LTB Order LTB-T-074476-22

O. under Section 31 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 Citation: K. v W., 2023 ONLTB 66624 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) Date: 2023-11-06 File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 In the matter of: LOWER, 17 MUNRO STREET WEST CANNINGTON ON L0E1E0 Tenants Between: J. K. T. M. A. L. M. W. J. K. A. T. M. (the 'Tenants') A. F. an O. D. T. M. W. (the 'L.') entered the rental unit illegally, substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenants or by a member of their household, harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the Tenants A. withheld or interfered with their vital services or care services A. meals in a care home. (T2- LTB-T- 074476-22) The Tenants also A. F. an O. D. T. 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. (T6- LTB-T-074462-22) These applications were heard by videoconference on May 17, 2022, June 9, 2023, A. July 14, 2023. The L.’s Legal Representative, Carrie Aylwin, the L., the Tenants A. the Tenants’ witness, Tawnya M., attended the hearings. Determinations: 1. As explained below, the Tenant proved the allegations contained in the application on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, the L. must pay the Tenants $5,184.75. Background 2. The tenancy was F. a 2-bedroom rental unit. The rental unit had access to a patio in the backyard. The tenancy included a parking space. Rent was $950.00/month + hydro. 3. The tenancy began February 1, 2020, A. terminated November 1, 2021, pursuant to an O. on consent from the Board (TEL-17642-21). O. Page 1 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 4. The Tenants filed both applications with the Board on April 10, 2021. Illegal Entries 5. The Tenants allege T. the L. illegally entered the rental unit on a number of 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) occasions, mainly F. the purpose of serving notices. 6. The entrance of the rental unit has two doors: one door T. leads from the outside into what could be described either as a mudroom or sunporch, A. then a second door T. leads from this landing into the rental unit. 7. According to the Tenants, this room was not part of the original structure. The room surrounds some windows which may have originally been outside-facing windows. One of these windows looks out of the main bedroom. 8. The Tenant, T. M., (TM) testified T. the L. entered the rental unit to serve a notice to enter on May 31, 2020. The L. allegedly entered the mudroom A. put the notice next to the door leading to the rental unit. 9. TM also testified T. the L. also entered the rental unit on July 21, 2020, to serve a notice to enter. 10. The L. admitted to having entered the mudroom, however the L. felt T. the room was an extension of the entrance to the rental unit A. not the part of the rental unit itself, in the same way one might view the front porch of a house. 11. Both TM A. J. K. (JK) had submitted photographic evidence showing the two doors in question. The door leading into the rental unit from the mudroom/porch had a knob lock. The door leading from the “mudroom/porch” to the outside had a simple hook/eyelet closing system. The photos also showed T. the Tenants were using the room F. storage A. F. placing boots A. coats. Analysis 12. I find T. based on the evidence before me, the rental unit begins at the door leading to the outside from the mudroom. The Tenants had been using the space since the beginning of their tenancy. There was no evidence provided by the L. stating T. this “mudroom/porch” area was not part of the rental unit, despite this claim being part of the Tenants’ applications. 13. Furthermore, the L. was aware T. the Tenants were using the area F. storage of their own property, A. with T. comes a reasonable expectation of privacy A. security. Furthermore, the exterior door has a hook lock on it, which suggests T. the door is not meant to be used in the same manner as a front porch entrance. 14. Therefore, I find T. section 27 applies to the entry into the mudroom. O. Page 2 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 15. Pursuant to section 27 of the Act, a L. shall give written notice of entry at least 24 hours before the intended entry. Ironically, by entering the rental unit to post these two notices of entry on May 31 A. July 21, the L. breached the section of the Act T. she was attempting to act in accordance with. 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) 16. I am satisfied, based on the evidence before me, T. the L. breached section 27 of the Act on May 31, A. July 21, 2021. 17. I find T. although the L. did breach the Act in this case, I am not satisfied T. the entries caused any harm, A. T. the breaches are based on technicalities at best. 18. Therefore, I find T. the L. shall pay $100.00 F. each illegal entry, or $200.00 total. Snow Removal Evidence 19. The Tenants allege T. on November 23, 2020, the L. informed the Tenants T. snow removal was the Tenants’ responsibility. 20. Both Tenants gave testimony T. it cost the Tenants $750.00 out-of-pocket to hire a snow removal company remove the snow from the property throughout the winter from November 2020 to March 2021. 21. The JK presented a paid invoice from the snow removal company F. services rendered F. a total of $750.00. 22. Under cross-examination, JK was asked if the Tenants withheld the $750.00 from their rent. The response was T. they had withheld $750.00 from their rent to pay F. the snow removal. When asked if the Tenants ever did pay any of the rent they withheld from the L., JK responded T. they had not. 23. The L. testified T. when the tenancy terminated, there was a substantial amount of rent in arrears, however, the L. chose not to proceed with her own action against the Tenants, in part, because the L. recognized T. there were some expenses T. the Tenants bore A. should be compensated F.. This included the $750.00 claim the Tenants initially made to the L. T. they successfully withheld. Under cross- examination, the L. admitted to not having informed the Tenants T. she was accepting the $750.00 charge F. snow removal. Analysis 24. Pursuant to section 20(1) of the Act, the L. is responsible F. the maintenance of the rental unit A. the rental complex. This includes seasonal upkeep such as snow removal. 