Cockroach Infestation (LTB-Maintenance)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-22
CLNP Page ID:	670
Page Categories:	Maintenance Obligations (LTB)
Citation:	Cockroach Infestation (LTB-Maintenance), CLNP 670, <6U>, retrieved on 2024-11-22
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2022/02/25

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

TNT-01995 (Re), 2009 CanLII 78104 (ON LTB)

1. The Tenant advised the Landlord’s agent on July 19, 2009 that there was a cockroach infestation. The Tenant also advised the management of the building which fumigated the rental unit on July 23, 2009 with the knowledge of the Landlord. According to the Landlord, the condominium building management is responsible for pest control as part of the condominium fees paid by the Landlord.

7. I prefer the evidence of Tenant that there was a serious and ongoing infestation of cockroaches in her rental unit. C.C. gave a reasonable explanation of why “no (roach) activity found” was the conclusion of the pest control report when pest control attended on July 23, 2009. She explained that she and a cleaning lady just finished spraying and cleaning up the roaches the night before, and because she explained that roaches are nocturnal pests. The Landlord had no evidence (ideally by a pre-inspection of the rental premises) to ensure it was pest free at the time of the transfer of occupancy to the Tenants. I found the letter from the Tenants’ previous landlords rang true that the Tenants had not brought the cockroaches with them, because they noted there were no cockroaches in their rental unit before, during or after the Tenants’ tenancy with them. The Tenant C.C. brought a number of roach traps to the hearing from her unit, which I could observe directly were full of insect bodies which demonstrated the likelihood that there were multiple sites of roach infestations, small and large, in the rental unit. I believed the Tenant based on her direct and forthright testimony that the roach traps C.C. brought to the hearing room were from her unit and reflected a recent capture of pest life after the traps were laid.

10. Because I find that the Tenants suffered damages for a period of two weeks when they could not unpack their belongings and live in their unit from mid July 2009 until July 29, 2009 due to a cockroach infestation, this warrants a rebate of $312.50 calculated as 50% of half of the monthly rent of $1250. There was also further discomfort experienced by the Tenants due to the continued evidence of cockroaches for the Tenants from July 29,2009 when they started living in the unit to the date of the hearing Sept 17, 2009, sufficient to warrant an additional rebate of $375.00 calculated as 6 weeks at 20% x $1250.

SOT-09987-10 (Re), 2011 CanLII 34558 (ON LTB)

Claim

The Tenant’s complains that the rental unit had cockroaches and despite all reasonable attempts by the Landlord and by the Tenant the cockroaches were not eradicated. The Tenant seeks compensation because she was assured at the beginning of the tenancy that the building did not have bugs and further she would not have taken the unit if she had been informed about the cockroaches.

Findings

There is no question that this unit had a cockroach issue and there is no question that the Landlord did take the usual steps to attempt to eradicate the cockroaches. There is no question that the Tenant moved out because she finally could no longer stand to live in this unit.

The Landlord argued that the Tenant should have mitigated her damages. I fail to understand how this Tenant could have lessened her damages any more than she did. The Tenant gave very credible testimony. I believe that the Tenant made a valiant effort to stay in this unit despite the problems she encountered. She had to make hard choices between her own comfort and the time and money it would cost her to move somewhere else.

I find without hesitation that the Tenant would not have moved into this unit had she been told that the building had an on-going battle with cockroaches. I find that the Tenant relied, to her determent, on the assurance from the rental agent that there was no problem with bugs, pets or partying students.

Award

The Tenant will be awarded her moving costs and the costs of her out-of-pocket expenses for bug treatment.

I decline to award the Tenant the abatement she requested. The Tenant did have full use of her apartment, albeit without the enjoyment one would want. I will award the Tenant $500.00 to compensate her for the distress she experienced during this tenancy.

TST-34695-12-AM (Re), 2015 CanLII 11784 (ON LTB)

1. The Tenants filed their applications in late-November 2012. Pursuant to subsection 29(2) of the Act, the Board’s retrospective jurisdiction is limited to the 12-month period before the date of application. In arriving at this order, I therefore considered those issues that arose in or after late-November 2011.

2. The Tenants raise two broad issues in their applications: they allege that the Landlord has failed to meet its maintenance obligations under the Act, or has failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards; and that the Landlord’s failure to provide adequate security at the residential complex substantially interferes with their reasonable enjoyment of the rental property.

3. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that each Tenant proved that the Landlord has failed to meet its maintenance obligations, or has failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards.

18. RD resides at Townhouse 121. She has occupied the rental unit since 1994. RD proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Landlord has failed to meet its maintenance obligations, or has failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards, with respect to the rental unit’s windows, mismatching paint, the rental unit’s heating system, and the presence of bed bugs and cockroaches.

27. The Tenant also proved the presence of cockroaches at the rental unit and the residential complex. The Tenant submitted documentary evidence showing that the Landlord was aware of the problem, and that the Landlord took steps to eliminate the cockroaches.

28. Based on the Tenant’s evidence, I find that the Tenant complained to the Landlord about the presence of cockroaches on or about September 26, 2012. Although the Landlord has attempted to address the issue, I accept the Tenant’s evidence that live cockroaches continued to exist in the rental unit until January 2014.

29. Unlike the case with the bed bugs, which took approximately four or five months to correct, I find that the 17 month period to address the cockroach issue at the rental unit was unreasonably long. I therefore find that it is appropriate to order the Landlord to pay the Tenant a 15 percent abatement of rent for the period September 2012 to January 2014, or $617.10.

