LTB Order LTB-T-069556-22

O. under Subsection 135 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 2023 ONLTB 61880 (CanLII) Citation: S. v D., 2023 ONLTB 61880 Date: 2023-09-13 File Number: LTB-T-069556-22 In T. matter of: #1, 3456A Bathurst Street Toronto ON M5A2C4 Tenant Between: T. E. of N. S. A. L. F. D. T. E. of N. S. (T. 'Tenant') A. F. an O. D. T. F. D. A. 3153428 ONT. Limited (T. 'L.')  collected or retained money illegally;  substantially interfered with T. reasonable enjoyment of T. rental unit or residential complex by T. Tenant or by a member of their household;  harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with T. Tenant; A.  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 This application was heard by videoconference on September 5, 2023. T. L., T. L.’s Representative, Berkan Altun A. T. Tenant’s Agent, Adrianna S. attended T. hearing. Witnesses F. T. L. included: Marisa D’Alessandro A. Davide D’Alessandro. T. application was amended, A. 3153428 Ontario Limited was removed as a party to this application because it is not T. L.. T. L. did not speak adequate English A. T. interpreter was inadequate at translating, therefore she provided little to no evidence at T. hearing. Determinations: T1 application: 1. As explained below, T. Tenant proved T. allegations contained in T. application on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, T. L. must pay T. interest on T. last month’s rent deposit. O. Page 1 of 5 2023 ONLTB 61880 (CanLII)  File Number: LTB-T-069556-22 Interest on rent deposit owing 2. T. L. failed to pay T. Tenant interest on T. last month's rent deposit, as required by T. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (T. 'Act'). T. L. concedes A. consents to pay $25.00 F. T. interest on T. last month rent deposit as claimed. 2023 ONLTB 61880 (CanLII) Compensation F. N12 3. T. L. gave T. Tenant a notice of termination under section 48 of T. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (T. 'Act'). T. email to T. MD, date May 14, 2019 at 12:57 a.m sent to alisolman@rogers.com, confirms T. T. compensation was paid A. A. as a credit to T. Tenant’s July 2019 rent period. T. Tenant’s Agent has not established T. T. L. has not paid compensation as mandated by subsection 48.1 of T. Act. O. prohibiting rent increase 4. T. L.’s Agent did not advance evidence to support a finding T. T. L. increased T. rent unlawfully. This portion of T. application was withdrawn. T2 application: Harassment: 5. T. Tenant’s daughter, Alexandria S. (AS) sent an email to T. L.’s Agent, Marisa D’Alessandro (MD) dated November 14, 2018, T. claims T. L. was harassing T. Tenant by asking him to move. There were no dates or details of specific conversations between T. L. A. Tenant of unwelcomed behaviour contained in T. email. T. allegation was general A. based on hearsay information as it did not come from T. Tenant himself. It’s also unknown how many times T. L. called T. Tenant. There were no further emails to T. L.’s Agent, Marisa D’Alessandro after November 2018 T. would support a finding T. T. L.’s conduct continued A. AS was not at T. hearing to testify. I find there was not enough evidence T. T. L. harassed T. Tenant to vacate nor T. her conduct impacted T. Tenants’ right’s or lead T. Tenant to make misinformed decision. 6. Although T. Tenant vacated T. unit on July 31, 2019 it was in response to T. N12 Notice of Termination T. was issued on March 29, 2019. T. L. has a right to follow due legal process A. move into T. unit. T. Tenant’s Agent seeks moving costs A. other out of pocket expenses, but this is not a bad faith application made under section 57 of T. Act. Even if it was, T. Tenant’s Agent did not challenge MD’s testimony T. T. L. moved into T. unit around January 2020 after renovations were made. 7. T. L. owes T. Tenant $53.00 F. T. application fee. T6 Application: 8. Subsection 20(1) of T. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (Act) sets out a L.’s responsibility to repair as follows:  File Number: LTB-T-069556-22 A L. is responsible F. providing A. maintaining a residential complex, including T. rental units in it, in a good state of repair A. fit F. habitation A. F. complying with health, safety, housing A. maintenance standard 9. In Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management, 2016 ONCA 477 (“Onyskiw”) (CanLII), T. 2023 ONLTB 61880 (CanLII) Court of Appeal F. Ontario determined T. a contextual approach should be adopted when considering a L.’s potential breach of subsection 20(1) of T. Act, A. a breach will not be found if T. L.’s response to a maintenance issue was reasonable in T. circumstances. 10. T. issue before T. Board in this application is to determine if a breach of ss. 20(1) has taken place A., if so, when T. L. was made aware of T. breach A., if T. response was appropriate, reasonable A. timely in T. circumstances. 11. T. Tenant’s Agent provided photographs taken on T. date T. tenancy terminated on July 31, 2019 T. showed T. following: T. bathroom sink, a pot under T. bathroom sink F. leak, exposed cable wires running from an outlet, hanging wire attached to a light fixture missing light bulb; electrical box with exposed wiring situated in T. closet, a window sill T. showed pealed paint A. missing caulking; A. pile of garbage on T. curb. 12. T. Tenant is deceased, therefore there was no evidence led to establish when T. Tenant first brought these issues to T. L.’s attention. Both T. Tenant A. L. are elderly A. communicated verbally with respect to all issues related to T. tenancy until AS, stepped in as Agent F. T. Tenant in November 2018 at which time T. communication started in writing with T. L.’s Agent, MD. As such, based on T. best evidence before me I find T.’s T. first time T. some of these issues were brough to T. L.’s attention before T. application was filed on July 31, 2019 when T. Tenant vacated. 