Heating Problems (LTB-Maintenance)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-27
CLNP Page ID:	681
Page Categories:	Maintenance Obligations (LTB), Maintenance Abatements (LTB), Vital Services
Citation:	Heating Problems (LTB-Maintenance), CLNP 681, <5T>, retrieved on 2024-11-27
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2022/06/09

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

TNT-55269-14 (Re), 2014 CanLII 58655 (ON LTB)

Quantum of Abatement, Compensation and Damages:

106. Because the Tenants were without vital services for roughly two months, I find that they are entitled to a 100 % abatement of rent for two months of rent, with this abatement to be assigned to the months of February, 2014 and March, 2014. If the Tenants paid the any part of the rent for these months, they are entitled to a refund by the Landlord. If they did not pay any rent, or were given a refund out of the Board’s trust fund for any amount, then they are not liable for paying the equivalent of two month’s rent to the Landlord.

107. With all of the above in mind, I find that the Tenants, per each individual Tenant, should be entitled to receive the following:

i) 100% abatement of rent for two months of rent if paid, for the months of March, 2014 and April, 2014. If these two months of rent were not paid, then the equivalent of two months of rent are not to be claimed by the Landlord as arrears, and,

ii) The sum of $200.00 based on the best documented and average increased heating bills during the timeframe in question, with the exception of LS, who is to receive the sum of $500.00 because she stayed in the unit the entire time with her spouse and, as determined above, incurred higher hydro expenses, and,

iii) The sum of $750.00 in general damages, taking into account the best documented and average extraordinary food expenses, taxi and other extraordinary transportation costs, and other unusual expenses and inconveniences experienced during the emergency period, such as the purchase of heaters etc., whether Tenants availed themselves of alternate accommodation or not or specifically made claims for food and other expenses or not.

TNT-66741-15-AM (Re), 2015 CanLII 54768 (ON LTB)

Determinations and Reasons:

...

23. The Board’s Interpretation Guideline 5 on maintenance and repair applications, and Guideline 6 on tenant’s rights applications, do not give a formula by which to calculate an appropriate abatement of rent. Rather, the Guidelines require the Board to consider the nature of the breach, its duration and its impact to the tenant.

24. In this case, the Landlord’s interference with the supply of natural gas, and failure to maintain and repair the furnace, breached the Tenant’s rights under the tenancy agreement, and interfered with the Tenant’s use and enjoyment of the property. The other disrepair issues were visually unappealing, and resulted in damage to the Tenant’s personal property.

25. Because these issues existed throughout the Tenant’s tenancy with the Landlord, and because the lack of heat was particularly onerous, I find that it is appropriate to order the Landlord to pay to the Tenant an abatement of rent equal to 75 percent of the rent the Tenant paid for the period September 15, 2014 to November 15, 2014, or $5,775.00.

TST-60091-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 69349 (ON LTB)

32. Guideline 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Board Interpretation Guidelines, which deals with the responsibility of landlords to maintain residential complexes, states that when a deficiency is found, the breach of maintenance obligations will generally result in an order under section 30 of the Act.

33. Abatement of rent is a contractual remedy based on the principle that if a tenant is paying 100% of the rent then the Tenant should be getting 100% of what s/he is paying for and if the Tenant is not getting that, then a tenant should be entitled to an abatement equal to the difference in value.

34. In determining the amount to be ordered, I have to consider the period of time that the problem existed and the severity of the problem in terms of its impact on a tenant. The cases generally support the principle that, if the landlord responded within a reasonable time, and the response was appropriate to affect the repairs, only a small abatement or no abatement or other remedy should be ordered.

...

36. In the current case, I find that the Landlord failed to respond to the insufficient heat problem as soon as he became aware of it. I further find that the Landlord’s response was inappropriate and inadequate in the circumstances. The Tenant was complaining, sometimes on a daily basis, of insufficient heat during the winter months. Her emails, while for the most part cordial, did not mince words in her description of the problem and, at times, border on desperation and appear to be an outright plea for the Landlord’s help. As such, I find that the impact of the insufficient heat in the Tenant’s bedroom was significant as it occurred on an almost daily basis and throughout the traditionally coldest months of the year.

37. I am also satisfied based on the evidence presented that the heat problem was not unforeseen due to the fact that complex’s steam boiler broke down completely and required replacement less than three months after the Tenant’s initial complaint on September 18, 2014. Further, Landlord’s Exhibit L1, an invoice from the company that services the complex’s heating system states that, as at October 21, 2014, two radiators in the complex were still not functional.

