Breach of Contract (LTB)

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.


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.


[1]

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])


[2] [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. 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 …”

[4]

References

  1. TET-89788-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113779 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/hwbfv>, retrieved on 2024-08-02
  2. 2.0 2.1 TET-92081-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113788 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/hwbgm>, retrieved on 2024-08-02
  3. 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. 4.0 4.1 TST-62276-15-RV (Re), 2015 CanLII 75859 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/gm5mj>, retrieved on 2024-08-02