25. I am satisfied T. the Tenants paid $750.00 to a snow removal company to clear the snow F. their side of the rental complex. O. Page 3 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 26. Pursuant to Marineland of Canada Inc. v. Olsen, 2011 ONSC 6522 (CanLII), a rent abatement owing to the Tenant can be offset against any rent arrears owing to the L.. 27. At the hearing, the Tenants admitted to withholding rent. This is acknowledgement of rent 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) being owed. If the Tenants had not withheld T. rent, the L. would definitely have been liable F. the payment of snow removal. 28. However, based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied T. the Tenants were already compensated F. their out-of-pocket expenses when they told the L. T. they were withholding $750.00 from their rent F. the out-of-pocket expense. 29. Therefore, I find T. there is no award F. reimbursement of the $750.00 out-of-pocket expenses F. snow removal, because the Tenants were compensated when the L. offset the cost against rent owed. Therefore, the claim F. snow removal is dismissed. Thermostat Evidence 30. The Tenants testified T. the thermostat in the rental unit was not working properly. The Tenants notified the L. of this issue on May 15, 2020. 31. JK testified T. because the thermostat was not working, there were times where the temperatures in the rental unit were around 15-16C, which is 5-6 degrees lower than room temperature. 32. On October 15, 2020, an electrician came to the rental unit A. replaced the thermostat. However, in the process, the electrician did not fill in the hole cut out of the drywall. This allowed the wiring leading to the thermostat to be exposed. The Tenants submitted a picture, taken themselves, which showed a substantial sized hole with wires visible within the hole. It should be noted T. the wire connections were capped A. not exposing the “live” ends of the wiring leading to the thermostat. 33. As of November 30, 2020, the Tenants took it upon themselves to repair the hole in the drywall. 34. The L. testified T. due to COVID, it was difficult to find an electrician to come in A. install the thermostat. 35. The L. testified T. the electrician who installed the thermostat was a licensed electrician A. would not have left live wires exposed. The L. did admit to not having entered the rental unit to confirm if the new thermostat had been replaced properly A. relied on the Tenants updates regarding this issue. In the end, the L. did not enter the unit to investigate the Tenants’ complaints. Analysis O. Page 4 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 36. In Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd., 2016 ONCA 477, the Court of Appeal held T. the LTB should take a contextual approach A. consider the entirety of the factual situation in D. whether there was a breach of the L.’s maintenance obligations, including whether the L. responded to the maintenance issue reasonably in the circumstances. The court rejected the submission T. a L. is automatically in 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) breach of its maintenance obligation as soon as an interruption in service occurs. In this case, did the L. act reasonably in replacing the thermostat in a timely manner, A. then fixing the hole left behind after the thermostat was replaced? 37. The L. did not contest the fact T. she was made aware of the thermostat on May 15, 2020. However, it took 5 months F. the thermostat to be replaced. The L. had testified T. she had difficulty finding an electrician to come make this repair. However, no evidence was presented T. showed T. the L. had reached out to an electrician in a timely manner. 38. Based on T., I find T. the five months it took F. the thermostat to be replaced to be excessive. Based on this conclusion, I find T. the L. did not act in a reasonable amount of time to repair or replace the thermostat. 39. Furthermore, I find T. the job of replacing the thermostat was not completed until the Tenants themselves finished the job by securing the wires behind drywall A. refinishing the wall. 40. Pursuant to section 22 of the Act, a L. shall not substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or complex. 41. I find T. a lack of proper control over the thermostat from May 15, 2020, to October 15, 2020, caused periods of time where the temperature would drop below 20C, which is the minimum temperature T. a rental unit shall be maintained at, as according to the municipal bylaws. I find T. these temperature fluctuations would substantially interfere with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit. Therefore, I find T. the Tenant is entitled to a rent abatement F. substantial interference as well as F. the L.’s failure to maintain the rental unit. 42. Therefore, I find a rent abatement of $500.00 to be reasonable under the circumstances. Deck Evidence 43. The Tenants stated T. the exterior deck connected to their rental unit was left in disrepair A. T. due to the L.’s failure to address the problem, the Tenants had no other option than to make the repairs themselves. 44. JK testified T. the wood F. the steps A. the boards making up the deck were deteriorating due to age A. improper upkeep. Some of the boards were rotting A. becoming a hazard. O. Page 5 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 45. JK also testified T. the railing had been improperly installed. The railings were attached to the frame of the deck at 26 feet from each connection point. JK testified T. according to the building code, railings should be connected to the frame of the deck every 8 feet. 46. The Tenants presented photos to corroborate their claims, including the rotting boards, the 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) damaged steps to the deck, A. the railing. 