Portable Washing Machine (LTB)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-24
CLNP Page ID:	2188
Page Categories:	[Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)]
Citation:	Portable Washing Machine (LTB), CLNP 2188, <https://rvt.link/5i>, retrieved on 2024-11-24
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2023/04/20

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

TSL-00051-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141648 (ON LTB)

2. The Landlord also claimed substantial interference caused by the Tenant keeping a portable freezer, washing machine and dryer in the rental unit. However, the landlord did not present sufficient evidence in support of this claim and it is, therefore, dismissed.

SOT-96575-18 (Re), 2019 CanLII 126914 (ON LTB)

57. When the Tenants signed their tenancy agreements with the prior Landlords, L.B. and S.B., there was a coin operated washing machine and a dryer located in the basement of the residential complex. Term M of the tenancy agreement acknowledges the existence of laundry facilities with respect to the Tenants’ responsibility to keep all common areas including this space in an ordinary state of cleanliness. No other term in the agreement mentioned laundry facilities or assigned any duty upon the Landlords to provide this amenity as a term of the tenancy. However, the present Landlords essentially stepped into the shoes of the previous landlords when they purchased the residential complex and were bound to continue the same services and facilities offered when the tenancy commenced. Having presumably inspected the premises and reviewed the tenancy agreements, I find that new Landlords knew or ought to have known, as a matter of due diligence, that the prior landlords had provided the Tenants with laundry facilities as a service or facility of the residential complex.

58. On June 10, 2018, L.B. informed the Tenants by email that the prior landlords intended to sell the residential complex and that the coin operated machines would be removed. The machines were owned by a third party and when the house was sold, the machines were removed and returned to this company on June 20, 2018. E.L. testified that the prior landlords had advised them that the new Landlords would be providing laundry facilities.

59. However, by December, 2018, the Landlords had only provided a portable non-coin operated washing machine and no dryer. The portable washer is intended to attach to a sink, but is incompatible with all of the faucets in the rental unit. While the Tenants only notified the prior landlords of this issue, I find that the new Landlords would have been reasonably aware of the necessity of setting up the new appliances for the Tenants. A photograph submitted at the hearing shows that the machine was never set up and remains unused in the unit.

60. Instead, the Tenants use retail laundry facilities fifteen minutes from the residential complex on foot at a cost of approximately $10.00 per load to both wash and dry their clothes, typically every two to three weeks. The availability of laundry facilities was a feature that that attracted the Tenants to the rental unit.

61. As a result, I find that the provision of laundry facilities was permanently discontinued on June 20, 2018.

62. In their application, the Tenants requested a reduction in the monthly rent pursuant to subsection 130(3) of the Act. Subsection 130(3) provides as follows:

130. (3) The Board shall make findings in accordance with the prescribed rules and may order,

(a) that the rent charged be reduced by a specified amount;

(b) that there be a rebate to the tenant of any rent found to have been unlawfully collected by the landlord;

(c) that the rent charged be reduced by a specified amount for a specified period if there has been a temporary reduction in a service.

63. However, subsection 130(3) of the Act requires that the Board “shall make findings in accordance with the prescribed rules.” To that end, subsections 39(2) through (4) of O. Reg. 516/06 states as follows:

39. (2) If a service or facility is discontinued and the discontinuance was reasonable in the circumstances, the rent shall be reduced by an amount that is equal to what would be a reasonable charge for the service or facility based on the cost of the service or facility to the landlord or, if the cost cannot be determined or if there is no cost, on the value of the service or facility, including the cost to the tenant or former tenant of replacing the discontinued service or facility.

(3) If a service or facility is discontinued and the discontinuance was not reasonable in the circumstances, the rent shall be reduced by an amount that takes into account the following matters:

1. The value of the service or facility, including the cost to the tenant or former tenant of replacing the discontinued service or facility.

2. The effect of the discontinuance on the tenant or former tenant.

(4) The amount of the rent reduction determined under subsection (3) shall not be less that the amount of the reduction that would have been required under subsection (2) had the discontinuance been reasonable.

64. As the present Landlords did not remove the prior machines, they had no evidence on the cost of the service removed by the prior landlords. It is possible that the prior landlords did not incur any charge for the presence of the discontinued machines if the coins inserted to operate them were collected or remitted to the owner of the machines rather than the prior landlords. In any event, none of parties present could offer any evidence on the cost or value of the service to the prior landlords.

65. However, I find that the present Landlords did effectively nothing to continue the prior service or facility, having delayed replacing the laundry machines for six months and even then only with a washing machine that could not be used and no dryer at all. As a result, I find that the discontinuation was unreasonable under the circumstances. Consequently, it is the Tenants’ cost to replace the discontinued service or facility that dictates the amount of the rent reduction.

66. Since E.L. offered uncontested evidence that the cost to the Tenants to wash and dry their clothing elsewhere was $10.00 every two to three weeks, I find that the monthly rent must be reduced by $25.00. The reduction for June, 2018 has been prorated to $8.33 to reflect that the discontinuation commenced on June 20, 2018.