38. After considering the duration of the disrepair, the impact on the Tenant on an almost daily basis and the Landlord’s untimely and, in the end, inadequate response, I find that a rent abatement is warranted in the circumstances. I am satisfied that the Tenant is entitled to an abatement of 50% of the rent for the period from September 18, 2014 to March 3, 2015 (166 days), which totals $1,909.83. I considered awarding a higher abatement amount for the traditionally colder months and a lower abatement amount for traditionally milder months, however, in the end, the abatement amount would average out to the awarded amount.

TET-88468-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113772 (ON LTB)

5. The Tenants stated the lack of heat was so extreme they attempted to heat the rental unit themselves with space heaters, but they were not as effective as the furnace. The Tenants submitted pictures of the thermostat reading 51 degrees on January 18, 2018 and 53 degrees on February 6, 2018 to verify the temperatures they were dealing with in the rental unit.

6. The Tenants provided text message communication between themselves and S., themselves and the second-named Landlord and themselves and the third-named Landlord.

7. The Tenants contacted S. on December 12, 2017 regarding the lack of heat, requesting it be fixed as soon as possible due to the temperature being unbearably cold. They had been without heat for two days at this point.

...

15. The Landlords failed to provide sufficient evidence that they dealt with the situation appropriately and their lack of action and pushing their responsibilities on to the other, interfered with the Tenants vital service of heat.

16. The Tenants’ application seeks only abatement of the rent. Abatement is the usual remedy in such circumstances and reflects the idea that if a tenant is paying rent for a bundle of goods and services and not receiving what they are paying for, then the rent should be abated in an amount proportional to the difference between what is being paid for and what is being received.

17. The Tenants requested an abatement of 100% of the rent charged for two months. Given my knowledge of similar applications and the intermittent heating I find this amount to be disproportional to the situation at hand. A more reasonable abatement is 50% for the period of December 12, 2017 to February 9, 2018, or the amount of $1,553.42.

NOT-07548-12 (Re), 2012 CanLII 36382 (ON LTB)

REASONS
Vital Service

1. From November 16, 2011 to November 21, 2011 the residential complex was without hydro due to the Landlord’s account issues with the local hydro authority.

2. The lack of hydro affected the heat and water supply to the residential complex.

3. The Tenants testified that the rental unit was inadequately heated throughout their tenancy, September 1, 2011 to February 29, 2012. The boiler (furnace) for the building was inoperable. The Landlord provided the Tenants with an electric heater for the kitchen and the Tenants took a heater from the hall for the living room. Because of lack of heat the Tenants were unable to regularly use both bedrooms during the winter months.

4. The use of the electric heaters caused the electric breakers to frequently close.

5. The Tenants testimony is supported by written letters from two previous tenants, DJD (Tenant Exhibit #1) and NS (Tenant Exhibit #9). Both these written statements confirm the lack of hydro in November and the lack of heat requiring the use of portable electric heaters.

6. The Landlord’s agents confirmed the November power outage. They testified that the other power outages were caused by the Tenants actions. They also accused the Tenants of increasing the hydro cost by turning on lights in an adjacent vacant apartment. They filed a written statement from MB (Landlord Exhibit #3) to support this statement.

7. SD testified there was heat from other sources. She filed a photograph of the bedroom showing the presence of a baseboard heater. No evidence was called by either party whether this baseboard heater was functioning adequately.

8. While the evidence of the parties is contradictory I am satisfied from the supporting statements of other tenants in the building that there was an inadequate supply of heat. The single written statement filed by the Landlord from another tenant (Landlord Exhibit #3) makes no reference to the adequacy of heat. This determination is not based on the written statements of the various members of the Tenants family regarding their personal observations about the lack of heat. I find the corroborative evidence of former tenants to be more reliable in this instance.

9. This determination is also supported by the fact that DS found it necessary to provide portable electric heaters to the Tenants to supplement the heat. It is unreasonable to provide general heat to an entire building with the use of portable heaters which could overload the electrical system.

10. The Tenants are entitled to a 100% abatement of rent due to lack of hydro/heat/water for at least five days in the amount of $119.20 (($23.84/day X 5 = $119.20).

11. The Tenants are also entitled to an abatement of rent of $995.32 for lack of consistent and adequate heat supply and the loss of regular use of one bedroom from September 15, 2011 to February 29, 2012 based on 25% of the monthly rent (25% $23.84/day = $5.96 x 167 days = $995.32). This percentage is based on the impact of the lack of heat during this period and the loss of use of a portion of the rental unit.

12. The total rent abatement owing to the Tenants is $1,114.52. Tenants testified that they reduced the rent paid for the month of December by $175.00 to compensate for the inconvenience of the power outage. The Tenants are therefore entitled to the net sum of $939.52.