47. The Tenants informed the L. of these issues on May 15, 2020, however, the Tenants also claimed T. the L. was likely aware of this issue since she purchased the property in April 2020. 48. JK testified T. on December 2, 2020, he had repaired the steps leading to the deck himself. JK submitted photos to corroborate the replacement of the steps. 49. The Tenant sent an invoice to the L. F. $750.00 F. installing the stairs A. making repairs to the four posts of the deck. 50. The L. testified T. she had difficulty finding a contractor to make the repairs. In 2020 there was a lumber shortage, in part, due to the COVID crisis. The contractor T. had been hired stated T. he was unable to secure any lumber to make the repairs. By the time the lumber became available, the contractor was no longer able to provide service to the L. due to new employment demands elsewhere. The L. submitted email correspondence between this contractor A. the L. to corroborate this testimony. 51. The L. testified T. she approached other contractors, but they all declined the work due to the small scale of the project A. lack of time. Analysis 52. Pursuant to 20(1) of the Act, the L. is responsible F. the maintenance A. repair of the rental unit A. the complex. 53. I find T. the L. did breach section 20(1) of the Act. Although the L. presented evidence of having had one contractor prepared to come in to make repairs to the deck, only F. T. contractor to cancel the arrangement, there was no evidence presented showing T. the L. attempted to contact other contractors. Furthermore, the correspondence from the contractor stated T. he could not proceed because of a lumber shortage from his supplier. There was no evidence T. the contractor went to another supplier or T. the L. started to look F. another contractor who either had a different supplier, or one T. was not bound to any supply agreement. 54. Furthermore, the Tenant was able to find lumber, A. repair the steps. 55. The Tenants have claimed $750.00 F. the removal of the old steps A. new steps being built. Evidence of this amount was submitted as an invoice JK sent to the L. regarding this repair. O. Page 6 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 56. I find T. the Tenants’ claim F. $750.00 in materials A. labour is reasonable under the circumstances. 57. Furthermore, I find T. the Tenants are entitled to a rent abatement of $400.00 F. the L.’s failure to properly maintain the deck. 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) 58. Therefore, the L. shall pay the Tenants a total of $1,150.00 based on the claims regarding the deck. Basement Evidence 59. The basement in the rental unit is an unfinished basement where the washer/dryer A. storage are available to the Tenants. The basement area is included in the Tenants’ lease. 60. JK testified T. the L. had begun renovations to the rental complex. Part of the renovations T. occurred was the replacement of the eavestroughs. The L. had testified T. the original eavestroughs were PVC piping cut in half A. were not adequate F. the L.’s needs. 61. JK testified T. on May 15, 2020, a flood was discovered in the basement. 62. Both Tenants had testified T. when the flood was reported to the L., the L. A. her son-in-law entered the basement to inspect the flood damage. The L., in her testimony, stated T. the only things stored in the basement were stored in garbage bags or plastic containers. 63. The L. testified T. she did not see any standing water in the basement. 64. Another leak occurred June 24, 2020, this time from a malfunctioning washing machine. 65. The washing machine was replaced July 4, 2020. 66. JK testified T. on August 28, 2020, a heavy rain event caused another flood in the basement. JK testified T. there was over 2 inches of water in the basement after the event. JK testified T. the flooding caused some damage to some of the property stored in the basement. 67. A carpet was in the basement T. covered an area of 10 feet by 12 feet. 68. Both parties agreed T. the carpet was likely over 25 years old. 69. In early September 2020, the flood water had taken its toll on the carpet A. the carpet began to smell of mold A. sewage. The Tenants informed the L. of the issue, however, due to the L.’s lack of response, ended up removing the carpet themselves. O. Page 7 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 70. JK testified T. some minor flooding would continue to occur up until the termination of the tenancy. 71. JK hypothesized T. the flood may have occurred from water pooling at the foundation due to the lack of eavestroughs on the roof, however no evidence was presented to 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) support T. hypothesis. 72. The L. testified T. she had some contractors enter the basement in July 2021, however none of the contractors were qualified to make the kind of basement repairs required to fix the leaking in the basement. 73. Under cross-examination, the L. admitted to not having investigated getting a sump pump installed in the basement to help control potential future floods. Also, the L. stated under cross-examination T. she was told by the contractors T. excavation of the foundation was not recommended due to the fragility of the foundation. 74. At the hearing, the L. stated T. she had moved into the rental unit after the Tenants vacated. The L. testified T. she has not had any issues of flooding in the basement. The L. also stated T. the use of a dehumidifier has prevented any further smells of dampness in the basement. 