Reasonable Repair Time (LTB): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Category:Maintenance Obligations (LTB) ==Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd., 2016 ONCA 477== [1] This appeal concerns the interpretation of s. 20(1) of the Resident...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
::20. (1) 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.[1] | ::20. (1) 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.[1] | ||
[2] The appellant tenants submit that the respondent CJM Property Management Ltd. (the “landlord”) failed to comply with its duties to provide and maintain under s. 20 because the elevator that services their building was out of service for 96 days in one year. They submit that the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) erred in denying their application for an abatement of rent. The Board found that the landlord had at all times acted reasonably in having a program of preventive maintenance for the elevator, in repairing it when it broke down and in installing a new elevator. The Divisional Court dismissed the tenants’ appeal. Leave to appeal to this court was granted on October 5, 2015. | [2] The appellant tenants submit that the respondent CJM Property Management Ltd. (the “landlord”) failed to comply with its duties to provide and maintain under s. 20 because the elevator that services their building was out of service for 96 days in one year. They submit that the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) erred in denying their application for an abatement of rent. <b><u>The Board found that the landlord had at all times acted reasonably in having a program of preventive maintenance for the elevator, in repairing it when it broke down and in installing a new elevator.</b></u> The Divisional Court dismissed the tenants’ appeal. Leave to appeal to this court was granted on October 5, 2015. | ||
[3] The Divisional Court did not err in selecting or applying the reasonableness standard of review. For the reasons that follow, I agree with the Divisional Court that the Board’s decision was reasonable, and I would dismiss the appeal. | [3] The Divisional Court did not err in selecting or applying the reasonableness standard of review. For the reasons that follow, <b><u>I agree with the Divisional Court that the Board’s decision was reasonable, and I would dismiss the appeal.</b></u> | ||
<ref name="Onyskiw">Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd., 2016 ONCA 477 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/h32gb>, retrieved on 2021-01-08</ref> | <ref name="Onyskiw">Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd., 2016 ONCA 477 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/h32gb>, retrieved on 2021-01-08</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== |
Revision as of 19:25, 8 January 2021
Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd., 2016 ONCA 477
[1] This appeal concerns the interpretation of s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (“RTA”) which provides as follows:
- 20. (1) 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.[1]
[2] The appellant tenants submit that the respondent CJM Property Management Ltd. (the “landlord”) failed to comply with its duties to provide and maintain under s. 20 because the elevator that services their building was out of service for 96 days in one year. They submit that the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) erred in denying their application for an abatement of rent. The Board found that the landlord had at all times acted reasonably in having a program of preventive maintenance for the elevator, in repairing it when it broke down and in installing a new elevator. The Divisional Court dismissed the tenants’ appeal. Leave to appeal to this court was granted on October 5, 2015.
[3] The Divisional Court did not err in selecting or applying the reasonableness standard of review. For the reasons that follow, I agree with the Divisional Court that the Board’s decision was reasonable, and I would dismiss the appeal.
References
- ↑ Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd., 2016 ONCA 477 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/h32gb>, retrieved on 2021-01-08