EAT-18690-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 91047 (ON LTB)

8. The heating and cooling system in the entire complex, which includes the rental complex, the fitness facilities and the meeting rooms etc., are controlled through a boiler system that moves hot or cold water depending on the time of year. Testimony shows that the system is old and is being upgraded by the Landlord. The Landlord has hired companies to determine the problem however, the problems with the system persist. A valve has been replaced although it did not solve the problem. The pipes that distribute the water through the system are currently being examined to find the leaks. Thus far there have been several leaks discovered and it is expected more will be located. As a result, there are air blocks in the system causing the water to not circulate properly. The Landlord has replaced approximately 30 motors for the fans that blow the hot and cool air in residents units.

9. Based on these problems with the heating and cooling system, I find the Tenants’ credible when they testify that there have been several occasions when the heat to the rental units has not been at the level required in the City of Ottawa. I also accept the testimony that there has been extreme heat in the 10 foot by 14 foot rooms that have little ventilation and that the heat lasted for more than a month in May 2011. As a result, I find the Landlord has failed to provide adequate heating and cooling due to the problems with the motors and the water circulation system. This has substantially interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment. As well, although (RW), the new Director, Facility and Maintenance, who was hired in May of this year, is actively taking the necessary steps to address these problems, I find the problem has persisted beyond what would be considered a reasonable period of time. Therefore the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to repair the heating and cooling system and has failed to comply with maintenance standards. Based the problems with the heating and cooling system, I accept the Tenants’ testimony that the rental units were excessively hot for approximately one month this year. I also find it probable there were a number of days when the heat in the rental units was less than the level required by the City of Ottawa by-law. Based on testimony I find the number of days to be equal to 3 weeks. One week while the system was being bled on a number of occasions to allow the water to flow properly, and another 2 weeks while the motors were not working properly of the system was not functioning properly. Considering these determinations, I find a further 25% abatement of rent for the 50 days where there was inadequate or excessive heat in the rental units to be appropriate.

TST-62285-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 39764 (ON LTB)

36. In the end, I am left with the Tenants’ affirmed and uncontradicted evidence that their unit had insufficient heat from early December 2014 to late February 2015 and I must accept their evidence as true: Maldonado v. M.E.I., [1980] 2 F.C 302 (C.A.) at 305.

37. The Tenants did not provide dates or timelines when the heating was insufficient, or a log of temperature readings in the unit. Their evidence is that the temperature was “below 20 degrees Celsius during the winter”. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I am satisfied that there was insufficient heat in the Tenants’ rental unit for some time during the winter of 2014/2015. I therefore find that the Landlord’s breach in this regard interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the unit.

38. However, it would have been helpful if the Tenants had provided temperature logs or the dates, number of times and for how long the temperature was below 21 degrees. In the absence of such specific evidence, the impact of the issue on the Tenants and the Landlord’s failure to take reasonable and timely steps to address and resolve this problem, I am satisfied that the Tenants are entitled to an abatement of 15% of the rent for the period from December 15, 2014 to February 20, 2015 (67 days), which totals $264.33.

TST-02920 (Re), 2009 CanLII 79960 (ON LTB)

2. The boiler for the residential complex has malfunctioned in recent years and was fixed on those occasions. In the summer of 2009, the Landlord did boiler maintenance and found the boiler to be functioning normally. On September 15, 2009, the Landlord turned on the heat and the boiler failed. The whole residential complex was without heat. On October 7, 2009 the Landlord notified tenants that the Landlord was trying to repair the heating system and offered tenants one space heater each. On October 15, 2009, the City of Toronto issued a work order requiring the Landlord to repair the boiler and cease using space heaters by November 3, 2009. On October 21, 2009, the Landlord informed the Tenants that the boiler could not be repaired and would have to be replaced. Prior to that (October 19, 2009) the Landlord requested an extension of the deadline to comply with the work order to December 31, 2009. The request was denied. At the time of the hearing the Landlord had almost completed preparatory work for the installation of a new boiler. I directed that the work be completed by November 22, 2009.

It is ordered that:

2. The Landlord shall install a new boiler to provide heat to the rental unit by November 22, 2009.

3. If the Landlord does not do the by November 22, 2009, the Tenant is authorized to deduct 40 percent of her rent from the monthly rent until the work is done.

TST-95660-18 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87814 (ON LTB)

22. The Tenants testified that in December 2017 they noticed certain rooms in the rental unit were very cold. These rooms all have an outside wall. The Tenants testified that they reported insufficient heat to the Landlord on January 19, 2018 and that the Landlord did nothing about the problem. The Tenants testified that they believe there is insufficient insulation in the outside walls of the affected rooms. To address the issue, the Tenants set the thermostat at a higher temperature, which caused the other rooms in the rental unit to get very hot, then blocked off vents to the rooms that get very hot, in an effort to divert the hot air to the cold rooms.

