenants without a full bathroom to use. In order to facility this long-term strategy, EW hired the contractor to build an additional basement bathroom which would serve as the Tenants' primary bathroom when the upper one was eventually under renovation. The basement construction began on May 25, 2017.

25. LW says that EW did not consult him about this plan because, if she had, he would have informed her that the upper bathroom did not need to be renovated because the leak was essentially under control.

26. There is no dispute that the basement construction project became larger than originally intended. EW says she has no idea why the contractor put up additional walls in the basement, nor why he built a frame for what appears to be a counter section in the basement. EW admits that the project got out of hand, and she kept paying the contractor thousands of dollars without really understanding what was happening. EW provided the Board with copies of several cheques she wrote to the contractor which total several thousand dollars.

27. Once EW decided not to pay the contractor any more money, she fired him on September 5, 2017. EW provided the Board with copies of an email exchange between her and the contractor in which she dismisses him and refuses to pay him any additional money. There is no dispute that, as of September 4, 2017, EW had nothing more to do with the basement situation and she handed over responsibility to LW.

28. There is no dispute that the Tenants agreed to allow the contractor to build an additional bathroom in the basement. However, the Tenants did not agree to allow the contractor to invade the entire basement, start putting up walls and electrical outlets in the basement and make other changes.

29. At the hearing, the Tenants provided the Board with several pictures which confirm the state of the basement area. The pictures show exposed wires throughout the area, piles of construction materials, drywall dust everywhere, one wall that was partially constructed, and another half wall that was partially constructed but appears to serve no purpose.

30. The pictures also show that the basement has a sliding door exit to the backyard and the ongoing construction made it difficult to access the backyard. There were piles of debris and construction material on the concrete patio area of the backyard. In other words, the pictures confirm that the Tenants were unable to use the basement area as an office, storage area and play area for the children while the contractor was working. The pictures also confirm that the backyard area was unsafe for the children to play in during this time period.

31. Based on the evidence before me, I find that the basement area and the backyard were in a state of disrepair from May 25, 2017, to September 5, 2017. The Landlords breached their obligations pursuant to section 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act') and a remedy should flow to the Tenants.

32. As a remedy for the Landlord's breach, the Tenants are seeking an abatement of 100% for 6 months.

33. Abatement represents the difference between what is being paid for and what is being received. In the matter before me, due to the ongoing basement construction between May and September 2017, the Tenants were unable to use the basement and backyard for those months. This means that the male Tenant, ‘HN’ could not use the office area for his small business, the children could not play in the large living space or the yard and the Tenants were unable to store their belongings in the basement.

34. This house has a main floor, a second floor and a large basement. This means that the basement and backyard areas represent approximately 1/3 of the total area of the house. For these reasons, I find that the Tenants are entitled to an abatement of 33% for 5 months for a total of $2,598.75. The calculation for this amount is as follows:

($1,575.00 x 33% x 5 months = $2,598.75)

59. EN says the ongoing repairs led to a severe mice and rat infestation because the contractor kept leaving the backyard sliding door open. However, HN did not mention anything about mice or rats in his direct testimony and EN did not provide the Board with any pictures or other documentation to support her allegation. I am not satisfied that the ongoing repairs led to a mice or rat infestation. The remedy discussed above will be the only remedies awarded for the basement construction.

60. This order contains all of the reasons for the decision within it. No further reasons shall be issued.

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.

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.

26. Finally, the Tenant asks that the Landlord pay a fine to the Board. I do not find a fine to be necessary. The other remedies awarded should be sufficient to encourage the Landlord to comply with his obligations in the future.

TST-93033-18 AND (Re), 2018 CanLII 123279 (ON LTB)

8. The Tenant testified that he has been living in a serious state of disrepair since December 2016 when there was serious flooding in his apartment. He says he complained to the Landlord and superintendent at the time, but never received any assistance. He paid for repairs himself to stop the water flowing, but experienced electrical shorts that caused his kitchen appliances and lights to stop working, electrical shorts that caused the lighting in the bathroom to stop working, and a tiled wall in the shower to fall down.

9. The Tenant also testified that other issues of disrepair in the rental unit are: neither of the ventilation fans in the kitchen or bathroom work and that there are bad smells; and he has a severe problem with mice and rats and finds dead rodents in his sinks.

10. The Tenant produced a number of photographs into evidence which he says he took within two months of filing the application. The photographs of the bathroom show significant disrepair to the wall described by the Tenant.

19. I am satisfied on their own evidence, that the Landlords breached their obligation under section 20 of the Act by failing to adequately respond to the significant disrepair issues in the rental unit. Being at the Board with the Tenant on another application and negotiating a date for the termination of the tenancy did not excuse the Landlords from their obligation to ensure that appropriate maintenance was addressed for the rental unit.

20. The significant disrepair in the unit had a negative effect for the Tenant on his health and well-being. However, the Tenant must also accept that he was less than diligent in pursuing the Landlord to address the issues of disrepair in the unit and refused the Landlord to make repairs after the water escape incident on January 8, 2018. I find, in the circumstances, that the Tenant is entitled to a 30% abatement of rent for the period of October 17, 2017 until the end of the tenancy on March 31, 2018. Based on the monthly rent of $650.00, a 165 day period at a per diem rate of $6.41, I find that there should be rent abatement in the amount of $1,057.65.

21. The Tenant shall also receive the cost of his filing the application.

TST-10899-10 (Re), 2011 CanLII 34682 (ON LTB)

37. A second example would be rats and mice. The female Tenant testified that the Tenants had rats and cockroaches and nothing was done about it. The first work order issued by the City clearly mentions there was a problem in August 2010 with vermin but it is not mentioned on the second work order at all, nor was it included in the Tenants’ work order of April 2010. According to the second-named Landlord pest control came in to treat and additional poison was left with the male Tenant for follow up. As a result, I am satisfied that at one point in time there was a problem with vermin and the Landlords were in breach of section 20 at that time, but I have no idea if the problem has been resolved and if it was resolved when that occurred. As a result, I have insufficient evidence before me to make a determination that any remedial order is warranted so none will be issued.

38. Similarly, at some point in time some if not all of the windows in the rental unit were either missing screens or the screens were damaged. This is included in the first work order issued by the City but is missing from the second. The female Tenant stated some repairs had been done and some had not so I really have no idea if the unit is still missing screens or not and if the screens were repaired or replaced I was not told when that occurred. As a result even though at some point in time I am satisfied screens were missing or damaged insufficient evidence was led that would justify any remedial order.

39. The same can be said of many of the remainder of the items listed in the two City work orders.

40. The Tenants’ applications also included complaints about which no evidence was led at all. For example, both applications mention the refrigerator but no evidence was led about disrepair to the refrigerator. Another example would be allegations in the Tenants’ first application that the Tenants were threatened with eviction if they did not provide post-dated cheques. Without evidence led before me at the hearing, no findings of fact can be made, and any claim like that must be dismissed.

Retrieved from "https://riverview.legal/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Rat_Infestation_(LTB-Maintenance)&oldid=17829"