30. The total rent abatement the Landlord must pay to the Tenant is $3,194.40.

CET-59089-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88093 (ON LTB)

2. The Tenants testified that they noticed cockroaches when they pulled out the fridge to clean behind it on September 1, 2015. The Tenants told the Landlord on September 1, 2015, but explained that they did not have any documentation with them because they could not access their online account and/or their home due to the lockout.

3. The Tenants said that the Landlord sent a pest technician to treat the rental unit on or around September 8, 2015. The Tenants said that the treatment only killed approximately 20% of the cockroaches. The Tenants said they continued to text the Landlord about the cockroaches, but that the Landlord failed to send another technician for a follow up treatment during their tenancy.

4. The Tenants testified that they bought cockroach spray and containers around Christmas time in 2015. The Tenants said that they only caught a few cockroaches. The Tenants said that their children couldn’t play on the floor, that the lights had to stay on 24/7 and that the cockroaches were getting into their food. The Tenants said that their young son also once tried putting a cockroach in his mouth. As a result, the wife and children went to stay with a friend for two weeks while the husband tried to kill the cockroaches, to clean the unit and put their belongings in containers.

5. Based on the uncontested evidence, I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to comply with health, safety and maintenance standards by failing to do follow up treatments for the cockroaches after the first initial treatment. The Tenants lived with cockroaches from September 1, 2015 to August 2, 2016, approximately 11 months. The impact on the Tenants was significant since they had to vacate the unit for two weeks with their young children and to try to deal with the cockroaches themselves.

Water

6. The Tenants testified that the pest technician found mould in the bathroom behind the wall where the pipes are located on September 8, 2016. The technician told the Tenants that this was a breeding ground for cockroaches. The Tenants told their Landlord and went to stay at the local family shelter for 4 days. The Landlord sent in a contractor to repair the mould issue. The mould issue does not form part of this application. When the Tenants returned to the rental unit, the mould issue was repaired but the water was turned off by the contractor from September 11, 2015 at around 7am. They advised their Landlord immediately and the water was eventually turned back on September 14, 2015 at 7am. As a result of the delay, the Tenants said that they could not cook, feed or bathe their children. The Tenants said that they bought a case of water and that it was very difficult for them.

7. Based on the uncontested evidence, I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to maintain the rental unit and failed to comply with maintenance standards. The impact on the Tenant was significant because they lived at a family shelter for 4 days and when they returned home, they did not have water. The water issue was not resolved by the Landlord for three days and I do not find that delay reasonable in the circumstances.

14. The Tenants are seeking to terminate this tenancy based on the above allegations. At the hearing, the Tenants advised that they were locked out of their rental unit and that they were filing a separate application to obtain their possessions. The Tenants said that their tenancy was already terminated under a previous order for arrears. The Tenants said that they were planning to move back to New Brunswick to be closer to family, particularly since they were expecting a baby in a few days. Since this tenancy has already been terminated under a previous order, it is not necessary to terminate.

15. The Tenants are also seeking a 100% abatement of rent for 6 months and costs for disposal of items. With the exception of the few days that the Tenants resided in the family shelter to treat the mould issue, the Tenants occupied the premises until the hearing date. While the impact on the Tenants was significant and did cause some stress for the family, it does not warrant a 100% rent abatement. Therefore, I am awarding a 20% abatement of rent for 6 months ($1400.00 x 20% x 6 months = $1,680.00).

16. The Tenants disposed of some of their belongings because of the cockroaches. The Tenants’ have a duty to mitigate their losses, pursuant to section 16 of the Act and I find that it was not reasonable to dispose of those belongings claimed. Therefore, I am not awarding any compensation for items that were disposed of by the Tenants. Nonetheless, the Tenants were unable to provide receipts and/or substantiate the estimated costs of the items disposed.

17. The Tenants are entitled to a per diem abatement for the days they did not have water in the rental unit. The impact was significant with young children because they were unable to bathe or cook. Therefore, I am awarding the Tenants $138.08. ($46.02 per day x 3 days = $138.08).

TST-90542-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42696 (ON LTB)

5. At the outset of the hearing the Tenants agreed the issues raised in their T6 and T2 applications are as follows:

a) the stove did not work for a period of time;

b) the refrigerator did not work for a period of time;

c) the internet access/connection was faulty and was eventually non-existent;

d) cigarette smoke and odour seeped into the unit from another unit in the complex;

e) six electronic outlets were in a state of disrepair; and

f) there was a cockroach infestation in the unit.

21. At this point I should restate what I explained to the Tenants during the hearing. In Beauge v. Metcap Living Management Inc., 2012 ONSC 1160 (CanLII) (“Beauge”), the Divisional Court decided that the Board cannot make an award if it is not requested by the applicant. The Tenants request an abatement of the rent in the total sum of $1,040.00, in connection with all issues raised in the T6 application. The Tenants further claim a total of $900.00 for expenses related to meals outside the unit during the time the stove was not working and the food items discarded due to the non-working refrigerator. As such, I cannot award a greater sum. The principle enunciated in Beauge works in the Landlord’s favour in this case as, in my view, and given the totality of the evidence presented, a higher award may have been warranted.