23. The Tenants submitted a copy of a chart showing temperature readings in the rental unit in December 2017.

24. The Landlord testified that when he renovated the house he was not able to put as much insulation in the outside walls as he wanted to. The Landlord testified that he was notified about the issue of insufficient heat on February 18, 2018.

25. Both parties submitted multiple e-mails and text messages regarding all of the issues in this application. The Tenants submitted no e-mails or text messages complaining about heat in January 2018, although there is a text message dated January 19, 2018 complaining about mice. The only written communication about the heat issue provided by the Tenants is a copy of an e-mail sent to the Landlord on February 19, 2018. The way the issue is worded in this e-mail suggests that it is the first time the Tenants have raised the issue with the Landlord.

26. Based on the Tenants’ lack of written correspondence about this issue from January 2018, and based on the e-mail dated February 19, 2018, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Tenants reported this issue to the Landlord on February 19, 2018.

27. The Landlord testified that he contacted HVAC contractors when the Tenants complained about heat and that the contractors attended the rental unit on February 27, 2018. At the hearing the Landlord submitted copies of invoices from two contractors, both with respect to work done on February 27, 2018. One invoice is from a furnace specialist, who indicated on the invoice that the system is working and the problem of insufficient heat is caused by the blocking of vents. The other invoice is from a heating and air conditioning contractor, who indicated on the invoice that the heat problem is caused by the blocking of vents.

28. The Landlord’s documentary evidence of inspections on February 27, 2018 contradicts the Tenants’ testimony that the Landlord did nothing about the issue. As the Landlord’s testimony about these inspections is supported by documentary evidence from uninterested third parties, I give more weight to the Landlord’s evidence on this issue. Accordingly, I find on a balance of probabilities that the Landlord responded to the issue in a timely manner. Further, based on the Landlord’s evidence, I find that the problem was caused by the Tenants blocking vents in the rental unit.

29. Applying Onyskiw, I cannot find that the Landlord breached s.20 of the Act with respect to the heat issue. The problem was caused by the Tenants’ conduct. The Landlord responded in a timely and appropriate manner.

NOT-20798-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 79117 (ON LTB)

5. The Tenant testified the room was heated by one hot water radiator which he told the Landlord was not working from his first winter in the unit. The Tenant provided additional heat by using a borrowed electric heater. The Landlord testified she recalls a complaint about the heat and she took steps to turn it up. When no further complaints were received she believed the issue was resolved. The Landlord did not investigate if the radiator was functioning properly at any time during the tenancy. She testified she observed the Tenant had put stuff in front of the radiator and she believes this restricted the heat flow.

6. A photograph of the radiator shows significant rust and other discharge around the radiator valve.

7. The Tenant also provided photographs of the “metal” shower enclosure, shared by three tenants, which shows serious rust deterioration in the lower half and it is clearly in extremely bad condition. The Landlord stated only that she received no complaints about the shower.

8. The Tenant testified there was a fan/light in the ceiling which was not working. He advised the Landlord who provided a new fan fixture. The Tenant was prepared to install it but need the power turned off. The Landlord stated she could not get the power off and the installation was left uncompleted. The Tenant stated he used a small table lamp for light which was inadequate. The Landlord stated she made one attempt to install it but the Tenant’s stuff was in the way. Apparently she asked another tenant to install the fixture but did not explain how he was to do this if the power could not be disconnected. The Landlord did not follow up to ensure the installation was done. The Landlord commented the Tenant had additional light from an outside street light which is a totally inadequate response.

9. Therefore, I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to repair and maintain the rental unit with respect to the following items: malfunctioning stove, poor condition of shower stall, lack of overhead lighting, and lack of adequate heat.

10. The Tenant is entitled to rent abatement in the amount of $729.00. This is based on 15% of the monthly rent of $405.00 for a period of 12 months. The reduced % takes into consideration that the issue with the heat would not be present for the full year.

TST-81983-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 60131 (ON LTB)

14. Based on the Tenant’s uncontested evidence, I find that 75% of the rental unit had no power between December 15 and 17, 2016. I also find that between December 18 and 21, 2016, there was no power in the den and 3 of the 5 outlets in the living room had no power. I further find that between December 22, 2016 and March 13, 2016, several outlets in the living room did not work and both outlets in the den did not work.

