Review of Provincial Work Order (LTB)
- 1 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O.
- 2 EAL-52796-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 53126 (ON LTB)
- 3 TEL-64243-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 38365 (ON LTB)
- 4 SWL-27432-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 91427 (ON LTB)
- 5 EAL-28526-12 (Re), 2013 CanLII 33056 (ON LTB)
- 6 SWL-16792-10 (Re), 2011 CanLII 23825 (ON LTB)
- 7 NOL-07921 (Re), 2009 CanLII 77994 (ON LTB)
- 8 TEL-61536-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 38379 (ON LTB)
- 9 CEL-21117 (Re), 2009 CanLII 77950 (ON LTB)
226 (1) If a landlord who has received an inspector’s work order is not satisfied with its terms, the landlord may, within 20 days after the day the order is issued, apply to the Board for a review of the work order. 2006, c. 17, s. 226 (1).
- (2) On an application under subsection (1), the Board may, by order,
- (a) confirm or vary the inspector’s work order;
- (b) rescind the work order, if it finds that the landlord has complied with it; or
- (c) quash the work order. 2006, c. 17, s. 226 (2).
The L6 Application Regarding the Work Order
26. In their L6 application, the Landlords wrote that:
- We respectfully request this work order be dismissed as being orchestrated by the [T]enant… under false circumstances.
- We were not aware of, nor present on, date of inspection…
- The [T]enant.. has already been asked to leave…
- We believe the [T]enant… is intentionally destroying our property through abuse and neglect.
- To date of filing this application, the [T]enant… continues to refuse us access to this unit, and as previously noted, has changed front door locks and keeps dogs barricaded at back door.
- Our building is not under the jurisdiction of the town of Perth.
27. At the hearing, the Landlords pointed out that in SM’s “Work Order” dated October 27, 2015, the rental unit was misidentified as a “2 - storey [sic], brick, 1 family residential house”, when it is actually part of a row of attached rental units akin to a townhouse.
28. SM testified that the summarized property description was a typographical error.
29. Although the Landlords provided some evidence of the work they have done to the residential complex in the past several years, no compelling evidence was received that would warrant a revision of the conclusions made in the Work Order.
30. On the contrary, in his testimony, SM explained how and why he had reached a number of the conclusions in his Work Order. In the absence of any expert testimony or compelling evidence to the contrary, I find that SM’s conclusions regarding the state of the rental unit should be undisturbed.
31. In particular, as a result of SM’s testimony, the Board received detailed information about how SM reached a number of his findings in his report. Some of his conclusions were reached through discussions with the Tenant (for example, on the electrical problems), but most of SM’s conclusions were reached as a result of his own observations of the problems. SM testified that his overall impression of the rental unit was that many of his more serious concerns involved the presence of moisture or mould, but that the balance “were very minor except for the ventilation issue”, which involved the mould, but that even the mould issue “would take very much to repair.”
32. That said, I believe that what SM took to be mould on the siding of the building could have been dirt. I believe that SM was mistaken given that the siding had recently been replaced, given that SM acknowledged that the new siding appeared to have been installed in the proper manner, and given his acknowledgment that it would be very unusual for mould to grow on the outside of a building.
33. This conclusion does not impact any of the work ordered in his report, given that the work ordered under item number one is as a result of mould build-up not only on the outside of the building, but “in the building”. Moreover, SM testified that although the bathroom has a fan, it does not appear that there was a direct vent to the fan duct, so extra moisture could accumulate in the attic, wall, or roof-rafter space.
34. Given the above information, and notwithstanding my conclusion that on a balance of probabilities there is no mould on the outside of the rental unit, but especially given that SM was able to reasonably explain his conclusions and the Landlords did not introduce expert evidence to the contrary, I find that it would be inappropriate to vary the work order.
Landlord’s L6 Application.
The 'Landlord' also applied for an order to review a Provincial Work Order.
13. With respect to the Landlord’s L6 application, the time frames needed to make certain repairs were noted and extended as per the below order. Items 4 & 5 had small extensions as they are more critical.
30. The Tenant also complained about the deteriorated condition of the concrete steps out front. As these are part of the Provincial work order I have not reflected them separately.
31. However, I do note that there is a Provincial work order in place for repairs to be made. This rental unit should not be left or remain in a condition where these types of work orders need to be issued. I have assessed a 10% rental abatement for 6 months (estimated) for the general conditions that caused the issuance of the work order. This then is 6 x 10% x $600.00 = $360.00.
32. I will also note in the order that all work noted in the work order must be completed as per the time lines given. The Tenant is free to file another maintenance application along with whatever charges the Province decides to levy if the work is not completed as directed.
33. The reasons contained in this order constitute all of the reasons used in making my decision.
1. Severance of L6 Application from the Arrears and Maintenance Applications
- By interim order issued on November 24, 2011, the Landlord’s application to review a Provincial Work Order was severed off from the arrears application in SWL-27432-11. The Work Order review application was rescheduled for a new date to be set at that time.