Cockroach Infestation

26. The Tenants acknowledged the cockroach infestation in the unit, while continuous, was low. The Tenants stated they would see “one or two” cockroaches in the washroom on a daily basis and they advised the Landlord about the issue when they moved into the unit. The landlord took no action to address this issue and, consequently, the Landlord breached her obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act.

27. Again, the Tenants stated the lump sum rent abatement claimed in the T6 application also includes the cockroach issue and, accordingly, as with the rest of the disrepair/maintenance issues raised, the lump sum awarded below relates to the cockroach infestation.

Remedies

28. As stated above, the Tenants request an abatement of the rent in the total sum of $1,040.00, in connection with all issues raised in the T6 application.

29. Abatement is a contractual remedy designed to address the idea that rent is charged in exchange for a bundle of goods and services and if a tenant is not receiving those goods and services then the rent should be abated in a sum proportional to the difference between what is being charged and what is being received. To put it in broad terms, a tenant will usually be entitled to abatement with respect to disrepair unless the landlord attends to the disrepair in a timely manner and fixes it, or the tenant fails to reasonably cooperate with the landlord’s efforts to do repairs, or the tenant wilfully or negligently caused the damage in the first place. Given the nature of the issues involved here, some of which are of significant concern, such as the non-working gas stove, refrigerator and electrical outlets, the length of time involved and the Landlord’s failure to address the issues, the impact of the issues on the Tenants, and my experience with similar cases before the Board, I believe the Tenants’ request for an abatement of the rent in the sum of $1,040.00, to be reasonable.

TNT-42290-13 (Re), 2013 CanLII 18041 (ON LTB)

Mice and Cockroaches:

Both Tenants report issues with an infestation of mice and cockroaches which they allege was reported to the Landlord shortly after the Tenants took possession of their respective units in late 2011. In additional to their oral evidence both sets of Tenants submitted photographic evidence related to their allegations.

The Landlord's Legal Representative, having never been present in the units and alleging that her only contact with the Tenants occurred on one occasion when she sought payment of rent, could provide no direct evidence in dispute of the Tenants' position.

The Landlord argued that within the complex, only these two units had alleged issues with mice and cockroaches and only when the Tenants fell into arrears. In support of its position, the Landlord submitted a letter from a tenant of the complex which states that during her tenancy, there have been no issues with mice or cockroaches.

I prefer the Tenants' evidence in this regard, their direct sworn evidence being contradicted only by hearsay evidence which must be assigned less weight.

Abatement:

In their applications, the Tenants failed to specify the quantum of abatement sought. That fact gave rise to the question of whether the Landlord was willing to proceed not having received proper notice with respect to the remedy sought. The Landlord, at commencement of the hearing, wished to proceed with the hearing being aware that the Board would determine the quantum of abatement, if any.

In consideration of the nature, duration and impact of the issues substantiated by the Tenants, as well as the Landlord’s failure to respond, I find that an abatement of 15% of the monthly rent for the period of February 22, 2012, one year prior to the applications being filed, to the date of the hearing is warranted, $1,423.97.

SWT-33327-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 126930 (ON LTB)

20. The Landlord was repeatedly reminded about the infestation of bedbugs in the unit several times from September 2018. The Landlord promised the Tenant to treat the unit, but failed to do so until the Tenant contacted the health unit over the presence of cockroaches in the unit which led to the discovery of the bedbugs the Tenant had long complained about. Therefore, I find the Landlord to be in breach of his maintenance obligations under the Act.

21. The Tenant will be awarded a 5% abatement of rent from September 2018, when the Landlord was first notified of the problem to July 26, 2019 when the treatment to rid the unit of the bedbugs commenced. The rent abatement will therefore be $375.00 for a period of ten months.

CET-57300-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 72152 (ON LTB)

6. The Tenant identified the following maintenance issues: 1) Garbage in the unit; 2) Unpainted unit; 3) Broken kitchen cupboards; 4) Leaky tap; 5) Cockroaches; 6) Fire alarm; 7) Exhaust fan; 8) Bedroom window and 9) Electrical outlets.

Cockroaches / Fire alarm / Exhaust fan / Bedroom window and Electrical outlet

11. The Tenant testified that he had cockroaches in his unit and brought one in a sealed bag to the hearing. The Tenant also said that his fire alarm and exhaust fan were not functioning, as well as the hallway electrical outlets. The Tenant said these issues commenced on November 1, 2015. The Landlord’s Agent had no instructions to respond to these issues. Therefore, I find that the Landlord breached section 20(1) by failing to respond, address and repair the above referenced maintenance issues after being advised at the last hearing date on May 10, 2016.

12. The Tenant testified that he sleeps on the living room sofa because he is scared of the cockroaches. The Tenant said that the maintenance issues have had psychological impact on him and as a result, he doesn’t want to unpack his belongings.

13. Based on the photographic evidence submitted, the Tenant’s testimony and the limited testimony and evidence provided by the Landlord and Landlord’s Agent, I am satisfied that there is a breach of the Landlord’s maintenance obligations under the Act. However, since the Landlord only became aware of the maintenance issues at the last hearing date on May 10, 2016, the remedy period will calculate from May 10, 2016 to July 19, 2016 on a per diem basis at the rate of 10% ($36.16 per day x 70 days x 10%= $253.12)

SOT-56981-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 111075 (ON LTB)

Cockroach Infestation

8. The Tenant testified that he first brought this issue to the Landlord’s attention in mid-August 2014. The Landlord arranged for treatment which took place approximately one and a half weeks later. The Tenant alleges that the cockroach infestation continued during September and October 2014 and that he was advised by the Landlord’s agent, in September 2014, that “the process takes time to work”.

