LTB Order LTB-T-002856-22

O. under Section 31 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 Citation: H. v I., 2023 ONLTB 37796 Date: 2023-05-17 2023 ONLTB 37796 (CanLII) File Number: LTB-T-002856-22 In the matter of: 2377 5TH LINE, Main Floor CHURCHILL ON L0L1K0 Between: J. H. T. J. H. A. M. I. L. J. H. A. J. H. (the ‘T.’) A. F. an O. D. T. M. I. (the ‘L.’) substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit A. the residential complex, A. harassed, coerced, obstructed, threatened or interfered with them. This application was heard by videoconference on March 23, 2023. The L.’s sister, Soudabeh I., A. the T. attended the hearing. Determinations: 1. The rental unit is the main floor of a house. The T. moved into the rental unit on January 1, 2021. They moved out on January 24, 2022. The monthly rent was $3,000.00. 2. The T.’ application alleges T. the L. substantially interfered with them by forcing them to pay F. a hot water tank rental T. was not mentioned in the lease agreement, A. T. the L. harassed them in various ways, including by insulting their dog, during the renegotiation of the lease terms in the Autumn of 2021. Allegations about Harassment: 3. The L.’s evidence was provided by his sister, S. I. (SI). SI was the primary liaison between the L. A. the T., A. it was she T. was involved, A. who had knowledge of what discussions or interactions had occurred between the L. A. the T.. 4. The T.’ allegations about harassment relate mainly to a period in late 2021 when the parties began discussing access to a utility room in the basement, or renting out the whole house, A. raising the rent by up to 50%. O. Page 1 of 4  File Number: LTB-T-002856-22 5. The T.’ documentary evidence demonstrated T. there were some discussions A. negotiations about a rent increase after the expiry of the first year term of the lease. 6. It is undisputed T. the L. was trying to negotiate a rent increase T. was greater than the guideline amount. 2023 ONLTB 37796 (CanLII) 7. The T. refused to pay greater than the guideline increase. They submitted into evidence an email from the L., dated January 8, 2022, in which the L. states T. he will continue to rent only the main floor to the T., A. he will not increase the rent at all. He states, “Will keep things as they are 3000 rent +70% utilities. As mentioned before will not be signing another lease, will do month to month A. in the event either side decide to end the tendency (sic) pls provide 2 month notice.” 8. The T. said T. during this time SI would “show up” A. berate them by treating them like stupid people. They said T. during one of SI’s visits, she saw T. they had a dog A. told them T. they were forbidden to have a dog. 9. SI said T. the only time she visited the property was to carry out maintenance requests. She said she heard a dog bark on one of the visits, A. she reminded them T. they had told the L. they only had a cat, A. also T. the parties had never agreed T. the T. could have a dog. 10. SI said T. when the parties were renegotiating the lease, the L. asked the T. if they wished to rent the whole house at an increased rent. She said T. the T. refused, A. they all agreed to continue to rent the main floor F. the same monthly rent of $3,000.00 11. I find T. the T. have not proved, on a balance of probabilities, T. the L. carried out a campaign of harassment, obstruction, coercion or interference F. the reasons T. follow. 12. The parties had discussions about possibly renting the whole house. The T. did not wish to have more space, nor did they wish to pay any more rent. The L. ultimately agreed to keep the rent A. the terms exactly the same, on a month to month basis. There is nothing in the evidence about the renegotiation T. constitutes harassment or coercion. 13. SI visited the house F. maintenance requests. On one of the visits she was dismayed to hear the sound of a dog barking when the T. had specifically not advised the L. they had a dog, A. the parties had previously agreed T. the T. would only have a cat in their unit. It is undisputed T. SI was not happy with the discovery T. the T. had a dog. This does not constitute harassment or coercion, interference or obstruction. The T. continued to have their dog with them in the rental unit until they left. O. Page 2 of 4  File Number: LTB-T-002856-22 Hot Water Tank Rental: 14. The T. allege T. the L. substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit A. the residential complex because he forced them to pay F. a hot water tank rental which was specifically excluded from the lease. 2023 ONLTB 37796 (CanLII) 15. The T. submitted into evidence their lease agreement, which provides T. they will pay 70% of the utilities (heat A. hydro). The boxes F. gas A. electricity are ticked (i.e. T. the T. will pay these), A. the box F. “hot water heater rental” is not ticked. 