Rent Abatement (Principle)

From Riverview Legal Group


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-05-18
CLNP Page ID: 227
Page Categories: [Maintenance Obligations (LTB)]
Citation: Rent Abatement (Principle), CLNP 227, <>, retrieved on 2024-05-18
Editor: Sharvey
Last Updated: 2024/03/06


Avcan Management Inc. v. David O’Laughlin, 2012 ONSC 537 (CanLII)[1]

[1]

TST-78547-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28680 (ON LTB)[2]

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.

[2]

Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd., 2016 ONCA 477

[1] This appeal concerns the interpretation of s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (“RTA”) which provides as follows:

20. (1) A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.[1]

[2] The appellant tenants submit that the respondent CJM Property Management Ltd. (the “landlord”) failed to comply with its duties to provide and maintain under s. 20 because the elevator that services their building was out of service for 96 days in one year. They submit that the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) erred in denying their application for an abatement of rent. The Board found that the landlord had at all times acted reasonably in having a program of preventive maintenance for the elevator, in repairing it when it broke down and in installing a new elevator. The Divisional Court dismissed the tenants’ appeal. Leave to appeal to this court was granted on October 5, 2015.

[3] The Divisional Court did not err in selecting or applying the reasonableness standard of review. For the reasons that follow, I agree with the Divisional Court that the Board’s decision was reasonable, and I would dismiss the appeal.

[3]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Avcan Management Inc. v. David O’Laughlin, 2012 ONSC 537 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/fpvb5>, retrieved on 2024-03-06
  2. 2.0 2.1 TST-78547-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 28680 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/h3r1s>, retrieved on 2021-12-30
  3. Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd., 2016 ONCA 477 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/h32gb>, retrieved on 2021-01-08