9. The Tenant testified that he did not raise this issue again with the Landlord after September 2014. However, Exhibit 2 produced by the Landlord, is a work order from Magical Pest Control stating that the Tenant’s failed to prepare his unit for cockroach spray treatment on October 2, 2014.

10. There was no evidence before me of additional complaints, after September 2014, by the Tenant to the Landlord regarding this issue and, based on the evidence, I find that, if there was an infestation of cockroaches, the Landlord took all reasonable, timely and necessary steps to rid the unit of the infestation.

11. As such, I find that the Landlord is not in breach of subsection 20(1) of the Act regarding this issue and, therefore, this portion of the Tenant’s application is dismissed.

19. Nevertheless, based on the evidence before me, I find that the Tenant informed the Landlord of the bedbug infestation in the unit on November 19, 2014 and that the Landlord did not take any steps to address the problem until February 6, 2015. Therefore, I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to maintain the rental unit and failed to comply with maintenance standards during this period of time. A rental unit infested with bedbugs cannot be said to be fit for habitation.

20. Based on the duration and nature of the problem, the impact of the infestation on the Tenant and his five-year-old daughter and the Landlord’s failure to take reasonable and timely steps to address and resolve this problem, I am satisfied that the Tenant is entitled to an abatement of 40% of the rent for the period from November 19, 2014 to February 27, 2015 (101 days), when the unit was bedbug free, which totals $1,327.14.

21. I set the compensation at the said rate in this case because I accept the Tenant’s evidence that he has custody of his daughter from Thursdays to Mondays every week and, as a result of the bedbug infestation, he felt compelled to stay with his daughter at his parents home in Oakville during the days that his daughter was in his custody.

SOT-78675-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 48955 (ON LTB)

4. The report lists three cockroach treatments after November 8, 2016:

a) On January 24, 2017, there was moderate infestation, poor sanitation, and notes “lots of grease, cupboards and counters not prepped”;

b) On February 7, 2017, there was severe infestation, average sanitation, and notes “deep clean of kitchen is required – particular attention to stove and grease around air vent”; and

c) On February 23, 2017, there was minor infestation, poor sanitation, and notes “grease still not attended to”.

5. The Tenant submitted a copy of an Apartment Repair Request Form dated December 7, 2016, which clearly lists cockroaches as an issue.

6. The Landlord argued the sanitation levels in the Tenants’ rental unit contributed to the cockroach issue. This is a reasonable conclusion; however, it does not negate a landlord’s obligation to do maintain the rental unit when a tenant has notified the landlord of an issue.

7. The Apex report shows the Landlords began treating the rental unit as of January 24, 2017, and continued approximately every two weeks after.

8. Based on the Tenant’s testimony and the repair request I am satisfied the Tenants notified the Landlord of the cockroaches in her rental unit in December 2016. The Tenants shall be given an abatement of rent from December 7, 2016 to when the Landlord treated the rental unit next on January 24, 2017. The Tenants requested an abatement of 30% of their rent. This is a reasonable amount as the Landlord was put on notice with the previous order. The abatement for this period at 30% is $457.19.

TST-61147-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 36965 (ON LTB)

7. The Tenant alleges that, in September 2014, she complained on two occasions to the Landlord that her unit was infested with bedbugs and cockroaches. The Landlord’s agent “Anna” placed the Tenant’s name on a list of units to be treated and instructed the Tenant to empty her kitchen cupboards. The Tenant was unable to recall the day in September when the treatment was to take place but testified that she emptied the cupboards as instructed, stayed home all day and, while other units were treated, hers was not. The Tenant testified that she later spoke with Anna who informed her that LU had ordered her to remove the Tenant’s name from the treatment list. LU denied the Tenant’s allegations in this regard.

8. The Landlord produced evidence that the Tenant’s unit was treated for cockroaches on August 25, 2014 and that other units were treated for cockroaches and bedbugs on the same date. There was no evidence before me that the Tenant’s unit was treated for bedbugs in August 2014, or for cockroaches or bedbugs in September 2014.

9. The Landlord did not call any witnesses to refute the Tenant’s allegations that she complained to the Landlord’s staff about the bedbug and cockroach infestation in September 2014. The Landlord was aware of the Tenant’s allegations three weeks prior to the hearing. As such, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Tenant complained to the Landlord’s staff about the bedbug and cockroach infestation in September 2014 and that the Landlord did not adequately take any steps to address the problem.

10. I find that the Landlord was in breach of its maintenance obligations to the Tenant, as a rental unit with bedbugs and cockroaches cannot be said to be fit for habitation.

11. Based on similar cases before the Board, the duration and nature of the problem, the Landlord’s failure to take steps to address and resolve this problem I am satisfied the Tenant is entitled to an abatement of 10% of the rent for the period from September 15, 2014 to October 1, 2014 (17 days), which totals $40.53.

12. The Tenant also claims compensation for the purchase of three cans of Raid insect spray, at a total cost of $38.85, to treat her unit for the bedbug and cockroach infestation. I find the Tenant’s claim reasonable in the circumstances and an Order will issue accordingly.

