Bathroom

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-24
CLNP Page ID:	2010
Page Categories:	Maintenance Abatements (LTB)
Citation:	Bathroom, CLNP 2010, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-24
Editor:	Rstojni
Last Updated:	2022/09/22

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

SWT-95636-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 9455 (ON LTB)

...

Lack of Water Pressure in the Bathroom Sink Tap:

[19] The Tenants testified that when they moved into the unit May 30, 2013 there was no water pressure in the bathroom sink tap. They told the Landlord right away but nothing was done. The Tenants on August 11, 2016 wrote letter to the Landlord requesting several maintenance issues to be addressed including the pressure in the taps. The Tenants stated that it was rectified shortly thereafter. R.P testified that he had to shave at the kitchen sink because there was insufficient water pressure in the bathroom basin taps.

[20] R.L. testified that the taps were replaced on August 17, 2016, six days after he became aware of the complaint. R.L. went on to say that on February 25, 2014 the Tenants spoke to him about the taps but R.P. argued with him and wouldn’t give him a straight answer as to whether there was an issue with the water pressure or if it was an issue with the hot water. R.P. became abusive so the Landlord left it. The Tenant did not deny the Landlord’s version of the conversation on February 25, 2014.

[21] I find that the Landlord was aware that there was a problem in the bathroom in February 2014. However, he testified that he was not sure whether the problem was with the water pressure or if it was the hot water. I find the Landlord failed to investigate what the problem was in order to resolve it. It was not until the Tenants sent a letter August 11, 2016 that the matter was addressed. I find that the Landlord has failed to maintain the water pressure in the basin taps and therefore I find that the Tenants are entitled to a rent abatement from November 1, 2015 to August 17, 2016 for the lack of water pressure. I have considered the behaviour of the Tenant R.P when the Landlord was first advised of the problem and I find in the circumstances rent abatement in the amount of $293.94 which is an abatement of 5% is reasonable.

...

TST-90479-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 123424 (ON LTB)

Shower

25. CG testified that at the outset of the tenancy the shower faucet was not working and she notified the Landlords immediately. CG testified that the Landlords attempted a repair of this problem a few days after it was reported to them but the repair was not effective: the shower faucet would only produce scalding hot water. CG testified that the Landlords did not ever properly fix the shower faucet and so neither she nor the other Tenant could use the shower throughout the tenancy.

26. CG testified that she and the other Tenant had to find other places to shower throughout the month of November 2017.

27. Based on CG’s uncontested testimony, I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the Landlords breached their maintenance obligations under s.20 of the Act with respect to insufficient heat in the unit.

28. After considering the duration of this problem, the impact on the Tenants’ enjoyment and use of the rental unit, I find that the Tenants are entitled to a rent abatement of 30% per month for the month of November 2017 for a total of $595.50.

...

TST-65033-15 (Re), 2015 CanLII 99141 (ON LTB)

TST-66152-15- T6- Application: Maintenance and Repair

1. It was the evidence of the Tenant that the water pressure in her shower is inadequate. The Tenant says that when she first moved into the unit the water pressure was low. On May 12, 2015 the Tenant says that she told the Landlord about the issue. The Tenant says that in June she could not take a shower and could only take a bath because the shower diverter was not working. The Tenant also told the Landlord’s son about this issue and the son came to look at the diverter on August 29 or August 30, but the shower was not fixed.

2. The Tenant showed a video on her cell phone recorded on July 18, 2015 that the shower diverter was in disrepair and not working.

3. The Tenant says that she is unable to take a shower and has to take baths which take much longer. She also has to use a cup when bathing. The Tenant’s son, MB says that when he sits in the bath, his legs get burned because the faucet leaks hot water.

4. It was the evidence of the Landlord that he learned of the shower issue from his son on or about July 10, 2015. The Landlord says that he has not fixed the shower because the Tenant was supposed to move out of the unit at the end of June; and the Tenant did not pay July’s rent.

5. I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act with respect to the disrepair to the shower.

6. The monthly rent is $1,300.00. The Tenant requested a 50% abatement of rent from May 2015 until the shower is fixed.

7. Subsection 30(2) of the Act states: “In determining the remedy under this section, the Board shall consider whether the tenant or former tenant advised the landlord of the alleged breaches before applying to the Board.” This section of the Act was intended to reflect the case law in the area that basically states that if a landlord does not know about a particular disrepair problem then the landlord cannot and should not be held financially liable for failing to address it. With respect to this issue, I am satisfied that the Landlord knew about this issue on or about July 10, 2015. I say this because the Tenant did not provide sufficient evidence that she told the Landlord about this issue in May 2015.

8. Abatement of rent is a contractual remedy on the principle that if you are paying 100% of the rent then you should be getting 100% of what you are paying for and if you are not getting that, then a tenant should be entitled to abatement equal to the difference in value.

