LTB Order LTB-L-057851-22

Order under Section 89 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 2023 ONLTB 60201 (CanLII) Citation: J. v M., 2023 ONLTB 60201 Date: 2023-09-11 File Number: LTB-L-057851-22 In the matter of: 3102, 31 Sudbury St. Toronto, Ontario M6J3W6 Between: K.J.A.N.J. L. A. D. M. F. Tenant K.J.A.N.J. (the 'L.') applied for an order requiring D. M. (the 'F. Tenant') to pay the L. reasonable out-of-pocket costs that the L. have incurred or will incur to repair or replace undue damage to property. The damage was caused wilfully or negligently by the F. Tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or someone the F. Tenant permitted in the residential complex. This application was heard by videoconference on July 13, 2023. The Landlord N. J. attended on behalf of both L.. The Tenant attended the hearing A. spoke with duty counsel prior to the hearing. Request to reschedule On June 22, 2023, the L. filed a request to reschedule the hearing which was denied by the Board on June 23, 2023 because it was not on consent. At the hearing, the Landlord, N. J. further requested to reschedule the hearing A. stated that she arrived in Montreal in June 2023 A. she is caring for an elderly person that has health issues. The Tenant did not consent to the reschedule request A. stated that she took the day off work to attend the hearing. The L. request to reschedule was denied. The request is not on consent pursuant to Rule 21 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure A. the L. did not provide any information regarding any steps the L. attempted to take to find alternate arrangements for care for the elderly person. The Board’s records confirm the Notice of Hearing was emailed to the L. on May 25, 2023. Order Page 1 of 8  File Number: LTB-L-057851-22 Request to combine applications At the hearing, the Tenant requested to combine the L.’ L10 application with the Tenant’s T1 application for a Rebate of Money the Landlord Owes. The Tenant stated that the L. have not returned the Tenant’s pet deposit after the Tenant moved out of the rental unit. The 2023 ONLTB 60201 (CanLII) Tenant further stated that the evidence will be overlapping on both applications. The L. did not consent to the request to combine the applications A. stated the pet deposit has been returned to the Tenant. The request to combine the applications was denied at the hearing. I am not persuaded that the issues are overlapping, or that the Tenant will be relying on the same evidence. Determinations: 1. As explained below, the L. have proven on a balance of probabilities the allegations contained in the application as it relates to damage to the laminate floors inside the rental unit. Therefore, the F. Tenant must pay the L. $578.00 by September 22, 2023. 2. The L. have not proven on a balance of probabilities the allegations contained in the application relating to damage to the bathtub ($960.50), toilet seat ($128.80), maintenance/cleanliness of the rental unit ($355.95), A. the cost to replace the locks ($20.00). Therefore, the L. are not entitled to these claimed costs. 3. The L. incurred $201.00 for the application filing fee A. the L. are entitled to this cost. 4. It is undisputed that the F. Tenant vacated the rental unit on June 13, 2022. 5. The rental unit is a two-bedroom condominium. Compensation for damage 6. The F. Tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person whom the F. Tenant permitted in the residential complex wilfully or negligently caused undue damage to the rental unit or residential complex as it relates to the laminate floors in the living room A. second bedroom. The L. have not proven that the F. Tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person whom the F. Tenant permitted in the residential complex wilfully or negligently caused undue damage to the bathroom tub A. toilet seat. I do not find the Tenant was negligent A. caused damage as it relates to the maintenance/cleaning of the rental unit when the Tenant vacated. Further reasons are provided below. Order Page 2 of 8  File Number: LTB-L-057851-22 Damage to laminate floors 7. The L. will incur reasonable costs of $578.00 to repair the damage to the laminate flooring in the living A. the second bedroom which includes of scratches A. gouges in the laminate flooring. On a balance of probabilities, I find that these marks on the laminate 2023 ONLTB 60201 (CanLII) floors were caused by the F. Tenant’s dog during her tenancy. Therefore, the Landlord is entitled to $578.00 for the cost to replace the laminate flooring damaged by the F. Tenant’s dog during the tenancy. 8. I find the L. evidence to be persuasive regarding the damage to the laminate flooring in the living room A. second bedroom. I accept the Landlord’s evidence that the laminate flooring inside the rental unit was installed in March 2021 A. was brand new prior to the F. Tenant moving in. This is supported by the photographs produced by the L., taken by the L.’ real estate listing agent in May/June 2021. The rental unit appears very clean A. the flooring A. the finishes inside the rental unit appear to be new. The L. produced eleven close up photographs of the laminate floors in the living room A. second bedroom which were taken after the F. Tenant vacated the rental unit. The L. states that there are scratches A. gauges in the flooring which is from the F. Tenant’s dog. In eight of the eleven photographs, scratches A. gouge marks are clearly visible in the laminate floors. The Landlord produced a video of the F. Tenant’s dog which appears to be a medium breed black dog A. the gouge marks look like nail marks from a dog. The L. states that she obtained a quote to repair the damage to the laminate floors in July 2023 A. that the flooring has been ordered, but not yet replaced. The L. state that it will cost $350.00 to replace the floor slabs A. $228.00 to replace the palette. I accept this amount is reasonable to replace the damage laminate flooring in both the living room A. second bedroom. 