15. The Landlords did not attend the hearing to explain why the electricity was not fully restored to the rental unit on December 15, 2016, once the Tenants advised them there had been a power outage in the unit. Without this explanation, I find that the Landlords’ prolonged and incomplete response to the electrical problems in the rental unit was unreasonable. Therefore, I find that the Landlords substantially interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit between December 15, 2016 and March 13, 2016 (when the tenancy terminated, as discussed below) by failing to supply electricity to the entire rental unit. I also find that by failing to supply electricity to the entire unit, the Landlord withheld a vital service. Section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the “Act”) defines a vital service to include electricity.

16. I further find that the Landlords substantially interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit when the Landlords’ electrician stepped on the Tenants’ comforter with his dirty boots, making it necessary for the Tenants to incur the cost of dry-cleaning the comforter. When the electrician did this he was acting as agent for the Landlords with respect to repairing the electricity in the rental unit on their behalf. Therefore, the Landlords are responsible for any damage the electrician caused to the Tenants’ property in the course of doing these repairs.

Remedies granted

17. For the period December 15 – 17, 2016, the Landlords shall pay the Tenants an abatement of rent in the amount of $170.15. This amount represents 75% of the rent the Tenants paid for this period and it is based on a per diem rent is $75.62. This abatement is meant to compensate the Tenants for the 75% of the rental unit they were unable to properly and fully use during this period.

18. For the period December 18 – 21, 2016, the Landlords shall pay the Tenants an abatement of rent in the amount of $45.37. This represents 15% of the per diem rent the Tenants paid for this period. Based on the Tenants’ evidence, it seems that there were 7 rooms in the rental unit. During this period, there was no electricity supplied to the den, which is 1 of the 7 rooms in the rental unit. There was also no power to 3 outlets in the living room. Therefore, appropriately 15% of the rental unit was still without power and the Tenants could not use this space fully and properly.

19. For the period December 22, 2016 – March 13, 2017 (approximately 3 months), the Landlords shall pay the Tenants an abatement of rent in the amount of $450.00 (or $150.00 per month). This amount represents the five outlets that did not work in the rental unit during this period. YC testified that prior to the power outage she used the den as her home office. During this period, YC would not have been able to fully and properly use the den for this purpose. The Landlords either knew or ought to have known that there were outstanding electrical issues in the rental unit after December 21, 2016. The Landlords’ electrician was in the rental unit as late as December 21, 2016 for the purpose of restoring power to the rental unit and he should have ensured that all of the electrical problems in the unit were fixed.

20. The Landlords shall pay the Tenants $45.19 for the reasonable out-of-pocket expense the Tenants incurred to dry-clean their comforter. The Tenants incurred this cost as a direct result of the actions of the Landlords’ electrician who was acting as the Landlords’ agent at the time.

21. The tenancy is terminated March 13, 2017. The Tenants provided the Landlords notice of termination on January 13, 2017 with a termination date of March 13, 2017. This was a fixed-term tenancy. Therefore, I find that the notice the Tenants provided the Landlords did not comply with section 47 and 44 of the Act. According to these provisions the Tenants were required to give the Landlords at least 60 days’ notice with a termination date that was effective on the last day of the term. However, in the circumstances, I find it appropriate to order that the tenancy is terminated early. After December 21, 2017, the Landlords took no further action to complete the electrical repairs in the rental unit. The Landlords also cancelled electrical repairs that were underway in the rental unit on December 21st and did not arrange for anyone to attend the unit again to complete them. This represented a fundamental breach of the tenancy agreement and of the Landlords’ maintenance obligations that justifies termination of the tenancy.

22. Since the tenancy is terminated March 13, 2017, the Landlords shall pay the Tenants $1,285.54, representing the per diem rent for the period March 14 – 31, 2017. The Tenants paid rent for this period but they are not responsible for paying rent after the tenancy terminated.

23. The Tenants claimed $608.34 in moving and storage expenses they incurred to move out of the rental unit. The Landlords shall pay the Tenants this amount, which represents the Tenants’ reasonable out-of-pocket expenses they incurred as a result of the Landlords’ unreasonable response to the electrical problems in the rental unit and having to terminate the tenancy early.

TNT-15108-19 (Re), 2020 CanLII 31149 (ON LTB)

11. The Tenants proved that the Landlord did not provide a functioning heating system from November 15, 2018 to October 7, 2019, when the Landlord had a new natural gas-fired furnace installed in the rental unit.

12. The Landlord did not dispute JB’s evidence that the primary source of heat at the rental unit was an oil-fired furnace. The Landlord also did not dispute JB’s evidence that the oil tank had been deemed unsafe, and that the oil-fired furnace was accordingly unusable from the time the tenancy began.

13. Because the furnace at the rental unit was unusable, the Tenants relied on a wood stove and portable electric space heaters for heat. The Tenants purchased firewood to heat the property, and electric blankets to supplement the portable heaters. JB requested an order requiring the Landlord to pay a 100 percent abatement of rent for the period November 2018 to April 2019, because of the lack of heat.

16. Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, I conclude that the Landlord failed to maintain and/or repair the backyard deck railing, master bedroom and children’s bedroom ceilings and the rental property’s primary source of heat.

17. At the hearing, the Tenant JB requested a 100 percent abatement of rent for the period November 2018 to April 2019, because of the lack of heat. The Landlord submitted that a 60 percent abatement of rent is appropriate.

18. I agree with the Landlord’s submission that a 100 percent abatement of rent is not appropriate under the circumstances. Although the Tenants and their children endured cold temperatures inside the property, they were nevertheless able to occupy the property.

19. However, the supply of heat during the winter is vital. The Tenants were unable to adequately heat the property, because of the Landlord’s failure to maintain and repair the oil furnace. JB gave evidence that the lack of heat had a substantial effect on the Tenants’ use and enjoyment of the property.

20. Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, I find it is appropriate to order the Landlord to pay to the Tenants a 66 percent abatement of rent for the six-month period November 2018 to April 2019. This amount is commensurate with the reduced use and enjoyment of the property the Tenants’ household endured from the lack of adequate heat.

21. The Tenants’ monthly rent in November 2018 and December 2018 was $3,000.00. The Landlord reduced the rent to $2,500.00 on December 28, 2018. The total abatement of rent the Landlord shall pay to the Tenants for failing to maintain and repair the property’s heating system, is therefore $10,560.00.

22. The Tenant JB also requested an order requiring the Landlord to pay a 60 percent abatement of rent, because the Landlord failed to repair the bedroom ceilings.

23. The Tenants’ photographs show that the damage to the ceilings was cosmetic. Despite evidence of the amount of plaster that fell in the children’s room, the damage to the ceiling did not reasonably interfere with a person’s ability to use the bedroom for all usual purposes.

24. However, the Landlord did not address the ceiling issues within a reasonable period of time, as the Act requires. Despite knowing of some ceiling damage in March 2019, the Landlord did not begin repairs until Jul 2019. I therefore find that it is appropriate to order the Landlord to pay to the Tenants a lump-sum abatement of $200.00 for having failed to repair the bedroom ceilings.

25. The total abatement of rent the Landlord shall pay to the Tenants, is $10,760.00.

TET-34336-13 (Re), 2013 CanLII 52486 (ON LTB)

1. The main issue in this application was over the provision of heat in the rental unit. The Landlord lives in a rear portion of the home while the Tenants lived in the front portion.

5. The Tenants were able to produce copies of texts between the parties in which the Landlord clearly says that she will go and get more oil for the furnace when that oil runs out. The landlord was buying the oil in very small quantities to save on costs.

6. The Tenants were also able to show pictures of the thermostat in the rental unit that clearly showed the current temperature at 60 degrees (f) when they were calling for 72 degrees.

7. This is totally unacceptable and while the Landlord can treat herself and her family in this manner she is not allowed by law to treat tenants in the same manner.

8. Therefore, I find that on the balance of probabilities the Landlord withheld a reasonable supply of a vital service that the Landlord was obligated to supply under the tenancy agreement for the months of January and February of 2013.

9. I also find that the Tenants moved out of the rental unit because of the Landlord's actions.

10. I have awarded the Tenants a 25% rental abatement for the month’s of January and February 2013. This is 2 x 25% x $900 = $450.00. I have also awarded $200.00 in moving costs as this amount seems reasonable in the circumstances.

TST-90479-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 123424 (ON LTB)

17. CG testified that on November 10, 2017 it got cold in the rental unit and when the Tenants tried to turn the heat on the radiator did not make heat. CG testified that she notified the Landlords immediately and that they did not repair the heat at any time during the remainder of the tenancy.

18. CG did not submit any temperature readings in the unit from November 10 to 30, 2017.

19. CG testified that as a result of the insufficient heat, she had a flu and a fever from November 10, 2017 to November 30, 2017. CG did not submit any medical documents to support her testimony. Based on CG’s lack of medical evidence to support that she had a fever and flu for 20 days, I am not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that she had a fever and flu for such an extended period. CG testified that she and the other Tenant were constantly cold from November 10, 2017 to November 30, 2017 and that they had to bundle up with sweaters. CG gave no evidence about any steps she or the other Tenant took to minimize the effect of the insufficient heat (eg., getting space heaters).

20. Based on CG’s uncontested testimony, I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the Landlords breached their maintenance obligations under s.20 of the Act with respect to insufficient heat in the unit.

21. After considering the duration of this problem, the impact on the Tenants’ enjoyment and use of the rental unit, and the lack of evidence about the Tenants’ efforts to minimize their own losses, I find that the Tenants are entitled to a rent abatement of 10% per month for the period of November 10, 2017 to November 30, 2017, for a total of $137.74.

