Sexual Harassment by Landlord

TSL-76886-16-AM (Re), 2016 CanLII 100312 (ON LTB)

14. At the hearing the Tenant testified that the Landlord had made sexual advances toward her and that after the Tenant rebuffed the Landlord, the Landlord started sending eviction notices. At the hearing the Tenant submitted copies of text exchanges between the Tenant and the Landlord. The only sexually explicit text that was sent during the tenancy was sent on March 9, 2016. In this text the Landlord suggests that the parties resolve their dispute with “vigorous sex.” The Tenant did not submit any texts with sexual content that were sent later than March 9, 2016.

15. Although several of the other text messages are quite racy, they were sent in the fall of 2015 which is well before the tenancy began and so they are not material to this application.

16. At the hearing the Tenant submitted a copy of a letter from her lawyer to the Landlord, dated July 21, 2016. In this letter the Tenant’s lawyer warns the Landlord to stop sexually harassing the Tenant.

20. The sexually explicit texts establish that the Landlord was interested, at one time, in pursuing a sexual relationship with the Tenant but these texts do not establish any more than that. None of the Landlord’s sexually explicit texts appear to have any connection with the notice of termination and all but one of these texts was sent before the tenancy began.

23. For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the Landlord intends, in good faith, to possess the rental unit for the purpose of residential occupation.

24. I have considered all of the disclosed circumstances in accordance with subsection 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'), and find that it would not be unfair to postpone the eviction until January 31, 2017 pursuant to subsection 83(1)(b) of the Act. The Tenant testified that she has very low income and very little resources.

TET-73196-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 49021 (ON LTB)

19. First, the Tenant provided the Board with a series of text messages from FM which are somewhat sexually suggestive and mildly inappropriate. However, the Tenant consistently responds to these messages with laughter, with emojis that are “laughing so hard they are crying” and with short form text language such as “lmao”.

20. While there is no definition of “harassment” in the Act, it is generally held that “harassment” is a course of conduct that a reasonable person knows or ought to know would be unwelcome.

21. Based on the content of the text messages, I am satisfied that there was no way for FM to know that his comments were unwelcome by the Tenant. In fact, the Tenant appears to have encouraged the behaviour and, as a result, I am not satisfied that the Landlord has breached the Act and this portion of the Tenant’s application must be dismissed.

TET-00087-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 89709 (ON LTB)

5. The first matter raised was over sexual comments and harassment by the Landlord towards the Tenant.

6. I will not repeat some of the comments that were made but many were in a very sexual nature and not as a mistaken comment.

7. The Tenant stated that this had been occurring right from when she first moved in.

8. The witness also corroborated that the comments had been made and that both she and her mother felt uncomfortable being around the Landlord.

9. I have awarded a 10% rental abatement for the maximum I am allowed being 6 months.

SOT-19870-11 (Re), 2011 CanLII 91098 (ON LTB)

9. Beginning around May 20, PP began attending several times a day at the rental unit, and harassing the Tenant and JK. PP repeatedly made sexually suggestive comments to JK. JK recalled that PP’s comments had started as unwelcome flirtation, and quickly escalated to unwelcome sexual advances.

10. Particularly as she was pregnant at the time, JK grew increasingly disturbed about PP’s frequent sexual comments and advances. She moved out of the rental unit at the end of the month, leaving the Tenant to live there alone.

19. Based on the harassment and threats, as well as the sexual harassment that caused JK to move out, I am also able to determine that PP’s actions substantially interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit. Again, I have no doubt that this behaviour made living in the rental unit so unbearable that the Tenant hastily moved out.

20. The Tenants’ rent was $500.00 per month. They paid a total of $1,000.00 for the months of May and June. As PP’s campaign of harassment commenced on May 20, quickly causing JK to move out, and the Tenant to follow soon thereafter, I am prepared to award an abatement of rent of $200.00, for May, and $500.00 for June.

21. An abatement of rent is not punitive in nature. It is intended to compensate tenants for the degree to which their reasonable enjoyment of their rental units.

22. For the month of May, I am of the view that a 40% abatement is justified to compensate the Tenant for his loss of enjoyment from twelve days of harassment that included sexual propositioning of his spouse until she moved out, threats of illegal eviction, illegal entries and theft.

23. For the month of June, I am of the view that a 100% abatement is justified to compensate the Tenant’s complete lack of enjoyment due to the continuing harassment for 19 days until he moved out, and the complete loss of use after he vacated the rental unit.

24. The Tenant claimed that he entered into a twelve month lease for another rental unit, which costs $350.00 more per month than the $500.00 paid. Given the urgency placed on the move by PP’s harassment, and JK’s impending childbirth, I find the Tenant’s claim for this excess rent to be reasonable. I also found the Tenant’s $200.00 claim for moving and storage costs to be reasonable.

TST-77385-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 100397 (ON LTB)

18. The Tenant has proven her case. Her evidence, was clear, detailed, and supported by a number of documents. It is clear that both she and her roommate were impacted by the Landlord’s behaviour. A landlord is required to provide notice of entry pursuant to s. 27 of The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’). The Act makes it clear that tenants have an expectation of privacy; despite the fact that a landlord may own a unit; the unit is still someone’s home whilst it is being rented to an individual. Consequently, a landlord is expected to treat tenants’ privacy interests with respect.

19. It is not unexpected that a woman would feel vulnerable when a Landlord and/or his agent have unfettered access to a rental unit. Women often fear that they may become victims of crime, including, but not limited to sexual assault. As such, it is not surprising that the illegal entries made the Tenant and her roommate feel afraid.

20. Further, the Landlord’s conversations with the Tenant were inappropriate. The Landlord’s communication with the Tenant can be described as harassing and bullying in nature. A party involved in the business relationship; namely a residential tenancy, expects that their communications with the other party will be professional. The Landlord’s name calling and demands were anything but professional. These behaviours led the Tenant to feel anxious and fearful.

21. In concert, the Landlord’s actions and behaviours substantially interfered with the Tenant’s and her roommate’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit.

22. I have considered the leading case on privacy, Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corp., [2007] O.J. No. 423 (Ont. Div. Ct.). In that case the court awarded a $1000.00 rent abatement. Further, in TST-59122-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 22324 (ON LTB), I considered privacy issues in the context of a single illegal entry. I awarded $800.00 compensation to the tenant given the landlord’s invasion of her privacy.

23. There were five illegal entries in this case. These entries were not only inappropriate, but they had a serious impact on the Tenant and her roommate. The conduct gives rise to a remedy in the higher end of the remedial range. I conclude that a one month rent abatement is appropriate given the circumstances. That sum is $2,100.00.

24. Next, there are the substantial interference, harassment, and vital service issues. The vital service issue seemed to have little impact on the Tenant and her roommate; it was a one hour inconvenience. However, this issue must be viewed in the larger context of the Landlord’s other conduct including harassing behaviour. The Landlord engaged in appropriate behaviour on at least seven occasions; these incidents had a profound impact on both the Tenant and her roommate. They are entitled to a 100% rebate based on their daily rental rate for the seven incidents; this amount equals $483.28.

25. Lastly, I have reviewed the Board’s Guideline # 16 on Administrative fines. As noted in the Guideline, the purpose of an administrative fine is to encourage compliance with the Act, and to discourage landlords from engaging in similar behaviour. The Tenant seeks a $100.00 administrative fine. Given the serious facts in this case, a fine of $100.00 is appropriate. The Tenant and her roommate had to endure the Landlord, or the Landlord’s agents barging in on them in their home, including while they were not fully clothed; this is not inconsequential.