9. The F. Tenant produced four videos taken at 4:08 pm on June 13, 2022 which show the laminate floors throughout the rental unit. One of the videos specifically shows the flooring in the living room A. the second bedroom. The problem with the F. Tenant’s evidence is that the videos taken are not close up of the flooring A. the videos also scan over the flooring area very quickly. As a result, it is difficult to clearly see the marks to the laminate floors. Therefore, I afford little weight to the video showing the laminate flooring. The F. Tenant also states that many people walked through A. viewed the unit prior to the F. Tenant moving in A. that the L. did not provide evidence of what the floors looked like after the unit was viewed A. prior to the F. Tenant moving in. I do not accept it is plausible that the gouges A. scratches in the laminate flooring were the result of people viewing the unit prior to the F. Tenant moving in because the gouges in the laminate flooring were deep A. the scratches were long. Order Page 3 of 8  File Number: LTB-L-057851-22 Damage to bathtub A. toilet seat 10. The L. are not entitled to $960.50 for the incurred costs to refinish the bathtub. The L. have not proven that the F. Tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person whom the F. Tenant permitted in the residential complex wilfully or negligently 2023 ONLTB 60201 (CanLII) caused undue damage to the bathtub of the toilet seat in the rental unit. 11. The L. incurred $960.50 on June 29, 2023 as supported by an invoice for bathtub repairs A. refinishing. The L. submit that the bathtub had 3 chips in it which were not there prior to the F. Tenant moving in. The L. further submit that the Tenant used yellow caulking around the bathtub A. the bathtub is white. The L. produced photographs of the bathtub inside the rental unit prior to the F. Tenant moving in which were included with photographs taken by the real estate listing agent in May/June 2021. The photographs of the bathtub are not close-up photographs A. no chip in the bathtub can be seen as the shower curtain is covering the corner of the bathtub where the L. state one of the chips are. The L. produced photographs of the bathtub which were taken during an inspection of the rental unit on January 14, 2022 A. a black chip can be seen in the corner at the top of the bathtub. From the L. photographs produced, no other chips in the bathtub were visible. I do not afford much weight to the L.’ evidence that this chip existed prior to the F. Tenant moving in as the chip is not visible in the real estate listing photographs from May/June 2021. The L. produced another photograph taken after the F. Tenant vacated which shows brownish discoloration in a small corner of the caulking at the top corner of the tub A. the other caulking surround the bathtub is not a bright white as it appears in the May/June 2021 real estate listing pictures. I find this discolouration is minor A. is not unreasonable. Further, I accept the Tenant’s evidence that that the chips in the bathtub existed prior to her moving in A. she stated that she did not apply caulking around the bathtub. 12. For the above reasons, I do not find the L. have established that the F. Tenant caused undue damage to the bathtub. 13. The L. stated that the toilet seat in the bathroom had a broken soft seat A. that the L. replaced it for a cost of $128.80. The L. are not entitled to their claimed costs in the amount of $128.80 for replacing the toilet seat because I do not find the L. have established that the toilet seat was broken by the F. Tenant during the tenancy as no pictures of a broken toilet seat were produced. Rental unit was not maintained/cleaned when Tenant vacated the rental unit 14. The L. are not entitled to $355.95 for the costs incurred by the L. to clean the rental unit. I do not find the L. have proven that this incurred cost is reasonable. I find the condition of the rental unit was both clean A. tidy when the F. Tenant vacated. I find this is supported by the video evidence (four videos) produced by the Order Page 4 of 8  File Number: LTB-L-057851-22 F. Tenant taken at 4:08 pm on June 13, 2022. The videos also show the fridge is very clean on both the inside A. outside, the top of the stove, kitchen countertops, A. the floors throughout the rental unit appear to be very clean. I find the F. Tenant complied with the requirement set out within the tenancy agreement A. paid to have the rental unit professionally cleaned prior to vacating the rental unit. 2023 ONLTB 60201 (CanLII) 15. The L. state a walkthrough was done by both L. at 4:50 pm on June 13, 2022 which the Landlord state was 5 minutes after the Tenant returned the keys to the L.. The F. Tenant declined to do a walkthrough with the L.. The L. state the following was found within the rental unit during the inspection: • Salt on the tile floor in front foyer A. inside the closet grooves by the front door; • Dog hair on the living room floors A. inside the laundry room. Human hair inside the washing machine A. dryer A. blue soap on the side of washing machine A. on the floor; • Food debris inside the dishwasher A. on the hood range fan; • Grease on top A. inside the stove; • Two kitchen cabinets has sticky residue inside A. a grease stain; • One cabinet in kitchen had three keys A. lightbulbs left inside A. items left in bathroom drawer; • Sticky droplets on hallway wall; • Urine stain on toilet inside bathroom; • There was garbage inside of the rental unit A. none of the appliances were cleaned; A. • Two burnt out lightbulbs in the bathroom. 