Rent Abatement (Principle): Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Citation: | {{Citation: | ||
| categories = [Maintenance Obligations (LTB)] | | categories = [Maintenance Obligations (LTB)] | ||
| shortlink = | | shortlink = 5P | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 19:37, 30 December 2021
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-05-20 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 227 |
| Page Categories: | [Maintenance Obligations (LTB)] |
| Citation: | Rent Abatement (Principle), CLNP 227, <5P>, retrieved on 2024-05-20 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2021/12/30 |
TST-78547-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28680 (ON LTB)[1]
17. The remedies sought by the Tenant are a rent abatement and compensation for lost income.
18. Abatement of rent is a contractual remedy based 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. Here, it was the evidence before me that the monthly rent for the unit was $199.00. Given all of the evidence before me I am of the view that a reasonable lump sum abatement of the rent would be $30.00 for the period in question.
19. The Tenant’s request for compensation for loss income is denied. The Tenant had failed to prove a nexus between her loss income from her business and the disruption caused by the “offending” tenant.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 TST-78547-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28680 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/h3r1s>, retrieved on 2021-12-30
