Category:Electrical Safety Authority Defect Notice: Difference between revisions

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

NOT-10906-13 (Re), 2013 CanLII 11085 (ON LTB)^[1]

1. On January 4, 2013 the City of Greater Sudbury issued the Landlord an Order to Remedy Non-Conformity with Standards for Maintenance and Occupancy. This order states that the roof leaks in numerous locations, the electrical outlet for the stove in the rental unit is not in good working order and interior finishes of walls and ceilings are deteriorating due to water damage. The Landlord is ordered to, by April 30, 2013, repair the roof, install a proper electrical outlet for the stove, and repair all interior walls and ceiling. (Tenant Exhibit #1)

...

4. The Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) issued a Hazardous Investigation Defect Notice to the Landlord on January 23, 2013. This notice found water leaking into the building and tracking into fixtures and panels, deteriorated and/or damages luminaries, insufficient receptacles, improper range receptacle, ungrounded receptacles, and missing fuse rejectors. The ESA issued an order to remedy these defects by January 30, 2013. (Tenant Exhibit #3)

...

11. I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) to repair and maintain the rental unit and failed to comply with housing and maintenance standards.

It is ordered that:

1. The Landlord shall pay to the Tenant a rent abatement of $1,948.52.

2. The Landlord shall repair or replace the roof, the interior ceiling and walls, and the electrical system in compliance with the work orders issued by the City of Greater Sudbury and the Electrical Safety Authority by April 30, 2013.

3. Commencing on March 1, 2013 and for each month thereafter and until the Landlord has completed the repairs in accordance with paragraph 2 of this order the monthly rent shall be reduced by 30% to $324.77. Upon the Landlord providing written documentation that the work orders issued by the City of Greater Sudbury and the Electrical Safety Authority have been lifted the monthly rent shall immediately return to $463.95 (plus any increase for which the Landlord has given proper notice).

4. The Landlord shall also pay the Tenant $45.00 for the cost of filing the application.

5. The total amount the Landlord owes the Tenant is $1,993.52.

6. The Landlord shall pay the Tenant the full amount owing by March 2, 2013.

7. If the Landlord does not pay the Tenant the full amount owing by March 2, 2013 the Landlord will owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from March 3, 2013 at 3.00% annually on the outstanding balance.

8. If the Landlord does not pay the Tenant the full amount owing by March 2, 2103, the Tenant may recover this amount by deducting $200.00 from the rent each month from March, 2013 to November 1, 2013 and $193.52 in November, 2013.

9. The Tenant has the right, at any time, to collect the full amount owing or any balance outstanding under this order.

10. The Landlord is prohibited from charging a new tenant an amount of rent in excess of the last lawful rent charged to this Tenant until the Landlord has completed the items in the work orders issued by the City of Greater Sudbury and Electrical Safety Authority.

11. The Landlord is prohibited from taking any rent increase for which a notice of rent increase has been given, if the increase is not taken before February 19, 2013, until the Landlord has completed the items in the work orders issued by the City of Greater Sudbury and Electrical Safety Authority.

^[1]

TST-89508-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42704 (ON LTB)^[2]

Exposed Electrical Wiring in Basement

28. The Tenants provided photographs showing a variety of exposed wires in the basement of the unit. The Tenants also provided a copy of an Investigation Inspection Defect Notice issued by the Electrical Safety Authority on November 3, 2017 outlining a series of serious electrical defects in the unit.

29. The Tenants originally brought this issue to the Landlord’s attention when they took possession of the unit, yet the Landlord has not taken any steps to address the exposed wiring. The other electrical defects outlined in the November 3rd defect notice have not been addressed. The Tenants testified the Landlord has told them to “discipline their children not to touch the wires.” The Tenants are concerned the electrical wiring defects and especially the exposed wiring in the basement pose a serious safety issue to themselves and their children.

...

37. As I explained during the hearing in Beauge v. Metcap Living Management Inc., 2012 ONSC 1160 (CanLII) (“Beauge”)^[3], 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 $2,030.00, which is equal to one month’s rent, in connection with all issues raised and, 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, a higher award is warranted for the reasons that follow.