TST-09398-19 (Re), 2020 CanLII 31320 (ON LTB)

9. The Tenant also proved that the rental unit’s heating system did not function properly. Based on the Tenant’s uncontested testimony, I find that the Tenant had complained to the Landlord about the rental unit’s heating system as of November 2011. The Landlord agreed that there was a problem with heating systems throughout the residential complex in 2011. The Tenant KH testified that the Landlord repaired the rental unit’s heating system in December 2012.

10. Because of the above maintenance and repair defects, I find that it is appropriate to order the Landlord to pay an abatement of rent to the Tenant.

12. The only issue raised in the T2 application is insufficient heat.

13. The thermostat for the residential complex is in another tenant’s unit.

14. The Tenant testified that she first complained to the Landlord about insufficient heat in April 2015 and that she and the Landlord assumed that it was an issue with the furnace. The Tenant and the Landlord worked together to have the furnace inspected by an HVAC technician.

15. In the summer of 2018, the Landlord installed shutters in the furnace room which control how much air goes from the furnace to each of the Tenant’s and the other tenant’s units. The Tenant testified that this did not solve the problem of insufficient heat and that in the colder months she has insufficient heat about 25% to 30% of the time. The Tenant submitted a photograph of a temperature reading she did in the rental unit in October 2019 showing a temperature of 16 degrees Celsius.

16. The Landlord has had the furnace serviced by an HVAC technician multiple times in 2018 and 2019 in response to the Tenant’s reports of inadequate heat.

17. It is clear from copies of e-mails and text messages submitted by the parties that in addition to having the furnace serviced frequently, the Landlord had the other resident investigate the issue but this did not resolve it. The Tenant testified that she believes the other tenant is causing the problem by shutting the shutter that controls heat to her unit.

28. Based on the Tenant’s largely uncontested evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the rental unit gets insufficient heat in the colder months about 25% of the time and that the Landlord has been aware of this issue for several years. Further, based on the Tenant’s largely uncontested evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the Landlord has not investigated the issue sufficiently. After the HVAC technician eliminated the possibility that the furnace itself was the problem, it was not sufficient to delegate the investigation of this issue to the tenant with whom the Tenant is in conflict about this issue.

29. I therefore find that the Landlord has substantially interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the premises.

30. Based on the nature and duration of the heat issue and its impact on the Tenant’s use of the unit, I find that the Tenant is entitled to a 12.5% rent abatement for the periods of September 1, 2018 to June 15, 2019 and from September 1, 2019 to the date of this order. Heat is a vital service which must be provided from September 1 of each year to June 15 of the following year (as per the definition of “vital service” in the Act). The Tenant is entitled to a 50% rent abatement for the times that she did not have adequate heat, which she testified was 25% to 30% of the time. The total rent abatement to be ordered for insufficient heat is $1,716.62.

TST-34695-12 (Re), 2015 CanLII 9137 (ON LTB)

9. The Tenant also proved that the rental unit’s heating system did not function properly. Based on the Tenant’s uncontested testimony, I find that the Tenant had complained to the Landlord about the rental unit’s heating system as of November 2011. The Landlord agreed that there was a problem with heating systems throughout the residential complex in 2011. The Tenant KH testified that the Landlord repaired the rental unit’s heating system in December 2012.

10. Because of the above maintenance and repair defects, I find that it is appropriate to order the Landlord to pay an abatement of rent to the Tenant.

11. The Tenant testified that the repair defects were unsightly, and caused embarrassment. However, the Tenant was able to use the rental unit, and its services and facilities, as intended, and for all usual purposes. Although the Tenant continued to complain about low heat at the rental unit after December 2012, it is apparent that the cause is the rental unit’s inefficient windows, and not any defect in the rental unit’s, or residential complex’s, heating system. Having failed to prove interior temperatures at the rental unit, or that the Landlord is required to install high efficiency windows, the Tenant KH failed to prove an ongoing interference with the supply of heat, or an ongoing maintenance or repair problem related to heat.

14. Because the Landlord is required by the City of Toronto to provide heat by way of properly functioning, permanent heating systems from September 15 to June 1 of the following year, I find that it is also appropriate to order the Landlord to pay the Tenant a 15 percent abatement of rent for the period November 2011 to June 2012, and the period September 2012 to December 2012, or $153.00.

TNT-12021-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 134277 (ON LTB)

25. NV said that the Tenants noticed a problem with the furnace, heat and air conditioning, on May 15, 2018. He said that the Tenants notified the Landlord right away.

