Bad Faith (N13): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Renovations and | [[Category:Renovations, Demolition, and Conversions (RTA)]] | ||
{{Citation: | {{Citation: | ||
Latest revision as of 19:02, 11 April 2024
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-23 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2192 |
| Page Categories: | Renovations and Repairs (LTB) |
| Citation: | Bad Faith (N13), CLNP 2192, <https://rvt.link/5o>, retrieved on 2024-11-23 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2024/04/11 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today
Kukielka v Arn, 2022 CanLII 80927 (ON LTB)[1]
80. It is readily apparent that the two Landlords disagree about the renovation plan. B.K., who has not described herself as experienced in this area, proposes to renovate the unit in accordance with the N13 Notice. The evidence of A.S., an experienced contractor, fundamentally contradicts B.K.’s testimony. He testified that no renovations are needed to the interior of the Tenant’s unit- everything “is good”, including the wiring, ducts and plumbing. The only repair that needs to be completed is to find and fix the ongoing water leak located in the foundation of the building.
81. Neither Landlord was able to reasonably explain or justify the contradictions. These inconsistencies, in my view, signify a lack of good faith intent.
82. The Landlord B.K. is disingenuous when she states that the water leak repairs are included in the “other unknown repairs that might become apparent during the renovations” in the N13 Notice. [emphasis added] She, A.S. and the Tenant each testified that they have known about the leak in the foundation and the need to repair it during this period.
83. The failure to pursue and obtain the proper permits demonstrates that the Landlords are not expressing a good faith commitment to complete the repairs listed in the N13 Notice, or even to repairing the water leak. It is concerning that, for at least 6 years, the Landlords have failed to comply with their obligations to repair the leak pursuant to subsection 20(1) of the Act.
84. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that within 2 months of failing to obtain agreements to rent increases from the tenants, the Landlords commenced the process to terminate all three tenancies.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Kukielka v Arn, 2022 CanLII 80927 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jrshd>, retrieved on 2023-04-27
