Leak Under Kitchen Sink (LTB-Maintenance)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-27
CLNP Page ID:	673
Page Categories:	[Maintenance Obligations (LTB)]
Citation:	Leak Under Kitchen Sink (LTB-Maintenance), CLNP 673, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-27
Editor:	P08916
Last Updated:	2021/09/03

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

TST-90977-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42711 (ON LTB)

1. The issue to be determined by the Board is whether the Landlord failed to comply with subsection 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act') which resulted in amongst other things, a broken kitchen countertop, loose kitchen faucet, leak under the kitchen, yellow stains on the ceiling, cracks in the toilet bowl, scratches on the bath tub, ceiling and plaster coming off in the closets, unit not painted, disrepair to the balcony door (mesh has holes), and the balcony floor.

6. There was a leak under the kitchen sink. The Tenants say that the leak was fixed on December 12, 2017. As a result of the leak the Tenants could not store anything under the sink and they had to place a bucket under the sink. They say that every day they had to clean under the sink.

12. I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act with respect to the leak under the kitchen sink, the cracked kitchen countertop and the disrepair to the balcony door mesh.

17. I am of the view that the Tenants are entitled to a rent abatement of $76.29 for the leak under the sink. I considered that the leak was not fixed until 42 days later and the impact it had on the Tenants. I awarded a 5% abatement for this time period ($36.33 per day x 42 days x 5%). I also considered that the Tenants were still able to use the kitchen sink during this time.

CET-30482-13 (Re), 2013 CanLII 40035 (ON LTB)

1. The tenancy terminated on April 15, 2013. The monthly rent was $875.00. All rent owing to April 15, 2013 was paid to the Landlord.

2. Interest on the last month's rent deposit was not paid to the Tenant. Interest is owing from December 15, 2011 to December 14, 2012 on the deposit amount of $2,625.00. Interest is also owing from December 15, 2012 to March 14, 2013 (when the deposit was applied to the last month of the tenancy) on the deposit amount of $1,750.00. Interest owing to the Tenant is ordered with the consent of the parties.

3. In January 2013 there was a water leak in the rental unit. Initially, it seemed the leak was coming from an exterior crack in the foundation. The side of the house was dug up in January/February 2013 to fix the crack. This did not resolve the leak. Water continued to seep into the bedroom of the rental unit. There was also a water leak under the kitchen sink.

4. The Tenant’s request for $1,400.00 compensation to replace items damaged by the water leak is refused. The Tenant has not yet replaced the items that were allegedly disposed of. The amount claimed was not supported by receipts or estimates. The Tenant acknowledged that the items allegedly disposed of were over 10 years old and she had no evidence of the appropriate depreciated value of the items allegedly disposed of.

5. Interest on the last month's rent deposit is owing to the Tenant as follows: from December 15, 2011 to December 14, 2012 on $2,625.00 at 3.1% = $82.93; and from December 15, 2012 to March 14, 2013 on $1,750.00 at 2.5% = $10.95 ($43.75 per year or $3.65 per month is $3.65 x 3 months). The total interest owing to the Tenant is $93.88 ($82.93 + $10.95). This amount is ordered below with the consent on the parties.

6. The Tenant requested an abatement of $1,312.50 for inconvenience from extensive the water leak and the loss of the use of the bedroom from the end of January 2013 up to April 15, 2013 when the tenancy terminated. The monthly rent was $875.00.

7. The amount requested is approximately 50% of the monthly rent which is reasonable considering the significant inconvenience of the water seepage and the loss of use of the bedroom. The Tenant stated that the basement rental unit was very tiny. Water seepage into the bedroom was excessive; the Tenant had to vacuum up water every time she returned home from work. Her photos showed that the carpet in the bedroom was saturated with water. The loss of the use of the bedroom meant that the items in that room had to be moved into the kitchen and living room which interfered with the use of those rooms.

TST-96247-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 111694 (ON LTB)

1. This application concerns three issues. First, for quite some time there was a leak under the kitchen sink in the rental unit. The leak caused dampness and mould in the cabinets under the sink. Second, the bedroom floor is warped. Third, the Tenant says that there was a cockroach problem which has since been resolved.

2. For the reasons that follow, I find that the Landlord was never informed of the bedroom floor warping or the cockroaches. She is not liable to compensate the Tenant for those issues.

3. The Landlord first learned about the kitchen sink and cabinets in September, 2018, and took prompt action to fix the disrepair. Her obligation to do further repairs began when she learned, on May 8, 2018, that the issues had not been resolved. She has failed to carry out repairs from that date to the present. A rent abatement will be awarded for that time period.