38. As stated, the Tenants request an abatement of the rent in the total sum of $2,030.00. 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 as will be outlined below, the length of time involved and the Landlord’s failure to address the issues, the impact of the issues on the Tenants and their family, and my experience with similar cases before the Board, I believe the Tenants’ request for an abatement of the rent for the period October 13, 2016 to December 14, 2017, in the sum of $2,030.00, to be reasonable.

39. With the exception of the issues of the cracked foundation and mould, and considering, as I must, all of the circumstances as required by Onyskiw, I find, on a balance of probabilities, the Landlord is in breach of section 20(1) of the Act in connection with the remaining issues as enumerated in paragraph 8, above. The Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to repair and/or maintain the rental unit and failed to comply with safety, housing and maintenance standards.

40. The Tenants provided photographs corroborating most of alleged issues of disrepair, some of which are of significant concern. The exposed electrical wiring in the basement of the unit and the broken or missing switch covers are especially concerning given the presence of minor children in the unit. The Investigation Inspection Defect Notice issued by the Electrical Safety Authority on November 3, 2017 points to these and other serious electrical defects in the unit which not only pose a serious threat to the safety of the Tenants and their children, but also expose the Landlord to significant legal liability. An order will issue requiring the Landlord to address the defects identified by the Electrical Safety Authority forthwith, including the light switches, which remain in a state of disrepair and the exposed wiring in the basement of the unit.

41. Similarly, the exposed pipe on the exterior of the unit and the hole in the backyard fence are issues of major concern as they pose a significant risk to the safety of the Tenants’ children and dog. The exposed and open pipe hole can lead to injury should the dog or one of the occupants of the unit, or a guest of the Tenants, simply be walking or running over the open pipe and be unaware of its presence. The hole in the backyard fence is also of concern as it may lead to the Tenants’ dog escaping onto the road, where it may be injured by a moving vehicle or harm a passer-by. An order will issue requiring the Landlord to address this issue forthwith.

42. The iron railing on the front porch of the unit is unsafe and in a state of disrepair as shown by the photographs provided by the Tenants. The railing is rusted to the extent it has become unattached to the cement floor of the porch in some parts. The railing can become entirely unattached to its base should someone lean against it and this may lead to injury. Again, an order will issue requiring the Landlord to address this issue.

43. As shown by the photograph provided by the Tenants, one of the lower level windows remains in a state of disrepair. One of the Tenant’s children is unable to sleep in his room in the basement during the cold months due to the cracked window and this issue has also led to an increase in the Tenants’ utility bills. This is an issue of considerable concern given the exceptionally cold weather as of late and, further, is an issue, which the Landlord could, and should, have addressed quickly and with relative ease. An order will issue requiring the Landlord to address this issue forthwith.

44. The same holds true for the various heat/air vents in the unit. The vents should not be in such a state of disrepair so as to prevent the Tenants from controlling the heat flow in the unit—especially when the exterior temperatures reach below -20, as is the case at present.

45. The screen door and cylinder is in a state of disrepair and, again, the Landlord could easily have addressed this issue in a timely fashion. I agree with the Tenants that the malfunctioning door cylinder also renders this a safety issue as the screen door can shut very quickly causing the glass to break or slamming on a person’s fingers.

...

It is ordered that:

1. The style of cause of the within applications is amended to accurately reflect the street name as “Amsterdam.”

2. The Landlord shall pay the Tenants a rent abatement of $2,030.00.

3. The Landlord shall also pay the Tenants $50.00 for the cost of filing the applications.

4. The total amount the Landlord owes the Tenants is $2,080.00.

5. If the Landlord does not pay the Tenants the full amount owing by January 14, 2018, the Tenants may recover this amount by deducting $2,030.00 from

the rent for the month of February, 2018 and $50.00 from the rent for the month of March, 2018.

6. On or before January 31, 2018, the Landlord shall:

(1) repair the exposed live and other wiring in the basement of the unit, repair/replace all missing/broken light switches and repair all issues identified in the Investigation Inspection Defect Notice issued by the Electrical Safety Authority on November 3, 2017;

(2) repair or replace the cracked basement window;

(3) repair or replace the door screen and cylinder;

(4) repair or replace the six air/heat vents in the unit;

(5) repair the hole in the backyard fence; and

(6) repair or safely cover the exposed open ground pipe on the exterior of the house.