75. The Tenants claimed T. a substantial amount of property was damaged by the initial flooding in May 2020 as well as June 2020. The Tenants also stated T. the smell of mold in the basement affected the Tenants’ health. Analysis 76. Pursuant to McQuestion v. Schneider 1975 CanLII 764 (ON CA), [1975] O.J. No. 2279 (“McQuestion”), the Court of Appeal addressed a L.’s legal responsibility F. damaging events which were not reasonably foreseeable. At para. 5 thereof, in interpreting predecessor legislation to the Act, it opined: “In my view s.96(1) [of the predecessor legislation] does not impose absolute liability upon a L. F. any injuries or damages T. may be caused by a latent defect, of which the L. had no knowledge nor could reasonably have expected to have had such knowledge. To alter the law so drastically as to impose strict liability on a L., regardless of his knowledge or constructive knowledge would require much more precise language. 77. Neither party submitted any evidence T. the previous L. had experienced any flooding in the basement, or if the L. had been informed by the former owner T. the basement was prone to flooding. Therefore, I have no reason to believe T. the L. could have reasonably foreseen the flooding issue T. occurred in May 2020. 78. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied T. the flooding occurred due to the L.’s removal of the eavestroughs from the complex. I find T., outside of this hypothesis, no evidence, such as an engineering report from a third party, was presented to support this claim. O. Page 8 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 79. I also find it unlikely T. the L. could have predicted the flood caused by the malfunctioning washing machine. There was no evidence presented at the hearing T. showed T. the L. was made aware of any issues with the washing machine prior to the flooding. 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) 80. I am not satisfied T. the L. acted in accordance with section 20(1) of the Act. The L. had a duty to act when the floods occurred. This includes having people attend the unit to clear flood waters A. any other sanitary follow-up T. may be required. Instead, the L. left any clean-up, including removal of the water-damaged carpet in the basement, up to the Tenants. 81. I find T. the L. failed to take any meaningful steps to correct the flooding issues T. came from the foundation, A. as such, breached section 20(1) of the Act. 82. I find T. the issue at hand is not just the lack of action in dealing with the clean-up from the flooding, but the fact T. the L. failed to take steps to prevent another flooding issue. I find T. this would also substantially interfere with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of their rental unit. 83. Therefore, I find T. because the L. failed to address the flooding issues, either the clean-up after the floods, or the fact T. no steps were taken to prevent any new floods from occurring, a 10% rent abatement10% rent abatement from May 2020 until October 2021, or $1,710.00, is reasonable under the circumstances. 84. However, I find T. the Tenants did not present sufficient evidence to show T. their property had suffered any substantial damage due to any subsequent flooding. Therefore, no O. F. damaged property will be made regarding the flooding. Plastic On Windows Evidence 85. On August 14, 2020, a company attended the rental complex to begin preparing the complex F. exterior painting. The company fastened plastic drop sheets on all of the windows, thus sealing them. 86. After attending the jobsite F. a couple of days, the painting company did not return to the jobsite to complete the painting. 87. As a result of the workers not returning to complete the job, the plastic stayed on the windows until November 2020, with some pieces of plastic on the upper part of the building stayed up until March 2021. The plastic was not removed, but the weather elements caused the plastic to deteriorate A. fall off the building. 88. The Tenants testified T. the plastic on the building made the place look like “a haunted house” from the outside A. was an eyesore. The plastic also restricted air circulation throughout the rental unit. The noise of the plastic flapping in the wind would also be disruptive to the Tenants. O. Page 9 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 89. The Tenants presented photos of the plastic on the building. The photos showed a large amount of plastic placed over top of windows A. other areas of the exterior of the rental complex. The plastic appears to be held to the building with painter’s tape what appears to be gaffer’s tape. The sheets of plastic were not tightly fastened A. on the Tenants’ rental unit, appears not to be fastened very well to the bottom. 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) 90. The Tenants are seeking a rent abatement F. the L.’s failure to maintain the rental unit/complex A. F. substantial interference to the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit due to the L.’s failure to have the plastic removed from the complex. 91. The L. testified T. the Tenants may have called the labour board or a jobsite inspection agency to inspect the workplace, A. the body decided T. the place was unsafe to work. The L. also testified T. the Tenants may have harassed the workers who were to come A. paint the exterior, so they did not come back. 92. The Tenants denied either having called a labour board or employment standards inspectors to the rental complex A. denied having harassed any of the workers. Analysis 93. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied T. the L. failed to maintain the rental unit by failing to remove the plastic from the exterior of the complex when it became obvious T. the painters were not going to complete the job. 94. I am also satisfied T. the noise created by the plastic blowing in the wind, the restriction of airflow, A. the aesthetics of the plastic being draped over the complex, A. watching it deteriorate due to wind, rain A. snow would substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit. 95. Since this a substantial interference with the reasonable enjoyment of a rental unit based on the L.’s maintenance of the rental unit or complex, the Board must consider section 8 of O. Reg. 516/06 (the “Regulations”). 