Legal Test - Re: Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-24
CLNP Page ID:	1137
Page Categories:	Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)
Citation:	Legal Test - Re: Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment, CLNP 1137, <https://rvt.link/8e>, retrieved on 2024-11-24
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2023/09/05

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

See Also

• Void for Vagueness (LTB)

TET-68095-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 72232 (ON LTB)

23. This application is based on the rights set out in sections 22 and 23 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act') which read as follows:

22. A landlord shall not at any time during a tenant’s occupancy of a rental unit and before the day on which an order evicting the tenant is executed substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or the residential complex in which it is located for all usual purposes by a tenant or members of his or her household.

23. A landlord shall not harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a tenant.

24. I have no doubt that the Tenants are frustrated by the Landlord’s failure to issue a parking decal for their son’s car. But that frustration does not in and of itself constitute substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment. The wording of section 22 indicates that for a landlord to be found in breach there is an objective element to the test as well as the subjective impact on the tenant. In other words, the conduct complained of must be unreasonable in some manner.

25. With respect to s. 23, harassment is generally considered to be a course of conduct that the reasonable landlord ought to know would be unwelcome.

TST-78819-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28829 (ON LTB)

28. Section 22 of the Act prohibits a landlord from substantially interfering with a tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex. In making a determination under this section I must have regard to the interference itself and the impact of the interference on the Tenant. Based on the uncontested evidence I am satisfied that the interruptions in water service were to effect necessary repairs in the building. It was therefore reasonable for the Landlord to shut the water off. As for impact on the Tenant, the Tenant gave no cogent evidence as to any impact that the interruptions in water caused him. I am therefore not satisfied that the Landlord substantially interfered with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit by shutting off the water.