TST-90141-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42695 (ON LTB)

42. The principal remedy sought by the Tenants in these applications is an abatement of rent. Abatement of rent is a contractual remedy based upon the idea that in providing rent, a tenant is paying for a bundle of goods and services and when the tenant does not receive 100% of what she or he paid for, a tenant is entitled to the return of an amount roughly equivalent to the value the tenant paid for but did not get.

43. Here, the Tenant had cockroaches in the unit from August 2017 to November 21 2017.

44. The case law in this area, including Onyskiw, recognizes that while it is ultimately a landlord’s responsibility to deal with pests in a rental unit, the mere presence of pests like cockroaches in a unit is not properly a basis for finding that the Landlord breached s.20 of the Act. On a “contextual analysis” (as urged by the Court in Onyskiw) if a Landlord provides a timely and effective response to a pest problem, no remedy generally flows to a tenant(s).

45. Here, with respect to the cockroaches, I have undisputed evidence of a cockroach presence in the unit for roughly 4 months, and no distinct evidence that the Landlord really did anything at all about it. This, obviously, does not amount to a timely and effective response. This is a breach of s.20 of the Act.

46. As such, I think a rent abatement should be awarded to the Tenants for the cockroach problem. Given the totality of the evidence before me, and my knowledge of similar cases before the Board in this regard, I believe a reasonable abatement of rent would be 25% of the rent charged for the relevant four month period which totals $1,578.90 (113 days x $55.38/day x .25).

47. Further, I find it reasonable to reimburse the Tenant in the amount of $8.00 for her out-of-pocket expenses for “Raid”.

CET-77867-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141443 (ON LTB)

27. The continuing presence of cockroaches, and the lack of ongoing action by the Landlord to treat the problem correctly, clearly support the Tenants’ position that the Landlord is in breach of its obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act.

28. In Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd., 2016 ONCA 477 (CanLII), the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a Board decision finding that the landlord had not breached its maintenance responsibilities under section 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, despite the fact that the single elevator did not function for an extended period of time because the landlord had acted reasonably by doing everything possible in the circumstances to correct situation.

29. Applying Onyskiw v. CJM to this T6 application, I find that the Landlord did not act reasonably in its attempts to treat the cockroaches in the Tenant’s unit. Although the unit was treated once promptly, the problem of cockroaches continues to persist and the Landlord has taken no further follow-up action to address this.

30. Further, from the Tenant’s uncontested testimony, it appears that the Landlord’s property management likely knew there were pests in the unit before the Tenant moved in. It is unknown when the Landlord last treated the unit before the Tenants moved in.

31. Therefore, I find the Landlord is in breach of its maintenance obligations under section 20 of the Act.

32. Whether the Landlord is at fault is not relevant here. Subsection 20(1) of the Act does not contain an element of fault. In other words, the reasons for a landlord’s breach of subsection 20(1) are not relevant. Regardless of the reasons why a landlord is unable to provide a rental unit in a good state of repair and fit for habitation, if they are unable to do so, they are in breach of their obligation under the Act.

33. The Landlord’s maintenance obligations and the irrelevance of fault has been referred to in court cases and was upheld by the Divisional Court in Offredi v. 751768 Ontario Ltd [1994] O.J. No. 1204. In that case the Divisional Court stated: “The question of fault on the landlord’s part is not the issue... What the tenants claim is a breach of contract. The tenants were paying full rent for premises which the landlord was under an obligation… to keep in a good state of repair and fit for habitation. The landlord failed to do that. That is the basis for the claim for an abatement …”

34. In addition to considering the duration of the maintenance problems, I must also consider the severity of the problem and its impact upon the Tenants. In this case, I find that the continued presence of a significant number of cockroaches interfered with the Tenants’ ability to use and enjoy their rental unit for the usual and ordinary purposes. Living with a cockroach infestation has been disturbing for the Tenants.

35. In determining the rent abatement, I have also taken into account the fact that the Landlord attempted to address the problem once, by having the unit treated by a licensed pest control company on September 25, 2018. However, as discussed above, this was not sufficient in the circumstances, and the Landlord failed to arrange for any subsequent treatment.

36. Having considered the above criteria, I find that the Tenants are entitled to a rent abatement equal to 20% of the monthly rent for the two months of roughly July 18/18 to September 25/18 (the date of the only cockroach treatment). As noted above, the monthly rent is $1,471.00. Therefore, the total rent abatement awarded to the Tenants shall be $588.40.

37. I will also order the Landlord to conduct proper pest control treatments using a licensed pest control company until the cockroach problem in the unit has been determined by the company to be successfully resolved. As this might require several more treatments over the months ahead, I will also prohibit the Landlord from serving any notice of rent increase until the cockroach problem is successfully resolved.

It is ordered that:

2. Upon giving proper prior notice(s) of entry to the Tenants, the Landlord shall have the rental unit treated by a licensed pest control technician on or before October 25, 2018. The Landlord shall also have any necessary follow-up treatments performed, and must continue such treatment until it is determined by a licensed pest control technician that no further treatment is necessary for the rental unit.

3. If the Landlord does not comply with paragraph 2 above, either on or before October 25, 2018 or for any necessary follow-up treatments, the Tenants may make the necessary arrangements to have the rental unit treated by a licensed pest control technician, and deduct the cost of the treatment from future monthly rents upon providing the Landlord with a receipt setting out the cost of the each of the treatments performed. In this case, the Tenants are authorized to continue such treatment until it is determined by a licensed pest control technician that no further treatment is necessary for the rental unit.