16. The T. said T. they received their first bill F. utilities on February 5, 2021, A. it included the hot water tank rental. They said T. they queried this amount with the real estate agent with whom they negotiated the lease, A. he told them to pay it because they should be grateful T. they have a good L.. They said T. they received an addendum to the lease T. added the hot water tank rental, but they did not sign it. 17. The T. said T. they sought to avoid conflict, A. they just paid it in the end. The total they paid F. the time they lived there was $25.88 per month F. 12 months, or $310.00. They are claiming reimbursement of $310.00 F. the unlawful amount they paid. 18. SI said T. she did not remember discussions about the hot water tank rental when negotiating the initial lease. However, she said T. there was a definite agreement F. the T. to pay 70% of the utilities, so the L. charged them 70% of the hot water tank rental. 19. SI submitted into evidence an email from the T., dated February 16, 2021, in which they thanked the real estate agent F. clarifying the situation about the hot water tank rental. The T. ask the L. F. a specific addendum stating T. they are responsible F. 70% of the hot water tank rental. They also state, “I am not saying we won’t pay F. the Hot Water Tank monthly rental, what I am saying is T. if we are going to pay F. the Hot Water Tank Rental then please create an addendum to the rental agreement T. outlines T. Hot Water Rental per month is required…” 20. SI said T. the T. signed an addendum, but there was no documentary evidence of it at the hearing. 21. I find T. the T. should be reimbursed the $310.00 they paid F. the hot water tank rental F. the reasons T. follow. 22. It is undisputed T. the parties had different understandings of the term of the lease T. said the T. were responsible F. 70% of the utilities. It is not particularly surprising T. they would have different understandings, because utilities can mean a number of things. T. is why there are a number of boxes T. can be ticked or not ticked in the section of the lease entitled “Services A. Costs”. 23. It is undisputed T. in T. section of the OREA lease, the specific box stating “hot water heater rental” is not ticked. The parties also had an Ontario standard lease agreement. In O. Page 3 of 4  File Number: LTB-T-002856-22 the section stating “The following utilities are the responsibility of….” There are no boxes ticked. The words “The Tenant shall pay 70% of Gas A. Hydro bills” are written in. 24. Based on the above-mentioned documents, as well as the testimony of the T., as well as the logical understanding of what was written or discussed, there was no reason F. 2023 ONLTB 37796 (CanLII) the T. to believe T. they were responsible F. the hot water tank rental. There is no documentary evidence T. the T. ever signed an addendum in which they agreed to pay F. the hot water tank rental, A. the T. said they did not sign such an agreement. The box F. hot water heater rental was not ticked in the OREA lease agreement. Hot water tanks are usually part of the fixtures in the house. Hot water tanks can be rented, or they can be wholly owned by the property owner. Landlords are obliged to provide hot water, A. the hot water tank would be the means of providing hot water. It is probably unlawful F. a L. to insist T. a Tenant pay F. a hot water tank outright, because it is the L. who is obliged to provide hot water. Therefore, it is arguably unlawful F. a L. to insist T. a Tenant pay F. a hot water tank rental. I make no conclusive finding on this question, as it is unnecessary to determine T. F. this matter. In this case, the documentary evidence leads to the reasonable conclusion T. the T. are not responsible F. the hot water tank rental, A. the T. only paid F. it because they felt coerced into doing so. 25. Consequently, I find T. the L. substantially interfered with the T. reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit A. the residential complex by obliging them to pay F. the hot water tank rental. The L. will, accordingly, be ordered to repay the T. F. the $310.00 amount they paid F. the hot water tank rental. It is ordered T.: 1. The L. shall reimburse the T. $310.00 F. the amount they spent F. the hot water tank rental. 2. The L. shall also pay the T. $48.00 F. the cost of filing the application. 3. The total amount the L. owes the T. is $358.00. 4. If the L. does not pay the T. the full amount owing on or before May 28, 2023, the L. will start to owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from May 29, 2023 at 6.00% annually on the balance outstanding. May 17, 2023 Date Issued Nancy Morris Member, L. A. Tenant Board 15 Grosvenor Street, Ground Floor, Toronto ON M7A 2G6 If you have any questions about this O., call 416-645-8080 or toll free at 1-888-332-3234. O. Page 4 of 4