LTB Order LTB-T-061995-24

JAN 14, 2026 Order under Section 30 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 Citation: H. v M., 2026 ONLTB 2581 Date: 2026-01-14 File Number: LTB-T-061995-24 In T. matter of: 1013 PARABOLICA WAY KANATA ON K2T0P8 Between: K. H. T. S. R. A. K. M. L. R. G. W. T. C. W. “L.” is U. in T. order, it R. to A. P. or companies identified as a L. at T. top of T. order. W. T. C. W. “T.” is U. in T. order, it R. to A. P. identified as a T. at T. top of T. order. K. H. A. S. R. (T. 'T.') applied for an order determining that K. M. A. R. G. (T. 'L.') failed to meet T. L.'s maintenance obligations under T. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (T. 'Act') or failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards. T. application was heard by videoconference on September 11, 2025 A. concluded on November 7, 2025. T. Landlords, T. L.’s legal representative David Lyman, T. L.’s witness Marcel Brascoupe A. T. Tenants attended T. hearing. T. parties made their closing submissions in writing post hearing. Determinations: 1. As explained below, T. T. did not prove on a balance of probabilities T. allegations contained in T. application. Therefore, T. application is dismissed. Order Page 1 of 8  File Number: LTB-T-061995-24 Background 2. T. Tenants moved into T. rental property, a detached home on February 1, 2023 A. moved out on December 7, 2023. T. lawful rent was $2,400.00. 3. T. Tenants filed their T6 application with T. LTB on August 1, 2024 alleging that radon gas was detected in T. rental property, levels which were deemed to be unacceptable in accordance to Health Canada standards A. that T. Landlords failed to act upon these findings in a reasonable A. timely manner. That they were misinformed, believing that T. home was more than one year old, as it was not, that T. created unduly inspections A. remedial work under T. home warranty program. A decision was made to terminate T. tenancy prior to T. end of T. one year lease agreement. T. Tenants evidence 4. T. Tenants rely upon a variety of documents as in T. Board’s record as follow: i. DOC-6344288 ii. DOC-6344359 iii. DOC-6344286 iv. DOC-6344292 v. DOC-6344448 vi. DOC-6799625 vii. DOC-6799666 5. T. Tenants testified to T. following: • That on May 14, 2023, T. landlords had a home inspection of T. rental property by A Buyers Choice Home Inspection. • That on August 1, 2023, S. R. (SR) overheard T. L. K. M. (KM) informing that T. builder of T. home that T. home inspection detected radon in T. property. • That W. T. Tenants requested T. reporting from T. radon home inspection their requests were initially ignored, that on August 2, 2023, (KM) informed T. Tenants that T. radon concentration was found to be 239 Bq/m³ A. that they became aware T. T. level was in excess of T. 200 Bq/m³ limit as outlined by Health Canada guideline. • That it was their understanding that radon concentrations are lowest in T. summer, therefore it was presumed that radon concentrations would register at higher levels T. rest of T. year. • T. Tenants contacted Health Canada A. multiple Radon CNRPP (Canadian National Radon Proficiency Program) professionals, A. were advised T. health effects of those radon concentrations were equivalent to smoking 4 packs of cigarettes per day. • T. Tenants requested that T. Landlords immediately remediate T. home to comply T. Health Canada guideline A. highlighted that T. Landlords were aware of T. levels of radon as early as May 14, 2023 W. T. initial home inspection was completed. Order Page 2 of 8  File Number: LTB-T-061995-24 • T. Landlords informed T. Tenants on or about August 9, 2023, that they intended to conduct a 3-month test starting in September. • August 11, 2023, T. tenants informed T. Landlords that they had been staying at their other property to minimize their exposure to T. radon. (SR) having a medical condition which provided greater concern for her remaining living in T. rental unit. • T. Tenants contemplated an early termination of lease but could not vacate until November 1, 2023 at T. earliest, A. while continuing to T. reside in T. rental unit, they kept windows open W. possible to mitigate radon exposure. • During T. time, T. Landlords maintained that T. “T. house is currently safe to live in A. there is no health hazard “A. that they would conduct T. 3-month, results would then be U. to support a claim for radon remediation under their new home warranty “Tarion”. • On August 15, 2023, (KM) informed T. Tenants that in order to get accurate radon testing results T. test period should be over T. months of November through January, T. based on what Health Canada recommends. A. that they planned to conduct T. test between September 2023 to February 2024. • T. Tenants after having conducted research