LTB Order LTB-T-034948-22

2023 ONLTB 31099 (CanLII) O. under Section 30 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 Citation: K. v G., 2023 ONLTB 31099 Date: 2023-04-13 File Number: LTB-T-034948-22 In the matter of: A, 4978 DUNDAS STREET WEST TORONTO ONTARIO N9A1B7 Between: H. K. T. A. G. G. L. H. K. (the 'T.') A. F. an O. D. T. G. G. (the 'L.') failed to meet the L.'s maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act') or failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards. This application was heard by videoconference on April 4, 2023. The T. attended the hearing A. declined to speak to T. Duty Counsel prior to the hearing. The L. A. the L.’s daughter, Roberta Giancola attended the hearing. Determinations: 1. As explained below, the T. has proven on a balance of probabilities T. the kitchen sink was clogged with paint A. plaster which caused it from draining. 2. Therefore, the L. must pay the T. the amount of $421.50, which represents the reasonable out of pocket expenses the T. has incurred. T.’s Evidence O. Page 1 of 6  File Number: LTB-T-034948-22 3. The T. testified T. since the tenancy began on August 24, 2019, the kitchen sink had always drained slowly but never brought this to the attention of the L. as it was still draining A. useable. 2023 ONLTB 31099 (CanLII) 4. The T. testified T. on December 6, 2021, the kitchen sink was clogged A. was not draining. He did not call the L. immediately as he thought it was a small issue T. he could rectify himself. He tried to unclog the drain by using Drano A. purchased a twenty-five-foot-long drain auger to try A. clear the drain, however this was unsuccessful. He realized T. the clog was likely in the main drain A. something T. he could not rectify. 5. At approximately 7:00 pm on December 6, 2021, he called the L.’s wife A. asked if the L. could send a plumber to the property to investigate. The L.’s wife advised the T. they have a friend who is a plumber, however, he is a senior A. due to the Covid 19 pandemic he would be unable to attend the property at this time. The T. advised the L.’s wife T. if the L. wished, the T. could try A. secure a plumber. The L.’s wife informed the T. T. this would be acceptable. 6. The T. was able to secure a plumber A. provided the estimated costs to the L. of approximately $300.00 to $400.00 if the plumber came during regular hours. If the plumber came on an emergency call it could be as high as $1000.00. The T. also provided the L. with the website of the plumber. The L. then advised T. someone would be in touch with the T. to discuss. 7. On December 7, 2021, the L.’s daughter, Roberta Giancola texted the T. A. advised T. either herself or her sister would be in touch with the T. T. evening. The L. advised the T. T. they would like the plumber to give the L. a call so they could discuss the issue A. costs directly with the plumber. 8. The L.’s daughter, Roberta Giancola advised the T. T. if it was determined the kitchen sink was clogged due to the fault of the T., the T. would be responsible to pay F. the repairs. If it was determined it was the L.’s fault, the L. would pay F. the repairs. 9. The T. testified T. on December 7, 2021, the plumber arrived at the rental unit at approximately 3:00 pm. The T. advised the plumber T. the L. wished to speak to the plumber. The plumber contacted the L.’s daughter, Roberta Giancola, A. advised her T. the repair would be approximately $500.00. The L.’s daughter advised the plumber to not proceed with the repairs as the quote was too high. The plumber advised her T. there would be a charge of $200.00 F. the service call even if he did not proceed with the repairs. 10. The T. testified T. he instructed the plumber to proceed with the repairs as he needed to have the drain unclogged as he needed use of his kitchen sink. O. Page 2 of 6  File Number: LTB-T-034948-22 11. He testified the plumber sent a fifty-foot snake down the drain A. successfully unclogged the drain. He testified the drain was clogged with plaster A. paint inside the pipes. 12. He testified T. at no time did he put any plaster or paint down the drain A. believes T. the plaster A. paint have been inside the drain pipes since he moved into the rental unit in 2023 ONLTB 31099 (CanLII) August 2019, A. this would explain the slow drain of water in the kitchen sink. 13. The T. provided a copy of a paid invoice dated December 10, 2021, from Trinity Plumbing A. Draining Services Inc in the amount of $621.50 (Subtotal $550.00 plus HST 71.50). The description on the invoice is as follows: a) Check A. investigate where the problem is b) The kitchen drainer sink was clogged A. overflowed c) Snaked with heavy duty snake fifty feet long by 5/8” d) Was very difficult to snake because it was full of plaster A. paint inside the drainer pipe. Had to snake the drain several times. e) Unclogged the main drain 11/2” f) Tested the drain 14. The T. testified T. on January 2, 2022, he sent the invoice to the L.’s daughter, Roberta Giancola, requesting to be reimbursed F. the costs he had incurred. She stated she wanted to speak to the L. A. T. Board A. advised the T. it was not the Landlords responsibility to pay F. the clogged drain. 15. He testified T. the L. offered to reimburse the T. the amount of $300.00, which he declined as he wanted the full amount reimbursed. L.’s Evidence 16. The L.’s daughter, Roberta Giancola testified T. the T. called the L.’s wife on December 6, 2021, regarding the clogged drain. She testified T. the L.’s wife has a language barrier A. did not tell the T. to go ahead A. call a plumber. 17. She testified T. on December 6, 2021, she advised the T. T. their plumber had Covid 19, A. therefore was not able to attend the rental unit to fix the clogged drain A. T. this was not an emergency plumbing issue. 18. She stated T. she advised the T. T. he could obtain quotes A. provide these quotes to the L. F. review A. approval. 