Flooring

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-24
CLNP Page ID:	2009
Page Categories:	Maintenance Abatements (LTB)
Citation:	Flooring, CLNP 2009, <>, 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

TST-67387-15 (Re), 2016 CanLII 52991 (ON LTB)

Bathroom Tiles:

21. The tiles and grout within the bathroom had been painted years ago. In the Order issued by the City of Toronto the Landlord was required to replace the tiles or at the very least remove the paint from the tiles. They completed the latter in July 2015. In removing the paint from the tiles, the grout between the tiles was also removed, damaged or compromised. It is the Tenant’s position that the condition of the grout would support a finding that the Landlord’s is in breach of their maintenance obligations.

22. It is the Landlord’s position that the City had inspected the bathroom after the work was completed and found that the Landlord was in compliance with the Order from the City. Although the Tenant did not dispute that the City found the condition of the bathroom to be satisfactory, he sought to challenge the Property Standards Officer’s findings.

23. As I stated at the hearing, the Property Standards Officer is a third party, expert in the field of municipal standards with no vested interest in these proceedings and who also had the benefit of observing the condition of the tile and grout personally. Given that the Officer is satisfied that the Landlord is in compliance, I find that the Tenant has failed to establish that the Landlord is in breach of housing or maintenance standard. That being said, subsection 29(2) also requires that the unit or in this case the grout around the tile to be “in a good state of repair”. Based on the photographs submitted into evidence by the Tenant, I am satisfied that the discolouration and missing grout would support a finding that the grout in not in a good state of repair. As such, I find that the Landlord has failed to meet the Landlord’s obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act. However, although the condition of the bathroom tiles/grout had an impact on the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit, I am not satisfied that the impact met the threshold of “substantially” as required by the Act.

24. The remedies sought by the Tenant is a 5% rent abatement from July 2015 up to and including the last hearing date and an order requiring the Landlord to re-grout the bathroom.

25. Having regard for the nature of the disrepair and the impact statement of the Tenant, I am of a view that a reasonable abatement to be $80.00 which represents a 1% rent abatement from July 2015 up to May 2016. The Landlord shall be ordered to re-grout the bathroom tiles.