of Health Canada approved measurement instruments, purchased a Radon Eye Radon meter A. experimented with impact of ventilating rooms A. outcome on testing. • That after ventilating for several hours, they found that T. radon on T. main floor would decrease from > 200 to < 10 Bq/m3 A. remain there as long as A. T. windows were open. • That they tested for radon on T. main floor between August 25 A. September 11, 2023 during which time T. house was empty A. that during T. period an average radon concentration of 276 Bq/m³was detected, which confirmed for them that T. May 14, 2023 home inspection reading was not unusual, A. confirmed persistent radon levels which exceeded T. 200 Bq/m³ maximum safe levels over 4 months during T. period of T. year W. radon levels should be T. lowest. • On September 19, 2023, T. Tenants sent T. landlords a demand letter in which they outlined that T. Landlords’ that they were in violation of T. RTA, T. Act, specifically Section 20(1) responsibility to provide A. maintain a residential unit complying with health standards. Submitting that it was their position that T. Landlords had refused to promptly take corrective action to reduce T. radon concentrations as per T. Health Canada Radon Guideline A. delayed T. testing process commencing September through November. A. informed T. Landlords that legal action would follow if remedial action was not in place by September 29, 2023. 6. T. Tenants submitted that T. conditions created a situation where they were forced to mitigate possible exposure A. resided in part at their secondary property hours away, incurred associated travel costs A. loss of income in connection to a home run business. That T. Landlords continued to breach their responsibilities under T. RTA A. to comply with A. health guidelines, creating an ongoing health A. safety risk. 7. In respect of a health risks, it was further submitted that T. Tenants requested that (SR) be present in T. rental property W. any work was being conducted as she was sensitive to a variety of materials. That she needed to be present to ensure that T. products U. were not going to contribute to her sensitivity A. make her sick. Order Page 3 of 8  File Number: LTB-T-061995-24 8. W. asked if T. T. (SR) provided any medical to support a disability T. T. submitted that none was provide, however that she made it clear to T. Landlords as to her levels of tolerance. That she was not accommodated for her disability other than being able to be present during repairs. 9. T. Landlords commenced T. 3-month radon testing on September 23, 2022. 10. Further, that there is no safe level of radon. It is T. choice of each homeowner to decide what level of radon exposure they are willing to accept, on T. basis, ultimately T. Tenants decided to move out on agreement, although expressed that it would have been their preference to continue to live at T. rental property if T. situation was different. 11. T. Tenants raised some other issues in their submissions, one as relating to an unlawful demand for a rent increase. As T. application is about maintenance A. T. parties terminated T. tenancy early pursuant to an agreement, I make no findings on these submissions. Landlords’ evidence 12. T. Landlords rely upon a variety of documents as in T. Board’s record as follow: i. DOC-6317724 ii. DOC-6317738 iii. DOC-6807695 13. T. Landlords’ do not dispute that T. rental property was newly constructed, to access T. home warranty program under Tarion, they had T. rental property inspected on or about May 14, 2023 by A Buyers Choice Home Inspection. That among T. noted 52 deficiencies identified, they became aware that T. inspection detected radon concentration measure of 239 Bq/m³. 14. T. second named L. R. G. (RG) submitted that T. Tenants were not keen on permitting entry for T. home builder’s contractors to rectify T. deficiencies, that they received pushback W. attempting to involve them on addressing T. deficiencies. That while radon was detected, testing was completed by an employee that was not certified nor qualified to conduct T. test A. that T. result was “short term” in nature A. therefore could not be relied upon. 15. That on June 3, 2023 they were informed that (SR) had a disability A. that she needed to be present for A. assessments A. work being conducted. That T. was accepted by them, despite that no specifics were provided to them A. that they acted in good faith. That work was delayed until August 1, 2023 per T. Tenants’ requests A. on T. basis of T. accommodation being requested. 