19. She testified the T. advised her of the quote he received from the plumber which had a wide range of anywhere between $300.00 A. $1000.00. 20. She testified the T. did not provide the L. with sufficient time to get quotes from other plumbers. O. Page 3 of 6  File Number: LTB-T-034948-22 21. She testified the T. went ahead A. told the plumber to proceed with the repairs even after she told the plumber to not continue with the work on December 7, 2021, as the quoted price was too high. She stated the T. paid to have the issue rectified. She testified the L. agreed to reimburse the T. the amount of $300.00 with no 2023 ONLTB 31099 (CanLII) liability of guilt, however the T. refused as he wanted to the full invoice of $621.50 to be paid as well as the cost of $49.99 plus tax F. the cleaning auger he purchased. 22. She testified the T. has lived at the rental unit since August 24, 2019, A. at no time before December 6, 2021, was the L. ever notified of an issue with the kitchen sink. 23. She states the signed Lease Agreement between the parties states the T. will pay F. any maintenance issues related to the T.’s negligence. 24. She testified the L. did not put paint or plaster down the drain at any time before the T. moved into the rental unit. Analysis 25. Based on the T.’s evidence I am satisfied T. the kitchen drainpipe was clogged with plaster A. paint 26. There was no evidence before me T. suggests the T. was responsible F. putting plaster A. paint down the kitchen sink or T. the clogged drainpipe was due to the negligence of the T.. I accept the T.’s testimony T. since the beginning of the tenancy in August 2019, the kitchen sink, always drained slowly. While this may have been an issue the T. should have brought to the attention of the L., I accept T. the kitchen sink drain was still operating but was draining slow. 27. On a balance of probabilities, the plaster A. paint were in the drainpipe when the T. moved into the rental unit in August 2019, A. T. is why the kitchen sink was draining slowly. 28. While I accept the T. was trying to rectify the issue without bothering the L. A. purchased a drain cleaner auger, before doing so the T. should have contacted the L. A. advised of the clogged drain A. discuss next steps. The T. did not provide any receipts F. the purchase of the cleaning auger. 29. I am persuaded by the T.’s testimony T. he had a conversation with the L.’s wife on December 6, 2021, A. at T. time she advised him T. he could find a plumber as their plumber could not attend due to Covid 19. 30. I accept the testimony of the L.’s daughter, Roberta Giancola T. there may have been a language barrier during the conversation, however, the L.’s wife did not appear at the hearing to provide testimony of this conversation. O. Page 4 of 6  File Number: LTB-T-034948-22 31. I accept the L.’s daughter, Roberta Giancola’s testimony T. she advised the T.’s plumber not to proceed with the work as the quote was too high A. the T. proceeded to have the repairs conducted. 32. While I find T. having a clogged kitchen sink does require a repair in a timely manner, I 2023 ONLTB 31099 (CanLII) would not consider this an emergency plumbing call. 33. The invoice the T. provided dated December 10, 2021, from Trinity Plumbing A. Draining Services Inc in the amount of $621.50, indicates T. the price reflects a Plumbing Emergency Call. 34. While I accept the clogged drain needed to be rectified in a timely manner the T. did not give the L. sufficient time to obtain quotes from other plumbers before the T. proceeded to have the issue rectified on his own on an emergency basis. 35. I find it was unnecessary to have an emergency call to a plumber, which resulted in extra costs being incurred. The T. could have provided the L. with time to have a plumber of their choice quote the amount F. repairs. I note the T. advised the L. on December 6, 2021, A. hired his own plumber on December 7, 2021, even after the L. had said not to proceed as the quote was too high. Remedy 36. The T. incurred expenses in the amount of $621.50, F. the unclogging of the drainpipe A. $56.48 F. the drain cleaner auger he purchased to try A. rectify the clogged drain prior to calling the L.. 37. I find the amount the T. is requesting is unreasonable as the charges represent an emergency call. The charges would have been less if the T. provided the L. with time to obtain their own plumbing quote A. if the T. had not advised the plumber on December 7, 2021, to proceed with the repairs. I also find the charge F. the cleaning auger could have been avoided if the T. had called the L. A. advised the L. of the issue before trying to rectify on his own. The T. did not provide a copy of a receipt showing the charges F. the cleaning auger. 38. Considering these circumstances, I find it reasonable to award a reimbursement of out- ofpocket expenses the T. incurred in the amount of $421.50, which represents a portion of the paid invoice dated December 10, 2021 in the amount of $621.50. This amount represents a $200.00 reduction from the paid invoice which would be a reasonable amount T. was charged F. an emergency call. I note the plumber had stated on December 7, 2021, T. if he was not permitted to do the repairs there would still be a $200.00 service charge. It is ordered T.: O. Page 5 of 6  File Number: LTB-T-034948-22 1. The L. shall pay the T. is $421.50. This amount represents the reasonable costs T. the T. has incurred to repair property T. was damaged as a result of the L.’s actions. 2. The L. shall pay to the T. $53.00 F. the cost of filing the application. 2023 ONLTB 31099 (CanLII) 3. The total amount the L. owes the T. is $474.50. 4. If the L. does not pay the T. the full amount owing on or before April 27, 2023, the L. will start to owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from April 28, 2023 at 6.00% annually on the balance outstanding. April 13, 2023 ____________________________ Date Issued Trish Carson Member, L. A. T. 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 6 of 6