12. For the period from June to September, 2017, the Landlord did not know about the leak under the kitchen sink or the mould. No remedy will be awarded for that period.

13. In September, the Landlord paid the Tenant $200.00 to fix the problem. While this was an unusual way to arrange for repairs, the Tenant does not seem to have objected to it.

14. Between September and May, the mould was still an issue, but the Landlord did not know that it was still an issue. She thought that the Tenant had fixed the problem. She had no way of knowing otherwise, so she is not liable for the disrepair during that period.

15. On May 8, 2018, the Tenant gave the Landlord a letter stating that there was mould in the kitchen. At that point, the Landlord ought to have known that the mould either had never been resolved, or had returned.

16. On July 16, the Landlord arranged for a plumber to inspect the unit. It turned out that there was still a leak under the sink, which the plumber fixed. The plumber also noted the presence of mould and recommended to the Landlord that it be removed.

17. The Landlord has not offered any explanation for waiting over two months after receiving the Tenant’s letter before doing repairs. She has also not explained why she has still not remediated the mould. I find that from May 8, 2018 onwards, she has been in breach of her obligation to maintain the kitchen sink and cabinet.

18. A rent abatement of 5% will be awarded for the period from May 8 to July 18, 2018. The Landlord will also be ordered to remediate the mould.

19. The Tenant also seeks damages because he says that the mould impacted his health. He has not offered any medical evidence in support of that claim, and I find that he has not proved it on a balance of probabilities.

TNT-12293-10 (Re), 2010 CanLII 79716 (ON LTB)

6. The leak under the kitchen sink and the splinters in the hardwood floor are both relatively minor matters that were drawn to the Landlords attention in the recent past. These should be repaired, but the Tenant is not entitled to an abatement of rent in connection with them.

TET-03527-10 (Re), 2010 CanLII 25282 (ON LTB)

4. With respect to the Tenant’s T6 application, the Tenants provided a letter that was given to the Landlord on January 28, 2010. In it there were a number of different items noted for repair by the Landlord.

5. Due to a combination of the Landlord’s lack of knowledge of the Residential Tenancies Act and exactly what his responsibilities are, only a few of the items listed for repair have been repaired as of the hearing date.

6. The Landlord provided evidence at the hearing that he is taking action finally to get many of the problems looked at however this still has not occurred.

7. Because of the ongoing problems with respect to the insect problem, the overall condition of the bathroom, mould in various places in the rental unit, the refrigerator problems and the leak under the kitchen sink, I have awarded a 10% rental reduction for the month’s of February through April, 2010. 3 months x 10% x $1,100.00 per month = $330.00.

8. The Tenants also requested that the partial cost of a dress be included in this order as they felt that it had been destroyed due to the bugs. No evidence was provided that would show that any damage was done and what the possible costs or repairs due to the damage could be. I have not allowed any costs to be ordered because of this.

9. I have also disallowed the costs requested by the Tenants in the sum of $5,000.00 for pain and suffering. While I understand that the female Tenant is having health issues I fail to understand what it has to do with this application. This was also not allowed.

It is ordered that:

8. The Landlord will complete all items in paragraphs 5,6 and 7 by no later than May 31, 2010. If the works are not completed by then, the Tenants are authorized to withhold 25% from the monthly rent starting June 1, 2010 and continuing until work is complete.

CET-73848-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88541 (ON LTB)

35. SC said there is a leak under the kitchen sink and the Tenants have to keep a bowl below the drain to catch the leak. She said she cannot use the cupboard. The Landlord's Agent testified that the leak was repaired soon after the Tenants’ moved in. It is more probable than not that the Landlord's Agent repaired the leak because leaks have the potential of causing damage to the unit which is adverse to the Landlord’s interests. This claim is dismissed.

TET-85032-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113110 (ON LTB)

56. First, the Tenants could not provide a precise date regarding when the kitchen pipe pictures were taken. Second, the pictures do not support the Tenants’ testimony that the pipe has been constantly dripping for years. Also, the Tenants failed to provide any documentary evidence to support their testimony that they continued to complain to the Landlords about the leak under the kitchen sink after 2014. Finally, none of the municipal by-law orders confirm that the kitchen sink pipe is leaking. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the kitchen sink pipe was in a state of disrepair or that the Landlords breached their obligations pursuant to subsection 20(1) of the Act. This portion of the Tenants’ application is dismissed.