Cockroach Infestation (LTB-Maintenance)

TNT-01995 (Re), 2009 CanLII 78104 (ON LTB)

1. The Tenant advised the Landlord’s agent on July 19, 2009 that there was a cockroach infestation. The Tenant also advised the management of the building which fumigated the rental unit on July 23, 2009 with the knowledge of the Landlord. According to the Landlord, the condominium building management is responsible for pest control as part of the condominium fees paid by the Landlord.

7. I prefer the evidence of Tenant that there was a serious and ongoing infestation of cockroaches in her rental unit. C.C. gave a reasonable explanation of why “no (roach) activity found” was the conclusion of the pest control report when pest control attended on July 23, 2009. She explained that she and a cleaning lady just finished spraying and cleaning up the roaches the night before, and because she explained that roaches are nocturnal pests. The Landlord had no evidence (ideally by a pre-inspection of the rental premises) to ensure it was pest free at the time of the transfer of occupancy to the Tenants. I found the letter from the Tenants’ previous landlords rang true that the Tenants had not brought the cockroaches with them, because they noted there were no cockroaches in their rental unit before, during or after the Tenants’ tenancy with them. The Tenant C.C. brought a number of roach traps to the hearing from her unit, which I could observe directly were full of insect bodies which demonstrated the likelihood that there were multiple sites of roach infestations, small and large, in the rental unit. I believed the Tenant based on her direct and forthright testimony that the roach traps C.C. brought to the hearing room were from her unit and reflected a recent capture of pest life after the traps were laid.

10. Because I find that the Tenants suffered damages for a period of two weeks when they could not unpack their belongings and live in their unit from mid July 2009 until July 29, 2009 due to a cockroach infestation, this warrants a rebate of $312.50 calculated as 50% of half of the monthly rent of $1250. There was also further discomfort experienced by the Tenants due to the continued evidence of cockroaches for the Tenants from July 29,2009 when they started living in the unit to the date of the hearing Sept 17, 2009, sufficient to warrant an additional rebate of $375.00 calculated as 6 weeks at 20% x $1250.

SOT-09987-10 (Re), 2011 CanLII 34558 (ON LTB)

Claim

The Tenant’s complains that the rental unit had cockroaches and despite all reasonable attempts by the Landlord and by the Tenant the cockroaches were not eradicated. The Tenant seeks compensation because she was assured at the beginning of the tenancy that the building did not have bugs and further she would not have taken the unit if she had been informed about the cockroaches.

Findings

There is no question that this unit had a cockroach issue and there is no question that the Landlord did take the usual steps to attempt to eradicate the cockroaches. There is no question that the Tenant moved out because she finally could no longer stand to live in this unit.

The Landlord argued that the Tenant should have mitigated her damages. I fail to understand how this Tenant could have lessened her damages any more than she did. The Tenant gave very credible testimony. I believe that the Tenant made a valiant effort to stay in this unit despite the problems she encountered. She had to make hard choices between her own comfort and the time and money it would cost her to move somewhere else.

I find without hesitation that the Tenant would not have moved into this unit had she been told that the building had an on-going battle with cockroaches. I find that the Tenant relied, to her determent, on the assurance from the rental agent that there was no problem with bugs, pets or partying students.

Award

The Tenant will be awarded her moving costs and the costs of her out-of-pocket expenses for bug treatment.

I decline to award the Tenant the abatement she requested. The Tenant did have full use of her apartment, albeit without the enjoyment one would want. I will award the Tenant $500.00 to compensate her for the distress she experienced during this tenancy.

TST-34695-12-AM (Re), 2015 CanLII 11784 (ON LTB)

1. The Tenants filed their applications in late-November 2012. Pursuant to subsection 29(2) of the Act, the Board’s retrospective jurisdiction is limited to the 12-month period before the date of application. In arriving at this order, I therefore considered those issues that arose in or after late-November 2011.

2. The Tenants raise two broad issues in their applications: they allege that the Landlord has failed to meet its maintenance obligations under the Act, or has failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards; and that the Landlord’s failure to provide adequate security at the residential complex substantially interferes with their reasonable enjoyment of the rental property.

3. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that each Tenant proved that the Landlord has failed to meet its maintenance obligations, or has failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards.

18. RD resides at Townhouse 121. She has occupied the rental unit since 1994. RD proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Landlord has failed to meet its maintenance obligations, or has failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards, with respect to the rental unit’s windows, mismatching paint, the rental unit’s heating system, and the presence of bed bugs and cockroaches.

27. The Tenant also proved the presence of cockroaches at the rental unit and the residential complex. The Tenant submitted documentary evidence showing that the Landlord was aware of the problem, and that the Landlord took steps to eliminate the cockroaches.