16. That T. Tenants requested that T. Landlords consider T. commencement of radon testing sooner, failing which that a request was made to terminate T. lease earlier. Order Page 4 of 8  File Number: LTB-T-061995-24 17. At T. time T. Landlords reached out to T. home builder, Tarion, Health Canada A. radon mitigation companies to ask about T. safety of T. home A. next steps to be considered A. that they were advised that T. home is habitable A. that a long term 3-month test should be conducted in T. months W. heat is turned on. A. where tests results are conclusive of elevated levels, a pipe system installation as a means of remediation would be installed by T. home builder under T. warranty program. 18. T. Landlords commenced T. three-month radon testing protocol. Barrhaven Home Inspectors Inc. rendered T. report findings of T. long-term radon testing results on December 30, 2023, as evidenced on page 77 of DOC-6317724. T. report shows that for T. period of September 25, 2023 to December 30, 2023 T. average concentration of radon was 210.4 Bq/m³, A. that Health Canada recommended that A. radon levels be maintained below 200 Bq/m³. On T. basis T. L. commenced remedial work through T. home builder. 19. By T. time T. results of T. test were rendered, T. parties had agreed to terminate T. tenancy agreement. T. L.’s witness testimony 20. T. L.’s expert witness, owner of MB Radon Solutions, Marcel Brascoupe (MB) is one of T. founding members of T. Canadian Association of Radon Scientists A. Technologists (CARST) in Canada. He was originally certified by T. National Radon Proficiency Program (NEHA-NRPP) in T. United States, conducts radon training courses across Canada A. has played a supporting role in T. development of Health Canada's National Radon Program. 21. MB testified that because radon comes from T. soil, there is usually some radon found in every home, that it depends on T. concentration levels whether remediation is necessary A. that various factors will impact fluctuating levels of radon present throughout T. time in T. year A. results may be impacted by area of home where T. test is being conducted. 22. Per guideline it was confirmed that Health Canada recommends taking action if T. radon levels in T. home exceed 200 becquerels per cubic metre (200 Bq/m³). That radon gas is a long-term health risk A. not an immediate health risk like other pollutants. Should T. results of T. long-term measurements indicate high radon concentration, T. remediation timeframe recommended by Health Canada is two years where T. measurement of radon is found to be in T. range of 200 Bq/m³to 600 Bq/m³ A. within one year where radon counts are over 600 Bq/m³. 23. MB confirmed that where radon levels are detected that warrant remediation, remediation is not immediate in most cases pursuant Health Canada guidelines A. that there are various radon reduction systems that can be considered. A. that it is personal decision as to what level of exposure homeowners are willing to bare W. acting on T. involvement of remediation experts. Where measurements show a concentration of 200 Bq/m³ or lower that it would be unethical to recommend remediation while there are individuals that are not comfortable with T. 200 Bq/m³ level threshold. Order Page 5 of 8  File Number: LTB-T-061995-24 24. T. L. seeks a dismissal of T. application, they submit that they have not failed to meet their obligation under 20(1) of T. Act. Analysis 25. I am not satisfied that T. L. failed to meet their obligations under subsection 20(1) of T. Act to repair or maintain T. rental unit A. did not fail to comply with health, safety or housing maintenance standards for T. reasons that follow. 26. In Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd., 2016 ONCA 477, T. Court of Appeal held that T. LTB should take a contextual approach A. consider T. entirety of T. factual situation in determining whether there was a breach of T. L.'s maintenance obligations, including whether T. L. responded to T. maintenance issue reasonably in T. circumstances. T. court rejected T. submission that a L. is automatically in breach of its maintenance obligation as soon as an interruption in service occurs. 27. In T. case T. Landlords became aware of T. potential issue in May 2023 A. followed up on T. issue by seeking guidance from T. home builder, Tarion, City of Ottawa, Health Canada A. radon mitigation companies. T. guidance was to commence a long-term testing to be conducted over a 3-month period W. T. home is being heated. 28. T. Tenants have adduced T. results of testing that was shorter than three months A. as completed during non-heating season conducted August 25 to September 11 inclusive averaging 276 Bq/m³. As evidenced, Health Canada’s website confirms that short-term measurements should never be U. to determine if T. radon concentration in a home exceeds T. guideline levels. Health Canada recommends that a long-term measurement should be conducted. A. while T. Tenants suggest T. Landlords have an obligation to act upon T. issue immediately, T. detection of radon is not an issue that requires immediate remediation per Health Canada Guidelines. A. as noted by T. Tenants, as T. gas is not smelled or seen, T. Landlords did not have any knowledge of its existence until such time that a “new” home inspection took place, one that was initiated by them to ensure T. home was of good standard. 