96. Pursuant to section 8(3)(b) of the Regulations, the Board shall not determine T. interference was substantial unless the interference was unreasonable in the circumstances. 97. Section 8(4) of the Regulations states the conditions in which, if the L. has met all of them, then the Board cannot find T. the L. substantially interfered with the Tenants. Condition #9 of section 8(4) states “The duration of the work was reasonable in the circumstances.” 98. Outside of putting plastic on the windows A. other area of the exterior of the complex, the painting was never completed. Therefore, the duration of the work was unreasonable under the circumstances. O. Page 10 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 99. Section 8(5) of the Regulations states T. the Board, in awarding any rent abatement, must consider if the Tenants had any responsibility F. any undue delay in carrying out their work. 100. I am not satisfied by the L.’s evidence T. the Tenants caused the painters to 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) abandon the jobsite. I find T. the allegations of harassment are based on speculation, A. if there was evidence of this, then one of the painters should have been brought before the Board to give testimony of the alleged harassment. 101. Furthermore, based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied T. the Tenants called any form of employment standards inspectors to the jobsite. However, even if they did notify an inspector, the site would have been shut down because the inspectors determine whether a company complies with the laws A. safety standards T. govern their industry, which, to clarify, is the responsibility of the company owner, A. not the complainant. 102. Based on the evidence before me, I find T. a 15% rent abatement from August 14, 2020, until November 30, 2020, or $498.75 is reasonable under the circumstances. 103. Therefore, the L. shall pay the Tenants $498.74 F. failing to remove the plastic from the windows in a timely manner. Exterior Door Evidence 104. The Tenants testified T. there were two issues with the exterior entrance door: the door would not properly latch, A. there was a gap at the bottom of the door T. was large enough to allow in significant drafts into the rental unit. 105. JK testified T. the door would not latch or stay closed. The failure of the door to close properly was a security concern. JK testified T. the hinges holding the door into the frame were held with drywall screws which do not have the strength to properly support an exterior door. 106. The Tenants testified T. the L. was notified of this issue on May 15, 2020. 107. JK testified T. he removed the old weatherstripping form the door on December 1, 2020, A. replaced it with new weatherstripping. The Tenant claims T. the purchase of the new weatherstripping, the labour to remove the old weatherstripping A. to replace it with new weatherstripping was $220.00. 108. The Tenants stated T. the L. fixed the entrance door on December 3, 2020. 109. The L. did not give any evidence T. contradicted the Tenants’ testimony. Analysis O. Page 11 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 110. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied T. the L. was notified of the door issues on May 15, 2020. I also find T. the door was repaired December 3, 2020. 111. I am not satisfied T. the repairs were made in a reasonable amount of time. I find the fact T. it took seven months to make such relatively minor repairs to be excessive. 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) 112. Section 16 of the Act states: 16 When a L. or a tenant becomes liable to pay any amount as a result of a breach of a tenancy agreement, the person entitled to claim the amount has a duty to take reasonable steps to minimize the person’s losses. 113. I find T. although the L. should have made the repairs to the door, it is also clear T. the Tenant, being in the construction industry himself, had the ability to mitigate the cold drafts coming in from the gap A. the ability to fix the door himself, A. thus, minimize any losses. 114. Based on this evidence, I find T. a lump-sum rent abatement of $100.00 is reasonable under the circumstances. I also find T. the Tenants are owed the $220.00 the Tenants claimed as labour A. out of pocket expenses F. replacing the weatherstripping on the door. Landscaping Evidence 115. The Tenants testified T. the L. failed to maintain the landscape, such as keeping the lawn trimmed, up until June 24, 2021, when the municipality ordered the L. to mow the lawn. 116. The Tenant, T. M. (TM) testified T. the L. did not mow the lawn or engage in any form of lawn maintenance from the time she purchased the building in April 2020 until ordered to do so by the municipality on June 24, 2021. After T. date, the L. hired a groundskeeping company to keep the lawn trimmed. 117. TM testified T. the L. used a pesticide on the lawn without giving any notice T. pesticides were to be used. TM’s only evidence of a pesticide being used on the property were “wet spray marks”. 118. TM testified T. the excess pollen A. insects from the untrimmed lawn caused some discomfort to the Tenants. Furthermore, the lack of maintenance to the lawn was an eyesore to the whole complex. 119. The L. testified T. she had tried to maintain the property in the past but felt intimidated by the Tenants. The L. testified T. the Tenants would approach the L. about maintenance issues in an angry, A. intimidating manner. Also, if the Tenants were not approaching her, she felt T. they were glaring at her. O. Page 12 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 120. The Tenants denied having intimidated the L., however, did admit to becoming frustrated with the L.’s inaction on multiple maintenance issues. 