13. T. email dated November 14, 2018, at 9:32 p.m. complained about T. kitchen/bathroom sink (“one of three sinks is operating”) A. T. toilet, A. lack of garbage bin/tags. It also refers of electricity barely working, A. only one burner working (inferences T. stove). These were T. only issues identified in writing before T. application was filed on July 31, 2019. 14. Bathroom sink: On November 16, 2018 at 7:09 p.m. an email from Davide D’Alessandro to AS, states he’d send a plumber A. look into T. garbage bin issue. DD testified he sent a plumber on November 17, 2018. T. photograph T. captures T. pot under T. bathroom sink, taken on July 31, 2019, does not establish T. T. L. failed to meet his maintenance obligation. AS did not attend T. hearing to challenge DD’s evidence T. T. plumbing was repaired A. there were no other written complaints about T. plumbing after November 17, 2018 T. informed T. L. T. problem continued or started again. In accordance with Guideline 5 of T. L. A. Tenant Board Interpretation Guidelines, an abatement of rent is not an appropriate remedy if T. L. was not aware of T. alleged breach prior to T. application. It appears T. only when T. Tenant left A. after T. application was filed T. T. L. became aware T. leak required repair again.  File Number: LTB-T-069556-22 15. Stove: T. email dated November 14, 2018 made T. L. aware T. only one burner worked on T. stove. MA testified T. L. was aware of T. problem. Although DD stated T. stove was repaired, MD stated T. stove was not repaired. MD testified it wasn’t repaired because T. Tenant was satisfied with one burner operating. I find T. L. failed to meet her maintenance obligation having failed to repair what is broken. Despite 2023 ONLTB 61880 (CanLII) this finding, T. L.’s actions did not impact T. Tenant use of T. stove given T. Tenant was not cooking because his meals were prepared A. delivered to him by a service provider. An abatement of rent is not appropriate as it did not impact T. Tenant’s use of T. appliance. 16. Garbage Bin/Tag: AS’s email of November 14, 2018 alerted T. L. about a problem with respect to garbage disposal/bin. DD’s email response indicates T. he’d investigate A. contact T. city about T. issue. There was no evidence about T. outcome A. T. email chain is silent about whether T. problem was corrected. T. Tenant has lived in T. unit since 1999 above a commercial unit operating a restaurant with shared garbage bins. How, when A. where T. Tenant disposed of his garbage before A. after November 2018 is unknown. T. Tenant’s Agent’s presented a photograph of T. pile of garbage piled on T. curb T. was taken on July 31, 2019, which appears to be an isolated incident which coincides with T. date T. Tenant vacate. I find there was not enough evidence to establish T. T. L. substantially interfered with T. Tenants reasonable enjoyment of T. rental unit by not providing garbage bin/tag. 17. Electricity: T. photograph taken on July 31, 2019, shows exposed wire cables A. outlet on T. floor A. wires exposed on T. electrical box which is situated in T. closet. On it’s face, T. photograph proves T. electrical wires does not meet housing A. safety standards. There was no explanation F. T. exposed cable/ wires. There was also no evidence led, however as to T. impact this had on T. Tenant’s use of T. rental unit. It’s unknown whether T. exposed cable A. outlet were T. cause of T. alleged electricity insufficiencies, whether it existed when T. Tenant moved into T. unit in 1999, whether it was added later or reported to T. L. before T. Tenant vacated in July 2019. DD denied having knowledge of T. exposed cable A. wires which was T. best available evidence before me. 18. Light fixture: T. photograph taken on July 31, 2019, showed a light fixture hanging from wire on T. ceiling with missing light bulb which was taken on T. date T. Tenant vacated. It’s unclear whether T. reason F. T. loose light fixture was due to electrical problem or T. fixture itself. T. L. was made aware of insufficient electricity through AS’s email dated November 14, 2018. T. email chain from MD A. DD A. their testimony was silent on T. issue A. there was no evidence led T. T. problem was acknowledged or investigated. T. L. has a duty to investigate, A. it appears they did not. Having said T., AS was not at T. hearing to present evidence on T. issue A. her email lacked details with respect to T. specific problem. It’s unknown what caused T. light fixture to dangle A. whether it was a related to damage, tampering or an electrical issue. T. Tenant has lived in T. unit since 1999 A. there was insufficient evidence to establish T. electricity was T. cause of T. state of disrepair of T. fixture. Other Maintenance issues:  File Number: LTB-T-069556-22 19. T. issues related to front door, windows, washer A. dryer, lost use of T. deck appears to be raised F. T. first time in T. application. There was no evidence led by T. Tenant’s Agent as to when T. L. was first made aware of these issues. Based on T. best evidence before me, DD A. MD both stated they were unaware of T. issues A. AS was not present to challenge their testimony. T. L. cannot reasonably be expected to 2023 ONLTB 61880 (CanLII) know about T. issues unless she’s been made aware of T. problem nor was there evidence T. these issues were latent defects T. T. L. ought to have been aware of. In accordance with T. Board’s Guideline 5, an abatement of rent would not be reasonable. It is ordered T.: 1. T. total amount T. L. shall pay T. Tenant is $78.00 which represents$25.00 F. interest on T. last month's rent deposit A. $53.00 F. T. cost of filing T. application. 2. T. L. shall pay T. Tenant T. full amount owing by September 24, 2023. 3. If T. L. does not pay T. Tenant T. full amount owing by September 24, 2023, T. L. will owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from September 25, 2023 at 6.00% annually on T. balance outstanding. 4. T. Tenant’s E. has T. right, at any time, to collect T. full amount owing or any balance outstanding under this O.. September 13, 2023 Date Issued Sandra Macchione 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.