1. The Provincial Work Order listed 9 items that needed repairs or attention; I find that according to his testimony, the Landlord acknowledged that 4 items had not been repaired or attended to as of the date of the hearing. The rest were fixed shortly after the Tenants left the rental unit on or about January 23, 2013.
2. Item # 9 of the Work Order stated that the Landlord should provide keys for the locking mechanism on the north-west front door. The Landlord explained that the door in question was not meant to be used for entry; as there is no requirement to provide 2 keyed entries to the unit, this is why no keys were provided. I find that this is reasonable on a balance of probabilities; the item will be removed from the Work Order.
3. Item # 7 provided that the Landlord shall repair the north side door so it is draft free. The Landlord contends that it is the Tenants who smashed the door frame and that the Tenant subsequently installed weather-stripping. The Landlord stated that the door has not been repaired further. I find that this item is still outstanding.
4. Item #8 provided that the Landlord shall erect handrails for the basement stairs, and for the steps servicing the north front porch. The Landlord has attended to the basement stairs, but contends that the north front porch does not need a handrail and that this is a marginal issue. I find that this item is still outstanding.
5. Item #4 stated that a heat source should be provided to the 2nd floor bedroom. The Landlord contends that the complaint is unfair because when it was filed, the central heating system was not yet on so it was impossible to state that there was no heat in that room. He further states that he can provide a video showing instant temperature readings for the room; this video was not provided at the hearing. The Witness TL explained that on the basis of his observation, all the other rooms had a heat source and not that one. He further explained that based on the age of the house inspected here and on his experience, an independent heat source was warranted. I find that this item is still outstanding.
PA (the ‘Landlord’) applied for an order to Review a Provincial Work Order.
The Landlord, P.A., completed his evidence regarding the application to review a Provincial Work Order and C.J.B. began to cross examine P.A. Much later in the process the Board attempted to clarify a procedural matter with respect to the evidence as it relates to the applications. C.J.B. at this point, became rude; disrespectful; confrontational; irritated and ridiculed and threatened the Board.
7. Section 226 (2) of the Act, states, that in an application to the Board for a review of the work order, the Board may, by order: (a) confirm or vary the inspector’s work order, (b) rescind the work order, it if finds that the landlord has complied with it; or (c) quash the work order.
8. I accept that to some extent, the concerning conduct of the Tenants have contributed to the Landlord not turning his mind fully to the matter, as required. The Landlord also states he cannot afford to comply with the order. That the Landlord was not aware of the inspection or that he was not given the opportunity to participate, does not warrant a request to quash the order. The Landlord acknowledges he has not complied with the work order. The Board, in this situation, cannot quash the order.
9. The Provincial Work Order is confirmed
DOTSSAB (the 'Landlord') applied for an order to review a Provincial Work Order.
1. It appears that the Landlord has made reasonable attempts to arrange to enter the unit to deal with the work order within the fourteen day compliance period.
2. It appears that the Tenant has failed to cooperate with the Landlord by not accepting any communication on her door or in her mailbox (that she has taped shut) with respect to a 24 hour notice, by not returning a call to the Landlord to schedule a time that would be convenient to her for an inspection to be done, and by not answering the door when the maintenance supervisors attended her unit as per the 24 hour notice.
It is ordered that:
1. The Provincial Work Order is varied in the following manner.
2. The compliance period for the Landlord to complete the work order is extended to September 15, 2009.
3. The Tenant shall comply with any and all 24 hour written notices from the Landlord to enter the unit for inspection purposes related to the work order or for the work to be done.
4. The Tenant shall clear the work area of any and all debris or encumbrances.
5. In the event the Tenant fails to comply with the requirements of paragraphs #3 and #4, and as a result the Landlord is unable to complete the work designated in the work order on or before September 15, 2009, the Landlord will be deemed to have complied with the work order and the work order will be rescinded as of September 16, 2009.
16. The Landlord provided convincing evidence indicating that they have complied with the work order to fix the areas of deficiency/disrepair. I also gathered that the areas of disrepair were of a minor nature, which did not affect the Tenant’s ability to fully utilize the rental unit/facilities. Therefore, while there were clearly areas of disrepair, I find no monetary awards/rent rebates are warranted. However, the Landlord is well- advised to ensure the unit/common areas of the building are well-maintained and/or cleaned, throughout the tenancy.
17. Based on the relevant evidence provided, and for the reasons contained herein, the following order is issued.
It is ordered that:
1. The Provincial Work Order is quashed because the Landlord has complied with the terms of the order.
CT (the 'Landlord') applied for an order to review a Provincial Work Order.
This application was heard in Barrie on September 15, 2009. The Landlord and LS (the 'Tenant') attended the hearing. Tenant Duty Counsel, KM represented the Tenant.
The Landlord requested another 60 days to comply with the work order. I did not grant this request because 60 days is an excessive amount of time for what is required further to comply with the order. I also find that some of the work that needs to be done has been unduly delayed and to allow an extension would be unfair to the Tenant.
It is ordered that:
The Landlord's application is dismissed.