121. The L. did not admit to receiving an O. from the municipality to bring the property into accordance with property standards, however she did admit to having the 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) lawn mowed on June 24, 2021, A. every other week henceforth. Analysis 122. I find T. allowing a lawn to grow unchecked F. a period of over one year is a breach of section 20(1) of the Act. 123. Although the L. stated T. she felt intimidated by the Tenants, this still did not absolve of her responsibility to maintain the rental complex. The L. had many options to deal with any intimidation: intimidation is a form of substantial interference to a L.’s legal rights A. privileges, therefore an N5 could have been served to the Tenants based on this allegation. The L. could have also done what she eventually did on June 24, 2021, A. hire a lawn maintenance company. 124. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied T. the Tenants intimidated the L. out of maintaining the landscaping at the rental unit. 125. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied T. the Tenants’ claim T. the use of a pesticide could be considered a substantial interference of their reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit. Furthermore, I find TM’s evidence of pesticide use to be speculative. There are a lot of reasons why wet marks could be seen on a lawn. 126. I am satisfied T. the unkempt lawn from May 2020 until June 2021 was esthetically unpleasing A. could be considered a substantial interference with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or complex. Having said T., I am not satisfied T. the Tenants suffered any allergic reactions or any ill-health due to the unkempt lawn. 127. I find T. a total rent abatement of $200.00 F. the breaches of sections 20(1) A. 22 of the Act to be reasonable under the circumstances. 128. Therefore, the L. shall pay a rent abatement of $200.00 to the Tenants F. failing to maintain the landscaping from May 2020 until June 2021. Interior Doors Evidence 129. The Tenants testified T. a closet door A. a pantry door required repair or replacement. The Tenants testified T. they informed the L. of the issue in April 2020, A. again in June 2020, of the issues. The Tenants testified T. the issue was not dealt with as of the termination of the tenancy. O. Page 13 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 130. The Tenants also testified T. the second bedroom was missing a door. The issue had been reported to the L. on May 15, 2020. The L. did not replace the door. The Tenants installed a door on December 1, 2020. The Tenants incurred a $150.00 out- of-pocket expense to purchase the bedroom door to install, A. $110.00 F. labour. 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) 131. JK testified T. the pantry door was a bi-fold door. The pantry door had not been properly installed A. was not attached properly into the door frame. The door was also missing a guidewheel to allow the door to open A. close properly. 132. JK testified T. the closet located in the master bedroom did not have doors on it. The doors were to also be a sliding door. The closet had also been missing a hanger rod, or shelves, however, the Tenants installed these themselves. The Tenants have not made a claim F. the replacement of the shelves or the hangar rod in this application. 133. JK testified T. on May 15, 2020, the Tenants brought the disrepair of the door leading to the second bedroom to the attention of the L.. The Tenants stated T. the remnants of an old door were still there: mainly a piece of wood A. the hinges were intact. However, without a proper door there could be no expectation of privacy. A photo was submitted of the second bedroom, which appeared to be being used as a storage room. There was no door shown in the photo. 134. The L. testified T. it was not necessary to put a door on the second bedroom, because, as a L. she was not required to. The L.’s rationale was based on the idea T. the room was not technically a bedroom. The L. stated T. the room could not be considered a bedroom because it did not have a closet. Since there was no bedroom, there was no reason F. privacy in the room. 135. The L. did not make any submissions regarding the closet door or the pantry door. 136. The Tenants are seeking a rent abatement F. the disrepair or the missing three doors, A. out-of-pocket expenses A. compensation F. labour F. installing the second bedroom door themselves. Analysis 137. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied T. the L. failed to comply with the Act by not repairing or replacing the doors F. the pantry A. the master bedroom closet. 138. I find T. a 1% rent abatement is reasonable F. the lack of repair to both the pantry door A. the closet door from May 2020 until October 2021, or $171.00. 139. I am not satisfied on the L.’s evidence T. the second bedroom was not a bedroom, based on her definition. Pursuant to paragraph 3.58 of the Township of Brock Property Standards By-Law, the only qualifications F. a room to be considered used F. sleeping is T. it has a minimum width of two meters A. seven square meters of floor area. The bylaws do not state T. a closet is a prerequisite F. a room to be considered a O. Page 14 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 bedroom. Judging from the photo submitted as evidence, this room easily meets the criteria of being considered a bedroom. 140. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied T. the L. breached section 20(1) of the Act by failing to replace the door F. the second bedroom. I am satisfied T. 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) the Tenants incurred an out-of-pocket expense in purchasing the door A. put in their own labour to replace the door themselves. 