LTB Order LTB-T-043533-22

O. under Section 31 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 2023 ONLTB 53835 (CanLII) Citation: K. v M., 2023 ONLTB 53835 Date: 2023-08-01 File Number: LTB-T-043533-22 In the matter of: 301, 16 Bridge Street West PO Box 534 Campbellford Ontario K0L1L0 Tenants Between: P. K. T. K. A. L. T. M. P. K. A. T. K. (the 'Tenants') A. F. an O. D. T. T. M. (the 'L.'): • substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenant or by a member of their household. • harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the Tenant. This application was heard by videoconference on June 28, 2023. The Tenants, the Tenants’ support person, T. Lawes, A. the L. attended the hearing. Preliminary Issue 1. The parties provided evidence regarding an incident T. took place on January 11, 2023. This event took place on the sidewalk in front of the residential complex. The Board does not have jurisdiction to make any determinations regarding an event T. did not take place in the residential complex. Therefore, this evidence is not considered in this O.. Determinations: 2. As explained below, the Tenants did not prove the allegations contained in the application on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, the application is dismissed. O. Page 1 of 5  File Number: LTB-T-043533-22 3. The tenancy began in 2013. The Tenants reside in a two-bedroom unit in a multi-unit residential complex. The Tenant’s Evidence 2023 ONLTB 53835 (CanLII) 4. The majority of the Tenants’ allegations are regarding the conduct of the tenants living in the unit located adjacent to their unit (the ‘Neighbours’). 5. The Tenants submit T. since January 2022, the Neighbours have been making excessive noise by turning their water off A. on several times in a row. The Neighbours have done this approximately thirty times. The Tenants state T. every time this occurred, they would inform the L.. The L.’s response was T. he could not stop the Neighbours from running their water. 6. The Tenants submit T. the Neighbours have been banging A. slamming stuff against the wall since January 2022 A. late at night. The Tenants state T. they notified the L. of this after every occurrence. The L. replied T. he spoke to the Neighbours, A. they said they were sleeping when the alleged noise occurred, or they were getting something out of cupboards F. their dog. 7. The Tenants submit T. the Neighbours were stomping constantly A. late at night since January 2022. The Tenants state T. they notified the L. of this after every occurrence. The L. requested proof of the noise to which they provided. The Tenants submitted into evidence audio recordings of the noise. 8. The Tenants submit T. on April 15, 2023, the Neighbour attended their unit A. pounded on the door A. threatened to kill them. They advised the L. of the incident, A. the L. took no action. Submitted into evidence was an audio recording of the incident where a man is heard saying outside the unit, “You don’t talk to her, so shut your f***ing mouth, what did I tell you,” A. a loud knock on the door is heard. 9. The Tenants submit T. the heat in the front room was in disrepair in December 2021 F. two weeks. The Tenants advised the L. of the issue, A. he attended the unit immediately to address it. They state the heating was not fixed F. two weeks. The L.’s Evidence 10. The L. testified T. he received the first email from the Tenants about the noise from the water on January 30, 2022. The L. states T. he received audio recordings but there was no discernible noise. Further, he pulled up the water bills F. the Neighbour’s unit A. did not see an increase or excessive use of water. The L. advised the Tenants T. he could not tell the Neighbours when they can turn the water on. O. Page 2 of 5  File Number: LTB-T-043533-22 11. Regarding the banging A. slamming of items, he received the first email about the noise on January 5, 2022. The L. requested audio evidence from the Tenants A. the audio produced had either no noise or faint walking around. The L. states he talked to the Neighbours about closing their cupboard doors. 2023 ONLTB 53835 (CanLII) 12. The L. first received notice of stomping in February 2022. At the same time, the L. was receiving complaints from the Neighbours about the Tenants’ noise. The L. asked the Tenants A. the Neighbours to produce audio evidence. The Neighbours’ audio evidence was also inconclusive. The L. states he stood in the hallway in between the units to investigate A. he only hear the TV. 13. Regarding the April 15, 2023 incident, he received a call from the Tenants about the noise in the middle of the night. He advised the Tenants to call the police. On the security cameras, he observed the police attending the unit. He spoke with the Neighbours the following day A. they apologized F. the noise. The Tenants did not request T. he take further action, so he did not. 14. The L. testified T. he was notified of the Tenants heating issue on November 17, 2021. He attended the unit immediately. The Tenants advised him T. they would be fine since they had two bedroom heaters T. are located next to the area where the heat was not working. The L. provided the Tenants with a supplementary heater on November 20, 2021. On November 30, 2021, the L. was able to fix the heater A. removed the portable heater. Law A. Analysis Substantial Interference 15. Section 22 of the Act says: A L. shall not at any time during a tenant’s occupancy of a rental unit A. before the day on which an O. evicting the tenant is executed substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or the residential complex in which it is located F. all usual purposes by a tenant or members of his or her household. 