Repair of Damage (Tenant): Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
VisualWikitext
Line 43: Line 43:


<ref name="TET-62956-15">TET-62956-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 38292 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/gs7w5>, retrieved on 2020-09-13</ref>
<ref name="TET-62956-15">TET-62956-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 38292 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/gs7w5>, retrieved on 2020-09-13</ref>
==Guay v Joubert, 2016 ONSC 6034 (CanLII)==
[1] On March 23, 2015, the plaintiff’s building, occupied by the defendants as tenants, was destroyed by fire.  This simplified rules action is a subrogated claim brought in the name of plaintiff by his insurer.  The insurer alleges that the fire was caused by the negligence of the defendant Joubert.  Since Mr. Joubert is bankrupt, the insurer seeks damages from Ms. Antonson as cotenant pursuant to s. 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 17.
[4] By affidavit, a fire investigator retained by the plaintiff’s insurer deposed that <b><u>“the most likely cause of the fire was Mr. Joubert’s discarding of a cigarette.  Indeed, the only source of ignition in the area of origin of the fire would have been a cigarette which missed the pail and fell back between the deck and home”.</b></u>  That opinion was based on the assumption that approximately four hours prior to the fire Mr. Joubert was smoking a cigarette on the deck and that Mr. Joubert placed his cigarette in a 5 gallon plastic pail which he used as an ashtray.  The inference is that Mr. Joubert missed when he placed the cigarette in the pail. The fire investigator took photographs of the pail which showed only the bottom remaining.  The investigator also stated that another potential cause of the fire, a faulty light alleged by the defendants, “did not exhibit any evidence of having been a point of origin or cause of the fire”.
<ref name="Guay"Guay v Joubert, 2016 ONSC 6034 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gv9pq>, retrieved on 2020-09-13</ref>


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 01:41, 14 September 2020


S.O. 2006, C. 17 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17

Tenant’s responsibility for repair of damage

34 The tenant is responsible for the repair of undue damage to the rental unit or residential complex caused by the wilful or negligent conduct of the tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted in the residential complex by the tenant. 2006, c. 17, s. 34.

[1]


Hou v. Buchanan, 2018 ONSC 2087 (CanLII)[2]

[12] As per ss. 3(1), the RTA applies to rental units in residential complexes. In the RTA, the use of the word “tenant” is singular. The Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.11 (“IA”) assists with the issue of singular versus plural. Subsection 28(j) of the IA states:

Words importing the singular number or the masculine gender only include more persons, parties or things of the same kind than one, and females as well as males and the converse.

[13] Clause 27 of the Lease contains a similar provision regarding gender and interpretation. It states as follows:

This Lease shall me read with all changes of gender or number required by the context. Any reference in this lease to the Tenant Protection Act means the Tenant Protection Act, as amended, and any legislation that replaces it.

[14] Consequently, read in context, the word “Tenant” in the Lease includes all 5 individuals: Buchanan, Brideau, Ryan, Musa and MacDonald. As a result, as per s. 34 of the RTA, and more particularly, Clauses 3 and 13(d) of the Lease, if it is determined that the “Tenant” is responsible for the cost to repair the Property, all 5 individuals listed as the “Tenant” in the Lease are responsible.

[2]


NOL-00391-09 (Re), 2009 CanLII 78440 (ON LTB)[3]

10. Because the Tenant failed to report the leaking taps to the Landlord, I determine that the Tenant owes $2,157.78 for excessive water consumption costs. This amount is calculated by reducing the $2,441.46 total for the two excessively high bills by $283.68* (*represents the total water consumption cost ($141.84 x 2) that would likely have been incurred if the leaking taps had been repaired).

[3]

TET-62956-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 38292 (ON LTB)[4]

9. Third, pursuant to s. 34 of the Act a tenant is responsible for wilful or negligent damage to the rental unit or residential complex caused by the tenant or a guest of the tenant’s. This does not mean that the landlord is not responsible for fixing the disrepair; but section 34 means no monetary remedy will flow to a tenant where the disrepair is a result of the tenant’s own negligent or wilful actions.

10. Fourth, because of s. 16 of the Act a tenant is expected to cooperate reasonably with a landlord’s efforts to do repairs. If a tenant does not, then that may reduce any remedy ordered or disentitle the tenant to any remedy at all.

11. So the task of the Board on a disrepair application is to apply these principles to each of the disrepair problems alleged by the tenant.

[4]

References

  1. ↑ S.O. 2006, C. 17 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17#BK41>, retrieved September 12, 2020
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Hou v. Buchanan, 2018 ONSC 2087 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hr90n>, retrieved on 2020-09-13
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 NOL-00391-09 (Re), 2009 CanLII 78440 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/285tf>, retrieved on 2020-09-13
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 TET-62956-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 38292 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/gs7w5>, retrieved on 2020-09-13
Retrieved from "https://riverview.legal/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Repair_of_Damage_(Tenant)&oldid=9347"