7. On or before March 31, 2018, the Landlord shall:

(1) repair or replace the iron porch railing;

(2) clear/clean all eaves troughs of the unit so they are in good working order and do not overflow; and

(3) remove the large bundle of tree clippings from the backyard.

8. If the Landlord does not comply with paragraph 6 of this order on or before January 31, 2018, then the Tenants will be entitled to a further abatement of the rent, in the amount of $200.00 per month, for the period commencing February 1, 2018 and until such time as the items outlined in paragraph 6 are fully repaired.

9. If the Landlord does not comply with paragraph 7 of this order on or before March 31, 2018, then the Tenants will be entitled to further abatement of the rent, in the amount of $75.00 per month, for the period commencing April 1, 2018 and until such time as the items outlined in paragraph 7 are fully repaired.

NOL-21995-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 22068 (ON LTB)^[4]

3. The Tenants’ T6 application is before the Board pursuant to sub-section 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 states: “A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.”

4. BNJ testified that the home had been vacant for over one year and was vandalized. BNJ submitted a list of extensive major renovations and upgrades completed by the Landlord prior to occupancy by the Tenants (Landlord exhibit #2).

5. Paragraph 14 of the rental agreement signed by the parties (Landlord exhibit #1) is titled ‘Optional Provisions’. Paragraph 14 contains a hand written addendum noting the identified pre-tenancy maintenance issues. They included the replacement of water damaged ceiling tiles in the basement recreation room and window pane / window screen issues. The window screen issue remained unresolved at the time of hearing.

6. PR testified that the Tenants’ request for the Landlord to address electrical wiring deficiencies in the home were left unresolved until the Tenants complained to the Electrical Safety Authority.

7. A copy of a November 3, 2015 Electrical Safety Authority Investigation Inspection Defect Notice was submitted (Landlord exhibit #2). The ESA inspection report identified 10 defects including a loose joint in the upper level (tighten); reversed polarity at some outlet receptacles (rewire); a few missing switch covers (install); excessive paint on some outlets (replace); loose receptacle (tighten); crossed wires at a three way light switch in the bathroom (rewire); a loose laundry room plug (secure to wall); unused / abandoned wiring (remove); breaker panel labelling directory incomplete (update); and a bonding jumper missing at water meter (install).

8. The ESA report supports the Tenant’s claim that the Landlords were in breach of their maintenance obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2006. All listed ESA inspection defects were resolved by the Landlord by December 1, 2015 with the exception of one minor outstanding master bedroom issue that was later resolved on January 6, 2016.

9. The Tenants allege that sub-standard electrical wiring within the rental unit home resulted in irreparable damage to their television and microwave ovens. The Tenants offered no evidence of any causal link between the minor electrical defects identified within the ESA report and the alleged demise of a non-functioning television and microwave ovens. The inspector / author of the ESA report did not testify about his observations.

10. BNJ challenged the Tenants electrical damage claim and he submitted a photograph (Landlord exhibit photo #13) depicting six different devices (cords) plugged by the Tenants into one extension outlet. I further note that during the hearing, MP held up and displayed an adapter device used to convert a two outlet receptacle into a 6 outlet receptacle. The plastic around one of the 6 outlets appeared to be heat scorched / burned in a manner consistent with an electrical short circuit or circuit overloaded.

11. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Tenants use of electrical receptacle multiplying devices (cords or adapters) which overburdened the electrical circuits in the home. Accordingly, the Tenants have not met the burden of proof require to support their claimed that the substandard electrical service in the home resulted in irreparable damage to their television and microwave ovens.

...

25. The Tenants’ T6 application requested a 50% abatement of rent because of the lack of maintenance; because of lost storage space; and because their son’s bedroom had to be moved from the lower level of the house. I find the Tenants’ abatement request to be excessive. I will allow a 10% rent abatement ($195.00 in total) for the months of October 2015 and November 2015 in consideration of the disruption to this tenancy caused by the Landlord’s repeated attendance at the rental unit to address the Electrical Safety Authority defects and the City of Greater Sudbury Order to Remedy Non Conformity with Standards For Maintenance and Occupancy of all Property issues.