16. In the instant case, A. based on the evidence presented, I find, on a balance of probabilities, T. the noises complained of A. emanating from the neighbouring unit were sounds of normal everyday living A. do not constitute “substantial” interference. 17. I listened to all the audio recordings submitted into evidence in their entirety A. find T. the recordings produced either have no discernible noise or faint walking or rapping. In my view, while the Tenants submit T. this noise is substantial, from an objective standpoint, I cannot O. Page 3 of 5  File Number: LTB-T-043533-22 find T. it is. Moreover, the sounds of walking, running water A. closing A. opening of cupboard doors are noises T. are to be expected in a multi-unit residential building. 18. Even if I found T. the noise rose to the level of substantial, which I do not, I find T. the L. responded reasonably to the Tenants’ complaints of noise. As can be seen from 2023 ONLTB 53835 (CanLII) the wording of section 22, the Act does not give a tenant an unqualified right to quiet enjoyment. In fact, the provision refers only to the behaviour of the L. A. not to other tenants. 19. Case law in this area has developed the general principle T. where a tenant’s complaint concerns the behaviour of others, a L. can be held liable under section 22 if the L. fails to take all reasonable steps to address the tenant’s complaints about the third party. 20. The general expectation of a L. when dealing with tenant-on-tenant complaints is F. the L. to first investigate the complaint in question. Then if the complaint is found to be well-founded, the L. is expected to take increasingly serious steps to deal with the behaviour complained of in O. to stop it. 21. The L. in this case investigated the situation by requesting audio evidence, examining water usage A. standing in the common hallway to detect noise. While the L. could not detect any noise based on the evidence given to him, he still acted on the Tenants’ complaints A. spoke to the Neighbours about their use of the cabinets. Therefore, I find T. the L.’s response was reasonable. 22. Regarding the lack of heat, where a claim is made of substantial interference due to “work”, section 8 of Ontario Regulation 516/06 of the Act must be A.. “Work” is defined as maintenance, repairs or capital improvements carried out in a rental unit or a residential complex. The repair of the heater meets the definition of work. 23. Subsection 8(3) creates a two-part test T. is both subjective A. objective. Subsection 8(3)(a) requires the Board to look at the individual circumstances of the tenant A. the impact on the tenant. However, regardless of the severity of T. impact, subsection 8(3)(b) prevents the Board from making a finding T. a L. substantially interfered with the tenant’s reasonable enjoyment unless the tenant proves unreasonableness with respect to the work being done. 24. There is no dispute T. work was performed by the L. regarding the heat in the front of the unit. The Tenants submit T. because of the heater not working, their laptop broke. However, I find T. the Tenants have not proved on a balance of probabilities T. the carrying out of the work was unreasonable in the circumstances. I find T. the work was performed in a reasonable way A. within a reasonable amount of time. The uncontested evidence was T. the work was done over two weeks, the Tenants were provided with a O. Page 4 of 5  File Number: LTB-T-043533-22 temporary portable heater, A. the Tenants were able to remain in the unit. As such, I do not find T. the L. substantially interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment. Harassment, etc. 2023 ONLTB 53835 (CanLII) 25. Section 23 of the Act states T. a L. shall not harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a tenant. 26. Although the word harass is not defined in the Act, harassment has been found by this Board to generally be a course of conduct or behaviour T. the reasonable person knows or ought to know would be unwelcome. 27. I considered whether the noise complained of was harassment. I do not find T. it was. There was insufficient evidence to establish T. the noise was intentionally done to harass or interfere with the Tenants. Furthermore, based on the audio recordings a reasonable person would not know or ought to know the noise would be unwelcome because it was not loud. 28. I also considered whether the April 15, 2023 incident was harassment. While the Tenants being told to shut up A. a loud knock at the door is unkind, I do not find T. there were any threats uttered based on the audio recording submitted into evidence. The conduct is not sufficiently serious, on its own, to constitute harassment of the Tenant. Accordingly, the L. was not obligated to take any further steps with respect to this behaviour. Adult tenants will have tensions A. disagreements with one another, it is not necessary F. landlords to intervene in all such situations. 29. Having found T. the L. substantially interfered with or harassed the Tenants, the Tenants’ application is dismissed. It is ordered T.: 1. The Tenants’ application is dismissed. August 1, 2023 ____________________________ Date Issued Camille Tancioco 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 5 of 5