Painting Walls (Tenant)(LTB): Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
Line 6: Line 6:




==[http://canlii.ca/t/j0f52 CEL-72695-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141452 (ON LTB)]==
==CEL-72695-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141452 (ON LTB)<ref name="CEL-72695-18"/>==


12. While it is understandable that on-going cooking and smoking within a rental unit will eventually discolour the walls and/or leave a substance on the walls.  These are two activities that one would expect to be normally done in one’s home.  After more than seventeen years of these continuous activities, without any repair or updating by the Landlord, it is expected that the interior paint (walls) would wear, especially given that the Regulation provides for a useful life of only ten years. <b><u> It is the Landlord’s obligation to maintain the rental unit. </b></u>
12. While it is understandable that on-going cooking and smoking within a rental unit will eventually discolour the walls and/or leave a substance on the walls.  These are two activities that one would expect to be normally done in one’s home.  After more than seventeen years of these continuous activities, without any repair or updating by the Landlord, it is expected that the interior paint (walls) would wear, especially given that the Regulation provides for a useful life of only ten years. <b><u> It is the Landlord’s obligation to maintain the rental unit. </b></u>


13. The Landlord submitted that the Tenant never requested any maintenance for his unit.  However, regardless of whether or not a tenant requests maintenance, <b><u>I am satisfied that with a long term tenancy such as in the case here, a landlord ought to be following up after their yearly unit inspections with issues such as interior painting and flooring to ensure they have not out lived their useful life.</b></u>
13. The Landlord submitted that the Tenant never requested any maintenance for his unit.  However, regardless of whether or not a tenant requests maintenance, <b><u>I am satisfied that with a long term tenancy such as in the case here, a landlord ought to be following up after their yearly unit inspections with issues such as interior painting and flooring to ensure they have not out lived their useful life.</b></u>
===Notes===
* <ref name="CEL-72695-18">CEL-72695-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141452 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/j0f52>, retrieved on 2020-06-02</ref>


==Izumi v Skilling, 2020 CanLII 20510 (ON SCSM<ref name="Izumi">Izumi v Skilling, 2020 CanLII 20510 (ON SCSM), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5vmb>, retrieved on 2020-06-02</ref>==
==Izumi v Skilling, 2020 CanLII 20510 (ON SCSM<ref name="Izumi">Izumi v Skilling, 2020 CanLII 20510 (ON SCSM), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5vmb>, retrieved on 2020-06-02</ref>==

Revision as of 14:17, 2 June 2020


CEL-74001-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88514 (ON LTB)

10. The wall painted a different colour cannot be considered damage to the rental unit. While the Landlord may not like the colour chosen by the Tenant, that is a matter aesthetics and interior decorating, not undue damage.


CEL-72695-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141452 (ON LTB)[1]

12. While it is understandable that on-going cooking and smoking within a rental unit will eventually discolour the walls and/or leave a substance on the walls. These are two activities that one would expect to be normally done in one’s home. After more than seventeen years of these continuous activities, without any repair or updating by the Landlord, it is expected that the interior paint (walls) would wear, especially given that the Regulation provides for a useful life of only ten years. It is the Landlord’s obligation to maintain the rental unit.

13. The Landlord submitted that the Tenant never requested any maintenance for his unit. However, regardless of whether or not a tenant requests maintenance, I am satisfied that with a long term tenancy such as in the case here, a landlord ought to be following up after their yearly unit inspections with issues such as interior painting and flooring to ensure they have not out lived their useful life.

Notes

Izumi v Skilling, 2020 CanLII 20510 (ON SCSM[2]

4. While jurisdiction was not challenged by the defence, I accept that this court has jurisdiction over the matter based on the authorities cited by Mr. Ellis: Capreit L.P. v. Griffen, [2016] O.J. No. 7338 (Div. Ct.); Brydges v. Johnson, 2016 CanLII 4942 (ON SCSM), [2016] O.J. No. 609 (Sm. Cl. Ct.), affirmed (June 24, 2016), (Ont. Div. Ct.) [unreported][3]. I am aware of Kiselman v. Klerer, [2019] O.J. No. 5857 (Div. Ct.), which reaches the opposite conclusion but without reference to those two prior cases. Faced with clear conflict amongst the Divisional Court authorities on point and until such time as the issue is resolved by the Court of Appeal, I must choose between them. I prefer to follow those earlier authorities.

Notes

  1. 1.0 1.1 CEL-72695-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141452 (ON LTB), <http://canlii.ca/t/j0f52>, retrieved on 2020-06-02
  2. Izumi v Skilling, 2020 CanLII 20510 (ON SCSM), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5vmb>, retrieved on 2020-06-02
  3. 3.0 3.1 Brydges v Johnson, 2016 CanLII 4942 (ON SCSM), <http://canlii.ca/t/gn7bj>, retrieved on 2020-06-02