TST-00209-18 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87010 (ON LTB)

1. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that by failing to address the cockroach infestation in the rental unit and mould in the laundry room in a reasonable manner, the Landlord breached its maintenance obligations under section 20(1) of the Act and substantially interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the unit and the residential complex. I find that these breaches warrant terminating the tenancy effective November 1, 2018. The order requires the Landlord to pay the Tenants $2,342.47, which includes the difference between the Tenants’ old and new rents for one year plus the balance of the Tenants’ last month’s rent deposit.

12. Beginning on the day they moved into the rental unit, and throughout the time they lived there, the Tenants regularly observed many dead and live cockroaches in the unit. The Tenants found cockroaches in all rooms of the unit but they observed the highest level of activity in the kitchen, bathroom and closets.

13. The Tenants told the Landlord about the problem on the day they moved in, then every week when the Landlord attended the residential complex to mow the lawn and in several emails they sent the Landlord with photographs attached.

14. The Landlord took no action in response to the Tenants’ complaints. The Landlord told the Tenants that he was not prepared to call in a pest control technician because he had already done so the year before. The Landlord told the Tenants that if they purchased traps, he would pay them back. The Tenants purchased traps and they sprayed the unit themselves but the Landlord never compensated them for any of the costs they incurred. In addition, the Tenants found that the traps and sprays they used were not effective at treating the problem.

15. Throughout their tenancy, the Tenants found 2-3 cockroaches every day in each of the 2-3 traps that they placed in every room. They also observed live cockroaches on the floors and walls.

16. As a result of the cockroach infestation, the Tenants experienced a high level of stress and they did not feel comfortable cooking in the rental unit. The cockroach problem was never resolved and the Tenants claim that this was one of the main reasons they felt compelled to move out of the rental unit.

17. I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that by failing to take any action to address the cockroaches in the rental unit, the Landlord failed to maintain the rental unit in a state that is fit for habitation as required by section 20(1) of the Act and substantially interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit.

18. I am also satisfied that the severity of the problem combined with the Landlord’s complete unwillingness to address it, justifies early termination of the tenancy. The Landlord knew about the cockroaches in the rental unit and he expected the Tenants to deal with them on their own and/or to continue living with the problem. This was unacceptable and with no prospect of the problem being addressed, the Tenants could not reasonably be expected to continue living in the rental unit for the entire term of the tenancy.

Remedies

35. Above I found that the Landlord’s failure to address the cockroaches and mould constitute breaches of the Landlord’s maintenance obligations and substantial interferences that warrant early termination of the tenancy. I find that it was reasonable for the Tenants to move out of the rental unit on November 1, 2018 and the tenancy is terminated that day.

36. Since the Landlord’s breaches made it necessary for the Tenants to move out, I also find it reasonable to hold the Landlord responsible for the difference in the rent the Tenants were paying for the rental unit ($1,750.00) and the rent they are paying for their new unit ($1,800.00) for a period of one year. The Tenants testified that although their new unit is slightly bigger than the rental unit because it has an additional room – a separate den – the utilities are not included in the rent. Therefore, if these items cancel each other out, the units are otherwise comparable. The total difference in rent for the year is $600.00.

37. Further, the Landlord shall return the Tenants’ last month’s rent deposit minus the rent for a single day (November 1, 2018) when the Tenants surrendered possession of the unit. The per diem rent is $57.53. Therefore, the Landlord shall return $1,692.47 to the Tenants.

TET-75541-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 49005 (ON LTB)

36. In other words, the Tenant is only entitled to a nominal abatement of the rent. As she herself acknowledges, she was not concerned about the hole behind the toilet until she or her mother saw a cockroach in the summer of 2016 and after that she made no further requests of the Landlord to address the problem. In addition, the evidence indicates some support for the conclusion that the reason the door did not close on its own was in part because of felt stripping the Tenant wanted installed to block the odour from the hallway and prevent bugs from entering.

37. That being said, the Landlord should have dealt with the crumbling plaster and repaired the area when it was brought to the Landlord’s attention and it did not. So some abatement is warranted.

38. Given the minor nature of the disrepair, the amount of rent charged, and the period of time the Tenant put up with the lack of repair, I believe a reasonable abatement of the rent would be about 1% of the rent charged during the relevant period or $100.00. An order shall issue accordingly.

TST-52850-14 (Re), 2015 CanLII 22316 (ON LTB)

24. It was the evidence of the Tenant that she had cockroaches in the unit since she moved into the unit. The Tenant claimed that the Landlords knew about the cockroach problem since approximately 2 ½ years ago when the Landlords purchased the residential complex. The Tenant claimed that the last time she told the Landlords about the cockroaches was in April 2014.

25. It was the evidence of the Landlords that the Tenant never advised about any cockroach problem either by a letter or during a conversation. If there was a problem, the Tenant would have provided the Landlords with a letter and the Landlords would have checked on the problem. The Landlords have not received any letters from other tenants about this issue.

26. I find that the Tenant has not provided sufficient evidence that she continues to have a cockroach problem or that she notified the Landlords about this continuing problem in April 2014. I say this because the Tenant’s letter dated April 3, 2014 to the Landlord indicated that she “dealt with the cockroach problem.” In the letter, the Tenant does not say that she continues to have a cockroach problem. This leads me to the conclusion that the Tenant may have had an issue with cockroaches in the past but it is no longer an ongoing problem.

