Breach of Contract (LTB): Difference between revisions
m (→References) |
|||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
<ref name="Offredi">Offredi v. 751768 Ontario Ltd., 1994 CanLII 11006 (ON SCDC), <https://canlii.ca/t/gct27>, retrieved on 2024-08-02</ref> | <ref name="Offredi">Offredi v. 751768 Ontario Ltd., 1994 CanLII 11006 (ON SCDC), <https://canlii.ca/t/gct27>, retrieved on 2024-08-02</ref> | ||
==TST-68104-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88326 (ON LTB)== | |||
<ref name="TST-68104-15">TST-68104-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88326 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/gw52d>, retrieved on 2024-08-02</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== |
Revision as of 01:14, 3 August 2024
Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
---|---|
Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-23 |
CLNP Page ID: | 2399 |
Page Categories: | |
Citation: | Breach of Contract (LTB), CLNP 2399, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-23 |
Editor: | Sharvey |
Last Updated: | 2024/08/03 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today
TET-89788-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113779 (ON LTB)
35. When a tenancy agreement includes a service like free laundry it is a breach of the Act for a landlord to simply cease to provide the service. Most tenants file a T3 application alleging discontinuance of a service or a facility. Sometimes the discontinuance is retaliatory and done deliberately to upset a tenant in which case it is a breach of s. 23 of the Act. But fundamentally, regardless of what type of application a tenant files, the failure to provide a service like laundry that is included in a tenancy agreement is a substantial interference with the rights of a tenant. It is a contractual right granted to the tenant and is treated like a breach of contract.
36. So I am satisfied that when the Landlord cut off laundry access to the Tenant he breached section 22 of the Act.
TET-92081-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113788 (ON LTB)[2]
38. In contract law, an unforeseeable unusual harm suffered by a plaintiff due to that person’s particular vulnerabilities will not be compensable in breach of contract unless the other party had prior knowledge of the person’s particular sensitivity. (See: Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., [2008] 2 SCR 114, 2008 SCC 27 (CanLII).[3])
TST-62276-15-RV (Re), 2015 CanLII 75859 (ON LTB)[4]
21. The Landlord’s maintenance obligations and the irrelevance of fault have been referred to by the Divisional Court in Offredi v. 751768 Ontario Ltd 1994 CanLII 11006 (ON SCDC), [1994] O.J. No. 1204.[5] In that case the Divisional Court held: “The question of fault on the landlord’s part is not the issue... What the tenants claim is a breach of contract. The tenants were paying full rent for premises which the landlord was under an obligation… to keep in a good state of repair and fit for habitation. The landlord failed to do that. That is the basis for the claim for an abatement …”
TST-68104-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88326 (ON LTB)
References
- ↑ TET-89788-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113779 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/hwbfv>, retrieved on 2024-08-02
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 TET-92081-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113788 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/hwbgm>, retrieved on 2024-08-02
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27 (CanLII), [2008] 2 SCR 114, <https://canlii.ca/t/1wz6f>, retrieved on 2024-08-02
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 TST-62276-15-RV (Re), 2015 CanLII 75859 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/gm5mj>, retrieved on 2024-08-02
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Offredi v. 751768 Ontario Ltd., 1994 CanLII 11006 (ON SCDC), <https://canlii.ca/t/gct27>, retrieved on 2024-08-02
- ↑ TST-68104-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88326 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/gw52d>, retrieved on 2024-08-02