16. The L. state that on June 16, 2022, the L. hired a professional cleaning company to perform a deep cleaning of the rental unit which is supported by an invoice produced by the L. in the amount of $355.95. The L. state that as per the tenancy agreement, the F. Tenant is responsible for paying for the rental unit to be professionally cleaned. The L. also state that the tenancy agreement stipulates that the F. Tenant is responsible for replacing lightbulbs A. that the L. gave the F. Tenant specific instructions to replace the lightbulbs when they burnt out. 17. The F. Tenant states she paid for the rental unit to be professionally cleaned on June 13, 2022 A. produced an invoice in the amount of $350.30. The L. dispute the cleaning service that the Tenant paid for A. states it was not a deep clean service. The F. Tenant concedes there were burnt out light bulbs when she moved out of the rental unit. She states she purchased new lightbulbs from Canadian Tire which she left inside the kitchen drawer which was not disputed by the L.. 18. I prefer the video evidence produced by the F. Tenant over the photographs produced by the L. taken during the walkthrough of the rental unit on June 13, 2022. This is because I find the photographs produced by the L. do not support that the F. Order Page 5 of 8  File Number: LTB-L-057851-22 Tenant left the unit in an unreasonable state of cleanliness, or untidiness. The Landlord’s photograph of the dishwasher shows the dishwasher is clean with a minimal amount of debris on the screen inside the dishwasher, which does not appear to be food. Another photograph produced by the L. shows a few brown droplets on the wall which appear to be on the surface of the paint. Other photographs shows some holes in the walls 2023 ONLTB 60201 (CanLII) where there appears to have been something previously hanging on the wall, some minor marks in a plastic frame surrounding a window, two burnt out lightbulbs in the bathroom, a small amount of dust/debris inside a cupboard where there is a water pipe, a few items left inside of a drawer, A. the photographs of the bathroom do not show any dirt, hair, or debris. The L. state they are not seeking any costs from the F. Tenant for repainting the walls or repairs to the holes in the walls. 19. Based on the above, the L. are not entitled to their claimed cost of $355.95 for the deep cleaning of the rental unit. 20. The L. are not entitled to their claimed costs of $20.00 for the cost to replace the locks as I do not find the L. have proven this cost to be reasonable. The L. claim $20.00 for the cost of changing the locks because the F. Tenant left her vehicle parked at the rental unit an extra day until June 14, 2022. The F. Tenant states that she removed her vehicle from the parking spot at the condominium at 6:13 pm on June 13, 2022 A. that she rode her bicycle to work on June 14, 2022. The F. Tenant states that she stayed at her boyfriend’s residence from June 12, 2022 - June 16, 2022 A. produced a copy of a visitor parking receipt showing she was allowed to park for this time period. 21. I do not find it was reasonable for the L. to replace the locks. I find the Tenant returned the keys to the L. on June 13, 2022 as this was undisputed by the parties. I accept the Tenant’s testimony that she removed her vehicle from the condominium parking spot at 6:13 pm on June 13, 2022. I find this is supported by the visitor parking receipt A. I found the F. Tenant’s testimony persuasive. 22. This order contains all of the reasons in this matter A. no further reasons will issue. It is ordered that: 1. The F. Tenant shall pay to the L. $578.00, which represents the reasonable costs the L. will incur as a result of the damage to the laminate floors in the living room A. the second bedroom. 2. The F. Tenant shall also pay to the L. $201.00 for the cost of filing the application. 3. If the F. Tenant does not pay the L. the full amount owing on or before September 22, 2023 the F. Tenant will start to owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from September 13, 2023 annually on the balance outstanding. Order Page 6 of 8  File Number: LTB-L-057851-22 September 11, 2023 ____________________________ Date Issued Kimberly Parish Member, Landlord A. Tenant Board 2023 ONLTB 60201 (CanLII) 15 Grosvenor Street, Ground Floor Toronto ON M7A 2G6 If you have any questions about this order, call 416-645-8080 or toll free at 1-888-332-3234. * Refer to the attached Summary of Calculations. SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS Amount the F. Tenant must pay the L.: Damage Costs $578.00 Application Filing Fee $201.00 Total amount owing to the L. $779.00 Order Page 7 of 8  File Number: LTB-L-057851-22 September 11, 2023 ____________________________ Date Issued Kimberly Parish Member, Landlord A. Tenant Board 2023 ONLTB 60201 (CanLII) 15 Grosvenor Street, Ground Floor, Toronto ON M7A 2G6 If you have any questions about this order, call 416-645-8080 or toll free at 1-888-332-3234. Order Page 8 of 8