Rent Abatement (Principle)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-04-23
CLNP Page ID:	227
Page Categories:	[Maintenance Obligations (LTB)]
Citation:	Rent Abatement (Principle), CLNP 227, <https://rvt.link/b6>, retrieved on 2024-04-23
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2024/03/06

Avcan Management Inc. v. David O’Laughlin, 2012 ONSC 537 (CanLII)

[6] The Member’s reasons are primarily conclusary. She appears to have accepted the deficiencies in the City’s Work Order as evidence of non-repair. She made no attempt to analyze the deficiencies, or their impact, if any, on the Tenants’ ordinary use and enjoyment of the building. Apparently none of deficiencies affected the ability of the tenants to reside in the leased apartments. Absent any analysis in her reasons, it is not possible for this Court to assess the propriety of the amount of the abatement ordered, or the alleged interference with the reasonable enjoyment of the premises.

[7] As an appeal from the Board to this Court is restricted to questions of law, the Board’s decisions have historically been reviewed on a standard of correctness. However, in the recent decision in First Ontario Realty Corp. Ltd. v. Deng, [2011] ONCA 54, the Court of Appeal held that where the question of law arises from the Board’s interpretation of its home statute, a standard of reasonableness should apply. In this case, the issue is whether the Member’s reasons demonstrated any analysis of the two sections of the Act the landlord is alleged to have breached or contained any explanation as a result of that analysis of the Member’s conclusion that the Landlord had breached its statutory obligations. This is a pure question of law and not a matter within the core expertise of the Tribunal. The standard of review on this appeal is correctness.

[8] Counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that the Board’s reasons are “less than perfect”. In our opinion, the Member’s reasons are woefully lacking in detail or transparency. They give no indication that the Board considered the requirements of either s.20(1) or s. 22 of the Residential Tenancies Act. It is not possible to determine what deficiencies the Board found to warrant the significant penalty it imposed.

[9] The Landlord had embarked upon a remedial program well before the Board became involved. In that sense it can be said to have been maintaining the fifty year old building, addressing most of the deficiencies subsequently itemized by the City.

[10] The Landlord was entitled to know why its evidence was rejected and why its efforts to maintain did not comply with s.20(1). Similarly, there is no meaningful analysis as to how the Landlord substantially interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the premises. As acknowledged by the respondent, the failure to give adequate reasons is an error of law. The appeal must therefore be allowed.

TST-78547-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28680 (ON LTB)

17. The remedies sought by the Tenant are a rent abatement and compensation for lost income.

18. 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. Here, it was the evidence before me that the monthly rent for the unit was $199.00. Given all of the evidence before me I am of the view that a reasonable lump sum abatement of the rent would be $30.00 for the period in question.

19. The Tenant’s request for compensation for loss income is denied. The Tenant had failed to prove a nexus between her loss income from her business and the disruption caused by the “offending” tenant.

Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd., 2016 ONCA 477

[1] This appeal concerns the interpretation of s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (“RTA”) which provides as follows:

20. (1) 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.[1]

[2] The appellant tenants submit that the respondent CJM Property Management Ltd. (the “landlord”) failed to comply with its duties to provide and maintain under s. 20 because the elevator that services their building was out of service for 96 days in one year. They submit that the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) erred in denying their application for an abatement of rent. The Board found that the landlord had at all times acted reasonably in having a program of preventive maintenance for the elevator, in repairing it when it broke down and in installing a new elevator. The Divisional Court dismissed the tenants’ appeal. Leave to appeal to this court was granted on October 5, 2015.

[3] The Divisional Court did not err in selecting or applying the reasonableness standard of review. For the reasons that follow, I agree with the Divisional Court that the Board’s decision was reasonable, and I would dismiss the appeal.