9. In other words, an abatement of rent can be viewed as compensation to the tenant for the inadequate state of repair and any inconvenience or actual loss of use of the rental unit. In determining the amount of an abatement of rent, I have to consider the impact on the Tenant.

10. I am of the view that the Tenant is entitled to a lump sum abatement of rent in the amount of $400.00. In considering this amount I took into account that the Landlord has known about this issue since July 10, 2015 and failed to repair the shower. I also considered the impact statement of the Tenant that she is able to bathe but has to use a cup to rinse and finds this inconvenient.

11. At the hearing, the Landlord was instructed to fix the Tenant’s shower.

...

TST-34470-12 (Re), 2013 CanLII 50937 (ON LTB)

...

12. The Tenants requested a 100% abatement of rent, starting in September 2012. A 100%

rent abatement, however, is an extraordinary remedy, and is normally reserved for cases where a tenant is unable to occupy and use a rental unit because of extreme disrepair, or a landlord’s failure to comply with health, safety or other housing standards. The Tenants’ evidence was that they have been unable to take showers since September 2012, that they have lost food because the refrigerator has not worked from time to time, and that they have been inconvenienced by the broken kitchen drawers and two working stove burners.

13. Although I am mindful of EL’s evidence that the other Tenant has a medical condition that restricts him from taking a bath, this is not an appropriate case in which to award a 100% abatement of rent.

14. No law or regulation exists to guide the Board in determining a suitable abatement of

rent. Although the Board’s Interpretation Guideline 5 addresses tenant maintenance applications, the Guideline does not prescribe monetary values to specific repair problems. Rather, in arriving at an appropriate remedy, the Board must consider the nature of the disrepair, and its impact on the tenants’ lives. The ability to practice proper hygiene is an important element to occupying a rental unit. In this case, the Landlord’s failure to repair the shower has interfered with the Tenants’ ability to perform normal personal care activities. Accordingly, I find a $150.00 monthly rent abatement, pro rated from September 5, 2012 and continuing until the shower is repaired, is appropriate. This amount represents approximately 9% of the Tenants’ monthly rent. I believe this is an appropriate figure because, although the Tenants were inconvenienced by the shower’s disrepair, they were still reasonably able to use the rental unit’s living spaces.

...

SOT-69194-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 44357 (ON LTB)

...

Tenant’s evidence

1. At the hearing, the Tenant testified that in May 2010, the Landlord collected a deposit of $695.00 for the last month of the tenancy, which started on June 1, 2010. The Landlord failed to pay the Tenant interest on this deposit since that time as required by the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act').

2. The Tenant vacated the rental unit on October 31, 2015 on giving the Landlord lawful notice of termination.

3. The rental unit is a one bedroom apartment above a store. In terms of physical space, it had a kitchen, a bathroom, a living room and a hallway. In early July 2015, the bathtub tap began to leak, such that every time the Tenant showered, the leak got worse, until the water flowed hard on a regular basis. The Tenant informed the Landlord on July 15, 2015.

4. The Landlord arranged for a plumber to attend on July 16, 2015. This person replaced the tap with a vice grip and promised to attend the following week to install a replacement tap. He never returned and the vice grip was the only way the Tenant could manipulate the water flow.

5. However, by the second week of August, this “temporary” fix had failed, as by then the Tenant could not turn off the water flow fully with the grip, the noise of which severely interfered with her sleep. As a result, from that time to the date she vacated, she regularly slept at her partner’s home in Kitchener. She was also unwilling to shower at the unit out of fear that this would increase the water flow.

6. On August 13, 2015, she followed up with the Landlord, who advised that he would send a plumber on the 18th, No one came. Exasperated with this problem not being addressed, she gave a Notice of Termination and vacated October 31, 2015.

7. As a result, the Tenant seeks an abatement of her entire rent for September and October 2015 and well as an abatement for one week to compensate her for time spent traveling to and from Kitchener to shower and sleep at her partner’s house.

Analysis

8. As the Tenant’s testimony was uncontested and believable, I accepted it at face value.

9. As the Landlord presumably applied the last month’s rent deposit to the rent owing for October, I determined that the Landlord was in continuing breach of his obligation to pay annual interest to that date. As such, the Tenant is entitled to interest on the deposit for the period set out in her application, May 1, 2010 to October 31, 2015.

10. The Tenant is entitled to an abatement of rent associated with the noise interference from the leaking faucet that required her to sleep away from the unit. As she would have had complete use of and access to the other services and facilities associated with her tenancy (including the shower and bath), a complete abatement for her requested period would be inappropriate. An abatement of 25% more accurately compensates her for her inability to sleep at the unit for the relevant period.

