Review of Provincial Work Order (LTB)

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O.

226 (1) If a landlord who has received an inspector’s work order is not satisfied with its terms, the landlord may, within 20 days after the day the order is issued, apply to the Board for a review of the work order. 2006, c. 17, s. 226 (1).

(2) On an application under subsection (1), the Board may, by order,

(a) confirm or vary the inspector’s work order;

(b) rescind the work order, if it finds that the landlord has complied with it; or

(c) quash the work order. 2006, c. 17, s. 226 (2).

EAL-52796-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 53126 (ON LTB)

The L6 Application Regarding the Work Order

26. In their L6 application, the Landlords wrote that:

We respectfully request this work order be dismissed as being orchestrated by the [T]enant… under false circumstances.

We were not aware of, nor present on, date of inspection…

The [T]enant.. has already been asked to leave…

We believe the [T]enant… is intentionally destroying our property through abuse and neglect.

To date of filing this application, the [T]enant… continues to refuse us access to this unit, and as previously noted, has changed front door locks and keeps dogs barricaded at back door.

Our building is not under the jurisdiction of the town of Perth.

27. At the hearing, the Landlords pointed out that in SM’s “Work Order” dated October 27, 2015, the rental unit was misidentified as a “2 - storey [sic], brick, 1 family residential house”, when it is actually part of a row of attached rental units akin to a townhouse.

28. SM testified that the summarized property description was a typographical error.

29. Although the Landlords provided some evidence of the work they have done to the residential complex in the past several years, no compelling evidence was received that would warrant a revision of the conclusions made in the Work Order.

30. On the contrary, in his testimony, SM explained how and why he had reached a number of the conclusions in his Work Order. In the absence of any expert testimony or compelling evidence to the contrary, I find that SM’s conclusions regarding the state of the rental unit should be undisturbed.

31. In particular, as a result of SM’s testimony, the Board received detailed information about how SM reached a number of his findings in his report. Some of his conclusions were reached through discussions with the Tenant (for example, on the electrical problems), but most of SM’s conclusions were reached as a result of his own observations of the problems. SM testified that his overall impression of the rental unit was that many of his more serious concerns involved the presence of moisture or mould, but that the balance “were very minor except for the ventilation issue”, which involved the mould, but that even the mould issue “would take very much to repair.”

32. That said, I believe that what SM took to be mould on the siding of the building could have been dirt. I believe that SM was mistaken given that the siding had recently been replaced, given that SM acknowledged that the new siding appeared to have been installed in the proper manner, and given his acknowledgment that it would be very unusual for mould to grow on the outside of a building.

33. This conclusion does not impact any of the work ordered in his report, given that the work ordered under item number one is as a result of mould build-up not only on the outside of the building, but “in the building”. Moreover, SM testified that although the bathroom has a fan, it does not appear that there was a direct vent to the fan duct, so extra moisture could accumulate in the attic, wall, or roof-rafter space.

34. Given the above information, and notwithstanding my conclusion that on a balance of probabilities there is no mould on the outside of the rental unit, but especially given that SM was able to reasonably explain his conclusions and the Landlords did not introduce expert evidence to the contrary, I find that it would be inappropriate to vary the work order.