27. There was evidence before me that a City of Toronto Inspector was at the residential premises in May 2014. There was a Work Order issued on May 15, 2014 but there was no mention about the Tenant having a pest control issue, namely cockroaches. I would surmise if there was an issue with cockroaches in the unit as of April 2014, as alleged by the Tenant, the Tenant would have raised the issue with the Inspector and this issue would have been indicated on the Work Order.

TET-67836-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 38757 (ON LTB)

19. The Tenant testified that there are cockroaches in the rental unit. The Tenant testified that the cause of the cockroaches was the old fridge and the Tenant requested the Landlord to replace that fridge.

20. The Tenant mentioned the problem of cockroaches in the work order dated December 16, 2016 but did not mention anything wrong with the fridge. The Landlord replaced the fridge in the rental unit. The Tenant testified that the fridge was replaced in April 2015 but D.M. testified that the fridge was replaced either late in the year of 2015 or early 2016. This is the conflicting evidence provided by the Tenant and the occupant.

21. S.N. testified that the rental unit was treated in December 2015 for cockroaches and the common areas are sprayed every month. There was no report of the pest control treatment submitted at the hearing but the Tenant did not dispute that.

22. The Tenant testified that she had to spend extra $500.00 per month on groceries because of the problem with the cockroaches. The Tenant did not keep any record and did not produce any receipts to support her claim.

23. The cockroaches were mentioned in the work order dated December 16, 2015. The Landlord’s testimony is that that the unit was treated in December 2016. And I find no mention of cockroaches in the work order dated April 4, 2016. I find that the Landlord acted within a reasonable time period to rectify that deficiency.

24. I find that the Landlord or the Landlord's superintendent or the Landlord's agent substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenant or by a member of the Tenant's household because of the maintenance issues in the T6 application. The monetary compensation is already awarded in that application. Therefore no monetary compensation shall be awarded in this application.

SWT-96364-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 9460 (ON LTB)

16. I did not find the Tenant’s testimony about his efforts to notify the Landlord about the bedbugs and cockroaches persuasive. He first said that he had not kept a copy of the list he gave her but then changed his testimony and produced an original handwritten note, marked as Exhibit T!, which appears to be part of a claim against the former Landlord.

17. The Landlord did produce her notice marked as Exhibit L2, by which she clearly requested that all requests for maintenance be in writing.

18. Although I am not satisfied that the Tenant did request repairs, the Landlord acknowledged that by the May of 2016 she was aware there was a problem with bedbugs in the Tenant’s unit and she attempted to address it herself but the Tenant failed to co-operate in the preparation.

19. Since the Landlord was aware of a problem with bedbugs from May 2016 until the hearing, she should have arranged for a professional pest control technician to attend. However, when she did so in December, the Tenant still did not co-operate.

20. The Tenant’s application was served in November 2016. That gave the Landlord notice of the presence of cockroaches and the need to fix the light and the leaking bathroom sink.

21. The Landlord did arrange to have the cockroaches treated in December 2016.

22. I am satisfied that the Tenant is entitled to a modest abatement for the period between May 2016, when the Landlord was aware of the bedbugs and December 10, 2016, when the Landlord arranged for a pest control technician to attend. (20% x $699.00 x 8 months = $1,118.40)

23. I am satisfied that the Tenant is entitled to a modest abatement for the presence of cockroaches from mid-November 2016, when the application informed the Landlord about the problem to December 10, 2016, when it was resolved. (10% X $699.00 = $69.00).

24. The Tenant’s application also informed the Landlord of the need to repair the light in the kitchen and the leak in the bathroom sink. I am satisfied that the Tenant is entitled to a modest abatement from mid-November 2016 for those issues. (5% x $699.00 = $34.95)

25. The abatement calculated in modest because I am satisfied that the Tenant failed to co-operate with the Landlord by providing written notice of the need for specific repairs and by ensuring that the premises were properly prepared and accessible on the dates scheduled for treatment.

26. The Tenant failed to produce any evidence to support his claim that he was required to discard furniture or its value.

27. Although the Tenant’s application includes a claim for compensation for work he did on the property, the Tenant did not lead any evidence about this ground of his claim and it is not within the Board’s jurisdiction to enforce any contractual agreement between the parties for work done.

28. The Tenant did produce one receipt for $33.98 he spent on insecticide and he is entitled to be reimbursed for that amount plus tax. ($33.98 + $4.41 = $38.39).

CET-02396 (Re), 2009 CanLII 78923 (ON LTB)

1. The tenancy commenced January 25, 2009.

2. The Tenant paid first and last month’s rent totalling $3,750.00.

3. The Tenant discovered that the rental unit was badly infested with cockroaches and this fact was not disputed by the Landlord.

4. The Tenant moved out of the rental unit in a few days because she was informed by the exterminator that it would be a lengthy process to exterminate the cockroaches.

5. The Landlord’s position is that he ought to have been given an opportunity to correct the problem prior to the Tenant making a unilateral decision to move out of the rental unit. I disagree with the Landlord’s position in this case because the Landlord ought to have known the problem existed because he resided in the rental unit prior to this tenancy. Therefore, I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to maintain the rental unit.

6. The Tenant is entitled to 100% rent abatement for the period of time that she did not reside in the rental unit ($3,750.00 minus 2 days).

7. The Tenant is also entitled to the cost of a rented steam cleaner and roach powder in the amount of $63.92.

TNT-63905-14 (Re), 2014 CanLII 71652 (ON LTB)

1. The Tenant proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Landlords failed to comply with the City of Toronto’s property standards by-law, which requires properties to be kept free from insects such as cockroaches at all times. Cockroaches have been present in the rental unit since the tenancy started in 2010.