28. Based on the Tenant’s evidence, I find that the Tenant complained to the Landlord about the presence of cockroaches on or about September 26, 2012. Although the Landlord has attempted to address the issue, I accept the Tenant’s evidence that live cockroaches continued to exist in the rental unit until January 2014.

29. Unlike the case with the bed bugs, which took approximately four or five months to correct, I find that the 17 month period to address the cockroach issue at the rental unit was unreasonably long. I therefore find that it is appropriate to order the Landlord to pay the Tenant a 15 percent abatement of rent for the period September 2012 to January 2014, or $617.10.

30. The total rent abatement the Landlord must pay to the Tenant is $3,194.40.

CET-59089-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88093 (ON LTB)

2. The Tenants testified that they noticed cockroaches when they pulled out the fridge to clean behind it on September 1, 2015. The Tenants told the Landlord on September 1, 2015, but explained that they did not have any documentation with them because they could not access their online account and/or their home due to the lockout.

3. The Tenants said that the Landlord sent a pest technician to treat the rental unit on or around September 8, 2015. The Tenants said that the treatment only killed approximately 20% of the cockroaches. The Tenants said they continued to text the Landlord about the cockroaches, but that the Landlord failed to send another technician for a follow up treatment during their tenancy.

4. The Tenants testified that they bought cockroach spray and containers around Christmas time in 2015. The Tenants said that they only caught a few cockroaches. The Tenants said that their children couldn’t play on the floor, that the lights had to stay on 24/7 and that the cockroaches were getting into their food. The Tenants said that their young son also once tried putting a cockroach in his mouth. As a result, the wife and children went to stay with a friend for two weeks while the husband tried to kill the cockroaches, to clean the unit and put their belongings in containers.

5. Based on the uncontested evidence, I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to comply with health, safety and maintenance standards by failing to do follow up treatments for the cockroaches after the first initial treatment. The Tenants lived with cockroaches from September 1, 2015 to August 2, 2016, approximately 11 months. The impact on the Tenants was significant since they had to vacate the unit for two weeks with their young children and to try to deal with the cockroaches themselves.

Water

6. The Tenants testified that the pest technician found mould in the bathroom behind the wall where the pipes are located on September 8, 2016. The technician told the Tenants that this was a breeding ground for cockroaches. The Tenants told their Landlord and went to stay at the local family shelter for 4 days. The Landlord sent in a contractor to repair the mould issue. The mould issue does not form part of this application. When the Tenants returned to the rental unit, the mould issue was repaired but the water was turned off by the contractor from September 11, 2015 at around 7am. They advised their Landlord immediately and the water was eventually turned back on September 14, 2015 at 7am. As a result of the delay, the Tenants said that they could not cook, feed or bathe their children. The Tenants said that they bought a case of water and that it was very difficult for them.

7. Based on the uncontested evidence, I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to maintain the rental unit and failed to comply with maintenance standards. The impact on the Tenant was significant because they lived at a family shelter for 4 days and when they returned home, they did not have water. The water issue was not resolved by the Landlord for three days and I do not find that delay reasonable in the circumstances.

14. The Tenants are seeking to terminate this tenancy based on the above allegations. At the hearing, the Tenants advised that they were locked out of their rental unit and that they were filing a separate application to obtain their possessions. The Tenants said that their tenancy was already terminated under a previous order for arrears. The Tenants said that they were planning to move back to New Brunswick to be closer to family, particularly since they were expecting a baby in a few days. Since this tenancy has already been terminated under a previous order, it is not necessary to terminate.

15. The Tenants are also seeking a 100% abatement of rent for 6 months and costs for disposal of items. With the exception of the few days that the Tenants resided in the family shelter to treat the mould issue, the Tenants occupied the premises until the hearing date. While the impact on the Tenants was significant and did cause some stress for the family, it does not warrant a 100% rent abatement. Therefore, I am awarding a 20% abatement of rent for 6 months ($1400.00 x 20% x 6 months = $1,680.00).

16. The Tenants disposed of some of their belongings because of the cockroaches. The Tenants’ have a duty to mitigate their losses, pursuant to section 16 of the Act and I find that it was not reasonable to dispose of those belongings claimed. Therefore, I am not awarding any compensation for items that were disposed of by the Tenants. Nonetheless, the Tenants were unable to provide receipts and/or substantiate the estimated costs of the items disposed.

17. The Tenants are entitled to a per diem abatement for the days they did not have water in the rental unit. The impact was significant with young children because they were unable to bathe or cook. Therefore, I am awarding the Tenants $138.08. ($46.02 per day x 3 days = $138.08).