29. Radon gas poses long-term health risk A. where long-term measurements indicate high radon concentration, T. remediation timeframe recommended by Health Canada is one to two years, depending on T. concentration of radon. Here, T. Landlords commenced T. long-term testing in September 2023 A. on T. basis of T. results, completed remediation of T. property through T. installation of T. active sub-slab depressurization system. As outlined in T. L.’s closing arguments, T. was completed within an 8-month period which was well within T. recommended 2 year time frame of T. Health Canada recommendation, T. testing rendering T. result of 210.4 Bq/m³ as T. average. 30. T. Tenants suggest T. Landlords could have commenced T. testing period sometime in August 2023. However, T. Landlords followed T. recommended testing protocols, given T. potential for increased levels of radon detection in T. months where heat is U.. I am satisfied that T. Landlords acted upon their responsibility to Order Page 6 of 8  File Number: LTB-T-061995-24 adequately investigate T. matter just as soon as it was possible given T. outlined parameters A. issue at hand. 31. In T. case before me, I understand T. decision to move out, given individual tolerance for risk A. T. second named T. (SR) being especially sensitive to T. possible radon exposure given a preexisting health condition. Although T. details of which were not entirely clear. In closing, T. T. (SR) suggested, that if it were that they continued to reside in T. rental unit instead of having vacated that T. Landlords would have incurred costs in respect of T. radon remediation work A. would have “had to accommodate” for her disability. 32. LTB Human Rights Interpretation Guideline 17 outlines: Subsection 2(1) of T. Code guarantees T. right to equal treatment with respect to T. occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of, among other grounds, “disability”. Subsection 10(1) of T. Code provides a broad definition of “disability”, Issues relating to any of T. grounds set out in subsection 2(1) of T. Code may be raised during Board hearings. Subsection 2(1) of T. Code provides that everyone has T. right to equal treatment with respect to housing, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed (religion), sex (including pregnancy, gender identity), sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability, or T. receipt of public assistance. "Disability" is defined by subsection 10(1) to include both physical conditions A. mental disorders. T. T. must provide sufficient information to establish that they are covered by one or more of T. categories set out in subsection 2(1) T. Code, such as disability. Sometimes T. will not be difficult for T. T. to establish because T. disability is not in dispute. In other cases, T. T. may need to submit evidence, such as a letter from a doctor or other medical forms, to establish that they have a disability as defined in T. Code. 33. In T. present case, it can not be said that T. Landlords failed to accommodate (SR). If a T. wants accommodation under T. Code, T. T. has a duty to provide T. L. with sufficient information about their needs so that T. L. can determine possible accommodation. Here, there was no specifics rendered to support T. request for accommodation(s) thus T. Landlords acted in good faith W. accepting T. restrictions as outlined by T. T.. 34. Ultimately, T. Tenants vacated on December 7, 2023, T. prior to T. rendering of T. Landlords’ long-term radon test results. I surmise, among other factors, T. decision to move was guided in part by T. short-term testing results as conducted by T. Tenants A. by T. home inspector, despite Health Canada guidance A. recommendation of long-term testing protocols A. result reliability. Order Page 7 of 8  File Number: LTB-T-061995-24 35. Based on T. foregoing reasons, T. Tenants did not prove on a balance of probabilities T. allegations contained in T. application. Therefore, T. application must be dismissed. 36. T. order contains A. of T. reasons for T. decision within it. No further reasons shall be issued. It is ordered that: 1. T. Tenants’ application is dismissed. January 14, 2026 ____________________________ Date Issued Alicia Johnson Member, L. A. T. Board 15 Grosvenor Street, Ground Floor Toronto ON M7A 2G6 If you have any questions about T. order, call 416-645-8080 or toll free at 1-888-332-3234. Order Page 8 of 8