Useful Life of Work Done or Thing Purchased (RTA)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-24
CLNP Page ID:	1932
Page Categories:	[Maintenance Obligations (LTB)]
Citation:	Useful Life of Work Done or Thing Purchased (RTA), CLNP 1932, <7Z>, retrieved on 2024-11-24
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2022/06/27

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Hearn v Shantz, 2021 CanLII 91892 (ON LTB)

7. However, the Schedule to Ontario Regulation 516/06, “Useful Life of Work Done or Thing Purchased”, applies a 10-year depreciation timetable for interior painting related to common areas. Given that the Landlords fixed and repainted the stair well on an unspecified date in 2019, for the purpose of this hearing I resolved the ambiguity in this date in favour of the Tenant and deemed that this activity took place at the start of 2019. In light of the fact that the damage took place at the start of 2020, the painting and repair effort would have already experienced 10% depreciation when the damage occurred. As such, I determined that the appropriate amount of the award is $900.00.

TEL-73386-16 (Re), 2017 CanLII 48941 (ON LTB)

21. Still, the Board finds that the Landlord’s evidence, including the October 11, 2016 contracting quote in Exhibit #3, about this part of the claim is generally credible and is prepared to accept it as reliable. The floor being replaced, however, was not new. The Landlord testified that the unit had been rented to various tenants since 2010. Prior to renting out the unit, the Landlord lived there. Using 20 years as the useful life for hardwood flooring and13 years as the remaining useful life for the Landlord’s floor, the Board finds that the Landlord is entitled to 65% of the replacement cost or $2,600.00 as compensation for the damaged hardwood flooring. [See Schedule, Useful Life of Work Done or Thing Purchased, Ontario Regulation 516/06 under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006]

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

10. The Tenant has resided in the rental unit for seventeen years. There was no evidence before me that any of the alleged damaged items had been changed, repaired or replaced within those seventeen years. Although the Landlord argued that the condition of the unit was beyond normal wear and tear, the evidence before me was insufficient to find that this was the case. The Landlord provided no installation date of these items, no evidence of the condition of these items upon the Tenant’s occupancy of the unit and no maintenance records related to these items for this unit.

11. Ontario Regulation 516-06 (the “Regulation) under the Act provides a schedule listing the useful life of work done or things purchased for a rental unit or residential complex. The schedule provides the useful life of flooring such as carpet, vinyl and linoleum of approximately ten years. RM confirmed that this type of flooring was in the rental unit. The schedule also provides the useful life of interior painting at ten years, appliances such as refrigerators and stoves at fifteen years, and tubs, toilets and sinks at fifteen years as well. The stated useful life of cabinets and countertops is twenty-five years.

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.

14. All of the alleged damaged items in the rental unit are items listed in the schedule of useful life in the Regulation. All of the items, except for the cabinets and countertops have a useful life less than seventeen years. Given that the Landlord did not provide the date of installation for the cabinets and countertops in the rental unit, I am not satisfied that these items are still within their useful life of twenty-five years.

15. It is not sufficient to simply compare the condition of this rental unit to another rental unit with the same tenancy length to determine normal wear and tear. I find it likely that there will be variations in the wear and tear of items within a rental unit simply based on a number of factors that can occur over a seventeen year tenancy. In this instance these items were beyond their useful life and ought to have been replaced by the Landlord in any event.

CEL-76487-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88701 (ON LTB)

35. When considering the useful life remaining in the current laminate flooring that has been damaged, I turn to the Schedule entitled “Useful Life of Work Done or Thing Purchased”, of Ontario Regulation 516/06 (‘Regs’) under the Act. The Schedule of the Regs does not contain any item entitled “laminate flooring”. However, I believe that laminate flooring, which is a man-made product comprising layers of wood byproduct, is more akin to vinyl flooring as a comparable product, than to hardwood flooring. I have determined and chosen, therefore, to use the useful life of vinyl flooring as the basis for calculating the Landlord’s remedy [reference: table 8, item 13 of the Regs].

36. I am satisfied that the current floor has been in the rental unit for 5 years. Using 10 years as the useful life for vinyl flooring, I find that the Landlord is entitled to 50% of the replacement cost or $2,616.00 as compensation for the undue damage.

37. I heard submissions from the parties about their failed, private agreement respecting the sharing of the initial $700.00 repair quotation, and about the Tenants’ argument that they should not be held responsible to replace the entire hallway and living room flooring as only a portion of that floor was damaged.

38. It is clear to me that the Board was created by the Ontario Legislature to apply the relevant statutes. As well, the role of the Member is not to assist one party or the other but to weigh the evidence before the Board and then to render a fair decision according to those statutes, which in this case centres around sub-section 89(1) of the Act. Whatever private agreement or other equitable arrangement the parties want to make is for the parties to decide upon between themselves, and does not affect the granting of the remedy herein.

SWL-20228-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141442 (ON LTB)

26. The Landlord requested $650.00 for the carpet replacement. The Landlord provided an invoice for the carpet, setting out that it will cost $797.04 in materials and $1,075.76 in labour, a total of $1,872.80 to replace the carpet. The carpet is seven years old.

27. According to the Schedule of Useful Life of Work Done or Thing Purchased in O. Reg. 516/06: General, ensuite carpeting has a useful life of 10 years. Therefore, at seven years old, the carpet has 3 years (or 30%) of useful life remaining. I award the Landlord 30% of the $1,872.80 in damages requested to replace the carpet; or $561.84.

CEL-67364-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 100308 (ON LTB)

19. The Landlord replaced a collapsed drain in the basement of the residential complex at a cost of $14,125.00. The Landlord confirmed that the old pipe had lasted approximately 40 years and the new PVC pipe should have a useful life of 20 years in accordance with Table 13 of the Schedule Useful life of work done or thing purchased as per the Regulation, despite stating only 15 years in the application.

20. The Tenants disputed the work to the drain that was completed. They relied on the invoice submitted by the Landlord and believed that it was not possible that the amount of pipe invoiced was replaced in the area affected. According to them, the area affected near the elevator in the basement would not fit 35 feet of pipe as stated in the invoice. They also submitted that this repair ought to be considered regular maintenance required by the Landlord.

21. The Tenants presented only mere suspicions regarding whether or not the work completed by the Landlord’s contractor was accurate. None of the Tenants who testified are experts in plumbing or draining. Based on the evidence before me, I find it more likely than not that the drain work was completed in accordance with the invoice the Landlord received.

22. I am satisfied that the drain replacement as a result of a collapse is not regular maintenance for the complex. The original drain lasted approximately 40 years. The work involved to replace this collapse drain met the definition of a capital expenditure in that it was significant and the expected benefit extends for at least five years.

23. I am also satisfied that the drain replacement was an eligible capital expenditure in accordance with subsection 126(7)(c) of the Act as it was necessary to maintain the provision of a plumbing at the residential complex. Therefore, the rent increase applicable to this capital work is justified.