26. NV said that the Landlord told the Tenants to play with the switches, but NV said that did not work. He also said that the Tenants had no heat at all, nor air conditioning after May 15, 2018. He said that they bought four portable space heaters.

27. NV said that it was almost impossible to comfortably live in the house after that time because the circuits were constantly shorting out because of the space heaters.

42. It was the uncontested evidence of the Tenants that the furnace ceased working as of May 15, 2018, and the Landlord failed to repair the problem despite repeated requests and messages from the Tenants.

43. The Tenants were forced to purchase space heaters because the Landlord did not provide a source of heat.

44. Heat is considered a vital service that the Landlord is obligated to provide under the Act.

45. Therefore, the Landlord breached his duty to provide the vital service of heat to the rental unit.

46. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Landlord withheld a reasonable supply of a vital service, care service, or food that the Landlord was obligated to supply under the tenancy agreement or deliberately interfered with the reasonable supply of vital service, care service, or food. This lasted for a period of six and a half months (mid-May, 2018, to the end of November, 2018).

47. The Tenants are entitled to a rent abatement for the period of six and a half months without a working furnace.

48. It was the uncontested evidence of the Tenants that there were problems with flooding and sewage back up in the laundry room and basement bathroom, as well as mould buildup in the basement, and an overheated fridge panel. This evidence was corroborated by the City by law inspector, who supported his conclusions with photographic evidence.

49. Failing to investigate or repair after communications from the Tenants about flooding, sewage back up, an overheated fridge, a laundry room flood, a broken washing machine, and mould constitutes a breach of subsection 20(1) of the Act. The Landlord has failed to maintain the rental unit or the residential complex in a good state of repair and fit for habitation, complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.

50. It is before me to decide what amount of rent abatement is appropriate for the heating problems, as well as the maintenance problems.

51. The Tenants informed the Landlord about the heating problem in May, 2018. They informed the Landlord about the laundry room leakage, and the inability to use the washing machine on March 21, 2018. However, on the basis of the Tenants’ own testimony, the Landlord was not informed about the mould, the sewage back up in the basement bathroom or the fridge until the end of September, 2018.

52. I find that for the months of October and November, 2018, the Tenants suffered a loss of enjoyment of their rental unit as a result of all the maintenance issues, and the heating, so they are entitled to a rent abatement of 50% for two months, or $2,500.00 (50% X $2,500.00 X 2).

53. The Tenants suffered a loss of enjoyment of their unit as a result of the withholding of heat or air conditioning for four and a half months prior to October, 2018. They suffered a loss of enjoyment of their rental unit as a result of the loss of the washing machine and laundry room throughout that same four and a half months prior to October, 2018. Lack of heat is a serious issue, as is the loss of a usable laundry room and washing machine. The Tenants are entitled to a 25% rent abatement for that extra four and a half months prior to October, 2018, or $2,812.50 (25% X $2,500.00 X 4.5). The Tenants are entitled to a further 5% for the one month extra (April, 2018) they suffered loss of enjoyment of the rental unit because of the problems with the laundry room and washing machine, or $125.00 (5% X $2,500.00 X 1)

TET-11347-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 23776 (ON LTB)

4. According to the Tenant, he first notified the Landlord about the heating issue on December 31, 2010 by telephone text message. The Tenant then spoke to the Landlord about the problem on January 2, 1011 by telephone. During this conversation the Landlord informed the Tenant that he could not afford to turn on the heat. According to the Tenant, he was without any heat from January 1, 2011 to January 11, 2011 when police finally intervened following a complaint by the Tenant. Similarly, the Tenant testified that he was without hot water from January 5, 2011 until January 11, 2011 inclusive.

5. Although heat and hot water were restored effective January 12, 2011, the Tenant testified that from January 12, 2011 to January 20, 2011, the Landlord would turn off the heat to the rental unit from approximately 11 pm until 7 am.

6. According to the Tenant, the Landlord stopped interfering with the heat beginning January 21, 2011 after the Tenant filed his applications with the Board.

...

Determinations:

1. I find that the Landlord harassed and threatened the Tenant. Furthermore, I find that the Landlord substantially interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit.

2. I find that the Landlord deliberately interfered with the supply of vital services to the rental unit.

...

It is ordered that:

....

4. The Landlord shall pay to the Tenant $500.00. This amount corresponds to a 100% rent rebate for the month of January 2011 due to the Landlord’s harassing behaviour and due to the lack of vital services for an extended period of time during the heart of winter.

5. Furthermore, as the tenancy is terminated effective January 29, 2011, the last month’s rent deposit of $200.00 shall be returned to the Tenant in view of the 100% rent abatement granted to the Tenant under paragraph 4 of this order.