141. I find T. a lump sum rent abatement of $150.00 F. the Tenants’ lack of a bedroom door from May to November 2020 is reasonable. Furthermore, I find T. the L. shall also pay the Tenants $260.00 F. the purchase A. installation of the second bedroom door. 142. Therefore, the L. shall pay the Tenants a total of $410.00 regarding the issues regarding the three interior doors. Driveway Maintenance Evidence 143. JK testified T. the driveway T. was to be used by the Tenants was not properly maintained. 144. JK testified T. the driveway had potholes A. had buckled A. created a large hump. 145. JK testified T. the lack of the maintenance of the driveway could have caused damage to their vehicles. No evidence of any damage to the vehicles was presented at the hearing. 146. JK testified T. the driveway was in the same condition when the tenancy ended, A. no repairs had been executed. 147. The L. did not make any submissions regarding issues with the driveway. Analysis 148. Based on the evidence before me, I find T. the driveway was not properly maintained. This lack of maintenance is a breach of section 20(1) of the Act. 149. I am not satisfied T. the upkeep of the driveway formed any major concerns though. No evidence of damage to any vehicles was presented, nor any evidence suggesting T. the driveway was unusable. 150. Therefore, I find a lump sum rent abatement of $100.00 to be reasonable under the circumstances. Harassment Evidence O. Page 15 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 151. TM testified T. on April 18, 2020, the L. came to the Tenants’ door to tell them T. she planned on moving into the Tenants’ rental unit. 152. TM testified T. the L. served an N12- Notice to Terminate the Tenancy F. L.’s Own Use on May 30, 2020. 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) 153. TM testified T. the L. began harassing the Tenants by asking them on June 12 A. 13, 2020, if they were planning on moving out soon. 154. TM testified T. the L. wanted to meet with the Tenants on June 18, 2020, to talk about moving out. TM stated T. the Tenants declined the meeting invitation. 155. TM testified T. the L. stood outside the Tenants’ window on June 21, 2020, at 5pm. 156. TM testified T. the L. gave the Tenants a notice to enter their rental unit on June 23, 2020. TM stated T. she felt T. there was no reason F. the entry A. T. the L. was just badgering the Tenants. 157. TM testified T. a cash offer was made to the Tenant F. them to leave on July 7, 2020. The Tenants turned down the offer on July 10, 2020. 158. TM testified T. the L. served a new N12 on the Tenants on August 11, 2020, with a date of termination of January 31, 2021. 159. The L. testified T. her intention was to purchase the rental complex to give herself A. her a family a more central place to live. When purchasing the property, it had always been her intention to eventually move into the unit. 160. The L. testified T. when she purchased the property, she was carrying two mortgages A. could not afford to carry both properties. The L. wanted to move into the rental complex to be closer to her family. Some of her family moved into the rental complex shortly after she purchased the building, however the L. wanted to take possession of the rental unit F. her own residence. 161. After the tenancy terminated on November 1, 2021, the L. moved into the rental unit. As of the hearing date, the L. is still residing in the rental unit. 162. The L. denies having harassed the Tenants. The L. maintains T. she was acting within her legal rights. She stated T. she had served two N12s prior to the one T. she served August 11, 2020, because the two previous N12s contained flaws which would have rendered the notices invalid had enforcement of these notices had been attempted at a hearing. Analysis 163. Section 23 of the Act states, “A L. shall not harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten, or interfere with a tenant.” O. Page 16 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 164. Although the term “harassment” is not defined in the Act, Board Interpretation Guideline 6, Tenant Rights, summarizes the Board’s jurisprudence A. notes T. the Board often applies the following definition: “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct T. is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) 165. Based on the evidence before me, there has been no course of conduct T. could be construed as a form of behaviour T. ought reasonably be known to be unwelcome. 166. I am not satisfied T. having served three N12s to the Tenants constitutes harassment, as it has been defined. Rather, I find T. the L. was acting within her legal rights as a L. to serve these notices, A. although she served three notices, took the initiative to serve a corrected N12 when she became aware of the defects on the previous two notices. 167. When the Tenants gave evidence about the L. asking if they were planning on moving out of the rental on June 12th A. 13th, the Tenants did not state what their response was to the L.. 168. If the Tenants had given evidence T. they said T. they had informed the L. T. they were going to exercise their right to have the matter brought before the Board, then there would have been a clear response T. required no more questions. However, no evidence was given T. the Tenants did respond. Therefore, I find it reasonable T. the L. would ask the Tenants regularly. 169. The only evidence given T. the Tenants had given a definitive response to the L.’s question was July 10, 2020, three days after they had a cash offer made F. them to vacate the rental unit. It was at this point T. the L. was informed T. the Tenants intend on enforcing their right to have the matter brought before the Board. 170. The Tenants did not give any evidence T. the L. harassed the Tenants after July 10, 2020. 171. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied T. the L. harassed the Tenants. Therefore, the claim F. harassment is dismissed. Substantial Interference Caused by Construction/Maintenance Evidence 172. In early June 2020, the L. hired contractors to replace the windows in an adjacent building from the Tenants’ rental unit. 173. TM testified T. the construction work T. occurred next door caused a significant amount of dust to accumulate on the Tenants’ cars. The construction company, in the act of working next door, caused damage to the back deck. The workers also damaged the Tenants’ plants which were located next to the building. TM submitted photos to support her testimony. O. Page 17 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 174. TM testified T. the Tenants were told not to use their parking spot from 8am to 8pm from Tuesday September 1, 2020, until Friday, September 4, 2020, to allow the painters to use lifts to prepare the rental complex F. painting. The notice was given August 30, 2020, or 2 days prior to when the painters were to attend. The Tenants found alternate parking without any cost to them. 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) 175. Both parties, at the hearing, confirmed T. parking was part of the tenancy agreement. 176. TM testified T. the painters had cancelled work at the jobsite (the rental complex) on September 3 A. 4, 2020 with the L., thus making it unnecessary F. the Tenants to park off of the property. However, the Tenants were not informed by the L. T. they did not need to park off the property. 177. The L. made no submissions regarding these issues listed in this section. Analysis 178. I found T. the photos of the Tenants’ vehicles showed T. there was dust on their vehicles. However, the Tenants did not give any evidence of any damages caused by the dust, such as scratches on the paint, or mechanical issues. Furthermore, I found T. the amount of dust shown on the pictures was not a substantial amount. 179. I find T. the dust may have been an inconvenience, however I am not satisfied, based on the evidence before me, T. it caused a substantial interference to the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or complex. 180. The Tenants submitted T. there was no need F. the Tenants to park off of the property F. two days because the L. failed to inform them T. the painters were not coming F. two of those days. 181. According to the lease agreement, the Tenants pay a monthly rent, in part, to be able to park their vehicles on the property. However, the Tenants were not able to use the parking F. 12 hours a day F. four days. Furthermore, the Tenants submitted T. there was no need F. the Tenants to park off of the property F. two of those days because the L. failed to inform them T. the painters were not coming to the complex to continue painting. 182. Pursuant to section 8 of the Regulations, even when there is some substantial interference, because the interference is created by the maintenance/repair issue, the Board must consider if the L. gave sufficient notice to the Tenants to move their vehicles. 183. I find T. one day of notice is not the amount of notice required under section 8(4) of the Regulations. According to Section 8(4) of the Regulations, 60 days notice is required. 184. Furthermore, section 8(4) of the Regulations states T. if there is a significant change in the information provided in the notice, T. the Tenants be notified of the change. I find T. the Tenants were not informed T. the painters were no longer attending the rental complex. O. Page 18 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 185. Therefore, I find T. a rent abatement F. substantial interference is warranted. 186. However, the Tenants did not provide any evidence of any undue hardship to their cars F. not being able to park on the rental complex property F. those 4 days, therefore, I find T. a $100.00 rent abatement to be appropriate under the circumstances. 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) General Damages 187. The Tenants are asking F. $10,000.00 in general damages. 188. General damages are awarded when a party can prove T. some pain A. suffering had occurred as a result of the other side’s actions. 189. I find T. the abatement of rent A. awards F. labour A. out-of-pocket expenses are adequate remedies to compensate the Tenants, therefore the Tenants’ claim F. general repairs is denied. Administrative Fines 190. The Tenants is seeking T. an administrative fine be ordered against the L.. 191. The Board’s Interpretation Guideline 16 entitled Administrative Fines addresses when the Board generally imposes fines: An administrative fine is a remedy to be used by the Board to encourage compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the "RTA"), A. to deter landlords from engaging in similar activity in the future. This remedy is not normally imposed unless a L. has shown a blatant disregard F. the RTA A. other remedies will not provide adequate deterrence A. compliance. 192. I do not find T. this is an appropriate case F. an administrative fine as the remedies awarded below should provide sufficient deterrence to the L.. The Tenants’ request F. an administrative fine is denied. It is ordered T.: 1. The total amount the L. shall pay the Tenant is $5,184.75. This amount represents:  $3,358.75 F. a rent abatement.  $ 1,730.00 F. the combined out-of-pocket expenses A. costs of labour T. the Tenants have incurred, A.  $96.00 F. the cost of filing both applications. 2. The L. shall pay the Tenant the full amount owing by November 21, 2023. 3. If the L. does not pay the Tenant the full amount owing by November 21, 2023, the L. will owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from November 22, 2023, at 7.00% annually on the balance outstanding. O. Page 19 of 20  File Number: LTB-T-074476-22 LTB-T-074462-22 4. The Tenants have the right, at any time, to collect the full amount owing or any balance outstanding under this O.. November 6, 2023 2023 ONLTB 66624 (CanLII) Date Issued Robert Brown 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 20 of 20