Mould Issues (Abatements)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-05-02
CLNP Page ID:	1838
Page Categories:	[Maintenance Abatements (LTB)]
Citation:	Mould Issues (Abatements), CLNP 1838, <5Q>, retrieved on 2024-05-02
Editor:	P08916
Last Updated:	2021/12/30

SWT-96898-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28841 (ON LTB)

Analysis:

18. Section 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (‘the Act’) sets out that a landlord is responsible for maintaining rental units in a good state of repair, such that they are fit for habitation and in compliance with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards. In this case, the Landlord did not adequately repair the holes in the ceiling and walls of the rental unit caused by a water damage and an emergency plumbing repair, nor did the Landlord effectively address the presence of black mould in the drywall and insulation water damage or effectively address the mould issue in the rental unit despite requests from the Tenants and work orders from the City of Kitchener. Due to the Landlord’s failure to take appropriate action, the Tenants’ rental unit was not in compliance with housing standards for a period of several weeks. During this time, the Tenants were anxious about the unaddressed mould in their apartment, and lived with unsightly holes in their walls until the repairs were completed by the City. During the period of repairs, the Tenants had limited use of their apartment, with significantly reduced access to their only bathroom, their bedroom and their front entrance

19. While the Landlord’s Legal Representative is correct to describe the Tenant’s testimony about the Property Standards Enforcement Officer’s actions as hearsay, in the absence of testimony to the contrary I find the Tenant’s testimony on this issue to be both credible and reliable.

20. Clearly the work to remove the mould and complete the repairs was necessary and was completed as the Landlord’s Legal Representative stated the Landlord paid over $6,000.00 for the repairs. The Tenant produced one work order from the City of Kitchener, and provided details and specifics about the maintenance issues, supported by photographs of the water damage and mould in the rental unit. I find it plausible, based on the photos and the fact that the first work order was ignored, that a Property Standards Enforcement Officer would be concerned about the state of the unit, would attend for another inspection, and after seeing the ineffectual repair job done by the superintendent, would issue a second work order with a shorter deadline.

21. I agree that the Tenant did not provide medical verification that his health issues were linked to the mould in the apartment, so I am not considering the heath impact of the mould in my analysis. Having said that, the potential health impacts are secondary to the main issue.

Remedy:

22. The Tenants requested a 100% rent abatement for three months, due to the stress and inconvenience caused by the Landlord’s failure to properly repair the rental unit. The Landlord asserted that the Tenants had not provided an explanation for how they came to their request for a 100% abatement for three months, and stated that in the absence of a methodology to calculate the abatement, the Board could only order a 100% abatement or a 0% abatement.

23. The Act provides the Board with the discretion to determine an appropriate rent abatement. In this case, I find that the Landlord was aware of the water damage and mould problem as of September 21, 2016, when he toured the Tenants’ unit with his own contractor. The Tenants repeatedly requested that the repairs be completed, and the City of Kitchener issued a first work order before the Landlord sent an unqualified superintendent to complete the repairs. Within a week of the repair, it was evident the water damage and mould issues had not been adequately addressed, and the Tenants continued to live with holes in their ceiling and walls and mould in their insulation and drywall until December 7, 2016.

24. I find that a 25% rent abatement for this period is reasonable, as the Tenants experienced some disruption to their enjoyment of the rental unit due to the unsightly holes and mould, and their concerns were not addressed appropriately by the Landlord ($31.23/day x 77 days = $2,404.71 @ 25% = $601.18). I also find that a 75% rent abatement is reasonable for the period of December 8 to 23, 2016, when the Tenants were significantly disrupted by the City of Kitchener’s contractors. The Tenants had limited use of their only bathroom, their bedroom and their front entrance throughout this period of time ($31.23/day x 15 days = $468.45 @ 75% = $351.34)