TET-07055-10 (Re), 2011 CanLII 42412 (ON LTB)^[5]

Factual Background and Evidence:

1. The residential complex is a century old rural house with a detached garage. The garage was occupied by the Landlords’ at times during the tenancy.

2. The parties concluded a one year tenancy agreement commencing August 22, 2009. However, it is agreed that the Landlords permitted the Tenants

to move into the rental early on August 17, 2009 at the Tenants’ request.

3. The agreed upon rent was $1,500.00 per month. In addition, the Tenants were responsible for utility charges.

4. It is agreed that the Tenants returned the rental unit keys to the Landlords and gave up possession of the rental unit on January 15, 2010.

5. As part of their combined application, the Tenants raised the following areas of concern:

a. the presence of rodents in the rental unit;

b. a disruption in the supply of heat;

c. a malfunctioning hot water heater;

d. water damage due to an improperly connected washing machine

e. electrical code violations

f. excessive hydro charges

...

e. Electrical code violations

28. As a result of the December 9, 2009 property standards inspection by TV, an order was issued requiring the Landlords to have all wiring in the rental unit inspected by the Electrical Safety Authority and a report forwarded to the Municipality for review no later than January 4, 2010. Areas of concern noted by TV included open junction boxes, bear wires, tapped / un-maretted wires, missing plate covers, and an electrical wire running from the basement up through the main level hardwood floor and out to the hot tub. According to TV, his main area of concern was the Tenants’ use of electric space heaters as the main source of heat which posed a fire hazard. TV testified that the other noted areas of concern were items that could be easily remedied by the Landlords.

29. TV testified that when he re-inspected the premises on January 13, 2010 the Tenants had already moved out. During the re-inspection, TV did not discern any changes to the suspected electrical deficiencies that had caused him to issue the order against the rental unit. Furthermore, it was not until December 16, 2010 (over 1 year after the initial inspection) that he received a faxed Electrical Safety Authority general inspection report that confirmed the rental unit was now in compliance. As a result of the Landlords’ delay in complying with the property standards order, charges have been laid against the Landlords.

30. The Board does not in any way condone the Landlords’ apparent failure to comply with the property standards work order. However, the concerns noted by the property standards officer do not appear to have had any significant impact on the Tenants’ day to day enjoyment of the rental unit.

Determinations:

1. I find that the Landlords failed to meet the Landlords' obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to repair and maintain the rental unit and failed to comply with safety and maintenance standards.

2. I do not find that the Landlords or the Landlords’ agent engaged in conduct that would have substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenants or a member of the Tenants’ household.

3. I am not satisfied that the Tenants were required to move out of the rental unit because of the Landlords’ actions.

It is ordered that:

1. The Landlords shall pay to the Tenants a rent abatement of $493.20 to compensate the Tenants for the lack of heat for a 10 day period during the month of December 2009.

2. The Landlords shall pay the Tenants with a further rent abatement of $98.64 to compensate the Tenants for the lack of hot water for a 2 day period during the month of November 2009.

3. The Landlords shall pay to the Tenants $134.45 for the steam cleaner rental.

4. The Landlords shall pay to the Tenants $131.25 for the electrical repairs in connection with the replacement hot water tank.

5. The Landlords shall pay to the Tenants $363.19. This is the reasonable out of pocket expenses the Tenants incurred for a vehicle rental ($254.13) and fuel costs ($109.06) to transport their children to the maternal grand-parents in Sault Ste. Marie in December 2009 while the rental unit was being treated for rodents and the furnace could not be operated.

6. The Landlords shall pay to the Tenants $45.00 for the cost of filing the application.

7. The total amount the Landlords owe the Tenants is $1,265.73.

8. The Landlords shall pay the Tenants the full amount owing by July 2, 2011.

9. If the Landlords do not pay the Tenants the full amount owing by July 2, 2011 the Landlords will owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from July 3, 2011 at 3.00% annually on the outstanding balance.