2. At the hearing, the Landlords agreed that, despite their individual efforts, the residential complex contains cockroaches. The City of Toronto issued a work order on September 15, 2014 requiring the Landlords to eliminate the presence of cockroaches at the residential complex. Although the Landlords retained the services of an exterminator on or about September 21, 2014, the treatment did not resolve the problem. Prior to September 21, 2014, the Landlords attempted to address the Tenant’s complaints of cockroaches with ineffective home remedies and over the counter pesticides.

10. The Tenant requested an order requiring the Landlords to pay an abatement of rent equal to 50 percent of the rent the Tenant paid during the one-year period before she started her application. I find that this amount is unreasonable under the circumstances.

11. When asked, the Tenant testified that she and her two children are able to use the rental unit’s bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom for all normal purposes. Although the Tenant is inconvenienced by having to clean those rooms more regularly than would be necessary, but for the cockroaches, she and her family are nevertheless able to use and enjoy the rental unit. I therefore find that it is appropriate to order the Landlords to pay an abatement of rent equal to 20 percent of the rent the Tenant has paid since October 2013. The total rent abatement the Landlords owe the Tenant is $2,240.00.

TST-69380-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88322 (ON LTB)

8. The Tenants say the fridge had various problems. First, the seal on the door was cracked and broken as were the shelves and door. Cockroaches were able to make their way into the appliance as a result of these issues. The fridge problems were present when the Tenants viewed the unit, but the Landlord said he would correct the issues within a week. The repairs were never done. The fridge did not maintain an appropriate temperature and as such the Tenants had to keep throwing out food. Their food costs became significant as a result. They would often throw out at least $100.00-$150.00 worth of perishable food a month given this issue.

Cockroaches

9. In late August, 2015 the Tenants experienced a cockroach infestation. They asked the Landlord to address the issue, and he eventually arranged to have a contractor spray the unit for pests. The spray occurred in mid-November, 2015. They advised the Landlord 7 to 10 days later that the situation had not improved. He responded that the reason the problem persisted was because the unit was dirty. The cockroach problem got worse over time; the Tenants found cockroaches in their beds and food. The first Tenant had cockroaches crawl up her legs whilst she was in bed. There were cockroaches in the entire building; the Tenants saw them crawling on the first and second floors as they walked up the building. The second floor tenant confirmed that his unit had been sprayed for the pest. The Tenants found the cockroach situation very upsetting. It limited their ability to have guests in the unit, and was personally distressing to the Tenants.

25. Further, the Landlord seemed to feel he was entitled to behave in a rude and abusive manner towards the Tenants. The Landlord called the Tenants on more than 40 occasions during a 35 day period. On some days the Landlord called at least 6 times, on others very late at night. This behaviour is unreasonable and constitutes harassment. The Landlord should have known that his behaviour was unwelcome, and that it interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of their rental unit. The Tenants were clearly significantly impacted by the Landlord’s behaviour.

27. The Tenants are entitled to a rent abatement in the mid-high range given the significance of the maintenance, repair, harassment, and substantial interference issues. They were significantly impacted by these issues while they lived in the unit. The Tenants are therefore entitled to a rent abatement of 75% of their daily rent for the period July 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015; this sum is $6,700.55. This sum reflects the fact that they had to endure regular harassment from the Landlord, ongoing pest issues, a lack of heat, a day of not having a key to their unit, and appliances in a state of disrepair.

TNT-70983-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 59955 (ON LTB)

11. The Tenant also proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Landlord failed to maintain the rental unit free of cockroaches, as required by the C of T’s Property Standards by-law. The Tenant testified that she last saw cockroaches at the rental unit on June 24, 2014. There was, however, no evidence of when the Tenant informed the Landlord of the presence of cockroaches.

TET-67611-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 38760 (ON LTB)

2. There has been a problem of cockroaches in the rental unit. The Tenant S.D. has complained about this to the Landlord several times. The Landlord did make few attempts to rectify the problem. But the problem still exists.

3. The Tenants provided pictures of the roaches at the hearing. J.W. testified at the hearing that the Tenant filed a written complaint to the Landlord on December 18, 2015. J.M. testified that the pest control company comes in every month and they treat the common areas.

4. J.W. testified that he visited the rental unit in April this year and saw one or two live or dead roaches.

5. The Tenant S.D. testified that the roaches may be coming into the rental unit through the water drains. J.W. testified that the P traps are installed on the drains and it is not possible for the roaches to come into the rental unit through the drains.

11. I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to repair or maintain the rental unit and failed to comply with maintenance standards. There is evidence that the rental unit is infested with cockroaches. The Landlord made few attempts to rectify the problem, but the problem still exists. This is really having a significant impact on the Tenants and there shall be an abatement awarded to the Tenants for that. The Landlord agreed to have the unit inspected by another certified pest control company and rectify the problem.

18. The smell of smoking marijuana and the issue of cockroaches are having a significant impact on the Tenants. Therefore I find that the Tenants are entitled to an abatement of rent for these reasons. The Tenants filed a written request for maintenance on December 18, 2015 (letter submitted) and the repairs except the cockroaches have been completed. This compensation shall be 25% of the monthly rent for the period from December 18, 2015 to May 17, 2016.