TST-90542-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 42696 (ON LTB)

5. At the outset of the hearing the Tenants agreed the issues raised in their T6 and T2 applications are as follows:

a) the stove did not work for a period of time;

b) the refrigerator did not work for a period of time;

c) the internet access/connection was faulty and was eventually non-existent;

d) cigarette smoke and odour seeped into the unit from another unit in the complex;

e) six electronic outlets were in a state of disrepair; and

f) there was a cockroach infestation in the unit.

21. At this point I should restate what I explained to the Tenants during the hearing. In Beauge v. Metcap Living Management Inc., 2012 ONSC 1160 (CanLII) (“Beauge”), the Divisional Court decided that the Board cannot make an award if it is not requested by the applicant. The Tenants request an abatement of the rent in the total sum of $1,040.00, in connection with all issues raised in the T6 application. The Tenants further claim a total of $900.00 for expenses related to meals outside the unit during the time the stove was not working and the food items discarded due to the non-working refrigerator. As such, I cannot award a greater sum. The principle enunciated in Beauge works in the Landlord’s favour in this case as, in my view, and given the totality of the evidence presented, a higher award may have been warranted.

Cockroach Infestation

26. The Tenants acknowledged the cockroach infestation in the unit, while continuous, was low. The Tenants stated they would see “one or two” cockroaches in the washroom on a daily basis and they advised the Landlord about the issue when they moved into the unit. The landlord took no action to address this issue and, consequently, the Landlord breached her obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act.

27. Again, the Tenants stated the lump sum rent abatement claimed in the T6 application also includes the cockroach issue and, accordingly, as with the rest of the disrepair/maintenance issues raised, the lump sum awarded below relates to the cockroach infestation.

Remedies

28. As stated above, the Tenants request an abatement of the rent in the total sum of $1,040.00, in connection with all issues raised in the T6 application.

29. Abatement is a contractual remedy designed to address the idea that rent is charged in exchange for a bundle of goods and services and if a tenant is not receiving those goods and services then the rent should be abated in a sum proportional to the difference between what is being charged and what is being received. To put it in broad terms, a tenant will usually be entitled to abatement with respect to disrepair unless the landlord attends to the disrepair in a timely manner and fixes it, or the tenant fails to reasonably cooperate with the landlord’s efforts to do repairs, or the tenant wilfully or negligently caused the damage in the first place. Given the nature of the issues involved here, some of which are of significant concern, such as the non-working gas stove, refrigerator and electrical outlets, the length of time involved and the Landlord’s failure to address the issues, the impact of the issues on the Tenants, and my experience with similar cases before the Board, I believe the Tenants’ request for an abatement of the rent in the sum of $1,040.00, to be reasonable.

TNT-42290-13 (Re), 2013 CanLII 18041 (ON LTB)

Mice and Cockroaches:

Both Tenants report issues with an infestation of mice and cockroaches which they allege was reported to the Landlord shortly after the Tenants took possession of their respective units in late 2011. In additional to their oral evidence both sets of Tenants submitted photographic evidence related to their allegations.

The Landlord's Legal Representative, having never been present in the units and alleging that her only contact with the Tenants occurred on one occasion when she sought payment of rent, could provide no direct evidence in dispute of the Tenants' position.

The Landlord argued that within the complex, only these two units had alleged issues with mice and cockroaches and only when the Tenants fell into arrears. In support of its position, the Landlord submitted a letter from a tenant of the complex which states that during her tenancy, there have been no issues with mice or cockroaches.

I prefer the Tenants' evidence in this regard, their direct sworn evidence being contradicted only by hearsay evidence which must be assigned less weight.

Abatement:

In their applications, the Tenants failed to specify the quantum of abatement sought. That fact gave rise to the question of whether the Landlord was willing to proceed not having received proper notice with respect to the remedy sought. The Landlord, at commencement of the hearing, wished to proceed with the hearing being aware that the Board would determine the quantum of abatement, if any.

In consideration of the nature, duration and impact of the issues substantiated by the Tenants, as well as the Landlord’s failure to respond, I find that an abatement of 15% of the monthly rent for the period of February 22, 2012, one year prior to the applications being filed, to the date of the hearing is warranted, $1,423.97.

SWT-33327-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 126930 (ON LTB)

20. The Landlord was repeatedly reminded about the infestation of bedbugs in the unit several times from September 2018. The Landlord promised the Tenant to treat the unit, but failed to do so until the Tenant contacted the health unit over the presence of cockroaches in the unit which led to the discovery of the bedbugs the Tenant had long complained about. Therefore, I find the Landlord to be in breach of his maintenance obligations under the Act.

21. The Tenant will be awarded a 5% abatement of rent from September 2018, when the Landlord was first notified of the problem to July 26, 2019 when the treatment to rid the unit of the bedbugs commenced. The rent abatement will therefore be $375.00 for a period of ten months.