TSL-41587-13-RV (Re), 2015 CanLII 74112 (ON LTB)^[6]

T6 - Maintenance:

1. The issue to be determined by the Board is whether the Landlord failed to comply with subsection 20(1)^[7] of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006^[8] (the 'Act'), because the Tenant’s rental unit had peeling paint in the bathroom, disrepair to the bathroom vanity faucet and counter, missing electrical cover in the kitchen, disrepair of the kitchen floor, disrepair of the kitchen cupboard drawers, kitchen cupboard doors missing, disrepair of the ventilation hood over the stove, entrance door not weather tight, uneven exterior stairs, missing handrail on stairs, and electrical issue because power going off constantly.

2. Subsection 20(1)^[7] of the Act^[8] states:

A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit

for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.

3. It was the evidence of the Tenant that she told the Landlord about her maintenance issues a week after moving into the unit and then again in December 2012 and January 2013. The Tenant says that the Landlord failed to address the problems. The Tenant then complained to the City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards and the Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) about the state of the unit.

4. It was the evidence adduced at the hearing that the City of Toronto issued a work order against the Landlord for violation of the Municipal Code, Chapter 629, Property Standards. The work order is dated March 7, 2013.

5. It was also the evidence adduced at the hearing that the ESA issued an Investigation Inspection Defect Notice on March 12, 2013; and the Fire Services issues a Notice of Violation on March 18, 2013.

...

13. The monthly rent is $595.00. I am of the view that the Tenant is entitled to a lump sum abatement of rent in the amount of $25.00 for the peeling paint. In determining this amount, I have taken into consideration the impact statement of the Tenant that the peeling paint looked bad. In my view, this is cosmetic in nature. The Tenant did not provide any photographs to show the state of the peeling paint in the bathroom. I also considered that this disrepair did not prevent the Tenant from using the bathroom.

...

Loss of electricity:

47. The electrical panel for the residential complex is located in the Tenant’s unit.

48. It was the evidence of the Tenant that the power was going off constantly in her unit. The Tenant says that every two days after she moved into the unit this would occur. The Landlord told her where to find the breaker box. The Tenant found the loss of power to be an annoyance and the basement would be very dark. She would fix the breaker. The Tenant says the breaker box was fixed on December 18, 2013.

49. It was the evidence of the Landlord that the Tenant never told him that she did not have electricity in the unit.

50. The Landlord says that he complied with the Fire Service Notice and everything was fixed on April 17, 2013.

51. The Landlord says that he received the defect notice from the Electrical Safety Authority in April 2013. The Landlord fixed some of the issues on April 4, 2013 but it was not completed. The Landlord says there was a delay in completing the work because the Tenant did not allow access to the unit. The breaker box was fixed on December 18, 2013.

52. Based on the evidence before me, namely, the Fire Service Notice and the ESA notice, I find that the Landlord has failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act.

53. There was conflicting evidence before me whether the Tenant told the Landlord that there were times when she had no electricity in the unit. I say this because the Tenant initially said that the power went off in her unit constantly after she moved in and she told the Landlord. The Tenant also says that she may have lost electricity three times in her unit, but she did not tell the Landlord because she fixed it herself.

54. There was evidence adduced at the hearing that the electricity on the main and second floor of the residential complex went off numerous times and the Landlord required access to the Tenant’s unit to reset the breakers. What this means to me is that the Landlord knew or ought to have known that there were electrical issues with the house. The Landlord should have taken steps to address this problem in a timely manner.

55. I am of the view that the Tenant is entitled to a lump sum amount of $500.00 for the electrical issues and for having to reset the breakers. In determining the amount, I have taken into consideration the impact statement and the conflicting evidence of the Tenant. I also considered that there was an issue with the breakers on a regular basis and the Tenant had to reset the breakers. I considered that the Landlord fixed part of the problem in April 2013. It was unclear from the Landlord’s evidence as to when it was that the Tenant denied the Landlord access to the unit after April 2013.

References

^[2]

^{[4] [3] [5] [7] [8] [6]}