11. It would be inappropriate to abate her rent additionally for her travel costs associated with going to and from her partner’s home to sleep. The abatement award is intended to address the fact that she received less than what she contracted for under the tenancy agreement. Expense for travel might better be characterized as additional costs associated with this loss. However, the Tenant advised that her cost was a “ball park” figure, only, and did not directly relate to her provable travel costs per se. As such, this request is denied.

...

Guzzo v 285 Melvin Apartments Limited, 2020 CanLII 118630 (ON LTB)

...

T6

71. As noted above, it took 470 days for the Landlord to fix the shower tile issue and caulk the sink. The Tenant testified that every time she showered, she would have to piece the fallen tiles together so the wallboard would not get soaked. Also, even though she did this there were small pieces, some sharp, left in the tub. It was uncomfortable and she had to be careful not to cut her feet.

72. With respect to the sink, the Tenant testified that if any water splashed over then it would drip into the cupboard beneath.

73. It should be noted, that in general, both of these would be used on a daily basis.

74. Based on the Tenant’s testimony I find that due to the disrepair, she was not able to use the shower or the sink in what the average person would consider to be a normal fashion. Therefore, I find a 5% abatement for the 470-day period from April 15, 2019 to July 27, 2020 to be reasonable under the circumstances in the amount of $482.93, calculated as follows:

$625.09 rent X 12 months = $7,501.08

$7,501.08 ÷ 365 days per year = $20.55 per day

$20.55 X 470 days = $9,658.50 X 5% = $482.93

75. With respect to the balcony door and window locks, the Tenant did not offer any testimony on how she was affected by the disrepair except that her balcony faced the street, thus insinuating the potential security risk. With respect to the balcony door not fitting properly, the Tenant testified that it allowed dirt to blow in., but she did not say how often this happened or how much dirt was blown in. However, as it took the Landlord,413 days to fix these issues, from April 15, 2019 to May 31, 2020, the Tenant is entitled to a nominal remedy. I consider 1% of the monthly rent, to be reasonable under the circumstances, for a total of $84.87, calculated as follows:

$20.55 per day X 413 days = $8,487.15 X 1% = $84.87

76. With respect to the taps and water flow in the shower, the Tenant testified that the problem has worsened, making it very difficult to shut them off, and when the taps are turned on hot water comes out of the shower. The Tenant did not offer any testimony whether the shower flow had become worse. Based on this testimony, the Tenant was unable to use these fixtures in the manner they are meant, and therefore is entitled to a minimal remedy. The Landlord has known about the problems since April 15, 2019 and as of the date of the hearing, September 1, 2020, has not done the repairs. Therefore, the Tenant is entitled to a nominal abatement for this 506-day period. I find an abatement of 1% of the rent is reasonable under the circumstances, for the period April 15, 2029 to September 1, 2020, for a total of $57.29, calculated as follows:

$20.55 X 506 = $10,398.30 X 1% = $103.98*

$103.98 - $46.69 = $57.29

*The Tenant asked for an abatement of $625.09. When $103.98 is added to the other abatements in this application the total comes to $671.78, which exceeds what the Tenant asked for. Pursuant to Beauge v. Metcap Living Management Inc., [2012] O.J. No. 1052 (Div. Ct.) it is not open to the Board to order a remedy that is not claimed in an application. This applies to exceeding what has been asked for in an application, therefore, I cannot grant the full $103.98 as the difference of $46.69 must be subtracted.

77. The total abatement owing for the T6 application is $625.09, and an order will issue as same.

78. The tap and shower flow issues were not addressed at the time of the hearing. If these issues are not fixed by October 15, 2020, the Tenant is entitled to an abatement of 10% per day ($2.10 per day), until the issue is resolved.

79. The following remedies will not be dealt with in this order as the Tenant did not request them at hearing: the fine; the Landlord to stop serving invalid N4 Notices of Arrears; no rent increase until the repairs are done; and the Landlord be ordered to use the N1 Notice of Rent Increase.

80. Since the Tenant was partially successful in this application, the Landlords shall be required to pay $50.00 for the cost of filing the application.

81. This order contains all the reasons for the decision within it. No further reasons shall be issued.

...

SWT-10346-10 (Re), 2010 CanLII 76107 (ON LTB)

...

Findings:

1. The Tenants moved into the unit effective March 6, 2009 and moved out of the unit on July 23, 2010. Throughout their tenancy, the Landlords failed to effectively repair the foundation wall and eliminate leak issues. In addition, from September 2009 to January 2010, the shower in the second bathroom was not working. Therefore, I find the Landlords failed to meet the Landlords' obligations under subsection 20(1) to repair the rental unit.

2. With respect to the shower in the second bathroom not working. I find the Tenants did not have the use of the second bathroom as provided in the terms of the tenancy agreement from September 2009 to January 10, 2010. The Tenants’ request for an abatement of rent is appropriately considered totalling $119.15. ($1,450.00/mo. / 365 days = $47.67/day / 2 = $23.83/mo. X 5 mos. = $119.15.

...