Trustworthy Legal Services 647-891-9089

How to deal with the tenant’s complaint of prolonged repair or non-compliance with landlord’s obligation to repair & maintenance?

7/12/2025

Trustworthy Legal Services is your Legal Expert helping people with civil disputes in the areas of Employment, WSIB, Small Claims, Landlord & Tenant, and other tribunal matters with the compensation amount of $35,000 or less. Contact for Legal Advice in Ontario at 647-891-9089.

Many landlords may get petrified when receiving the tenant’s complaint regarding the prolonged repair or non-compliance with landlord’s obligation to repair & maintenance.

The first element is to determine if the landlord get notified of a necessary repair in the rental premise by the tenant prior to the filing of a T6 application, pursuant to section 30(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA), especially when a landlord is not residing in the same rental premise with the tenant. Failure to do so may contribute to no remedy or less relief can be awarded, unless it can be proven that the landlord already knew about the problem or should have known.

The second element is to assess if the damage resulted from normal wear and tear, given that the tenant did notify the landlord of such necessary repair. Landlord is only obligated to rectify the maintenance deficiencies resulted from normal wear and tear, which refers to the expected deterioration of items due to regular use over time. Section 20 of RTA stipulates that the responsibility of a landlord is to provide and maintain the premises in a good state of repair and fit for habitation in compliance with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards. The tenant cannot insist upon a standard of perfection regarding repairs, rather the landlord is only required to demonstrate such repair has been properly done.

On the contrary, when the damage was caused by the willful or negligent conduct of the tenant which was also verified by a certified professional or through obvious observation, it shall be the responsibility of a tenant for such repair in accordance with section 34 of the RTA. It is highly recommended to obtain a report from a certified professional if the damage was caused willfully or negligently by the tenant, because he or she may dispute about the cause of such damage not beyond normal wear and tear. Meanwhile, the landlord can serve N5 notice to get the tenant to pay for the cost incurred for such repairs if proven to be an undue damage.

The third element is to ensure the problem(s) to be rectified within a reasonable time. It may be hard but crucial to define a reasonable time for a necessary repair in your own circumstance, when usually within 1 – 2 weeks for minor repair, but contingent upon factors such as the nature of repair and its extent, the scheduling of contractor/technician for such repair, the availability of parts (sometimes supplies are not available locally but needed to be shipped from overseas) etc. The tenant cannot unreasonably prevent the landlord from entering into the unit to make the repairs when a 24-hour entry notice is provided. Such conduct may result in no compensation for any prolonged repair or non-repair from the landlord because of the tenant’s uncooperative behaviour. Furthermore, the tenant should not undertake the repairs without the landlord’s consent when it is stipulated in the lease, because it may be remedied with less relief or no compensation at all, when the landlord may dispute about the cause of such maintenance deficiencies is beyond normal wear and tear.

The landlord can take preventative measures on potential allegations for non-repair or prolonged repair through a proper written communication with the tenant for a necessary repair already reported.

The proper communication for a necessary repair with the tenant should include (i) when a certified professional will come over for an inspection, (ii) when a certified professional will make repairs and its estimated timeline; (iii) keep the tenant updated of a new date and it reason(s), if rescheduling is necessary by a certified professional or waiting for the arrival of parts; and (iv) the problems which have been rectified and the date of completion for all repairs, or any relevant communication to protect the landlord in the situation.

As a result, the landlord can avoid any ambiguity of the date of completion for all necessary repairs but within a reasonable time by documenting the timeline for such repairs, just in case any unexpected T6 tenant application may arise.

Disclaimer: This information is not intended to be construed as a legal advice, but strictly for your information only. Please contact Trustworthy Legal Services for an independent legal advice in your particular situation. The first consultation is required prior to the retainer of your case.

Follow on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Like or/Share this article if you find it is useful

0 Comments

When does Noise Disturbance caused by the condominium tenant fall within the jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board?

8/28/2023

0 Comments

Trustworthy Legal Services is your Legal Expert helping people with civil disputes in the areas of Employment, WSIB, Small Claims, Landlord & Tenant, and other tribunal matters with the compensation amount of $35,000 or less. Contact for Legal Advice in Ontario at 647-891-9089.

It is such a headache especially to many condominium landlords, when warning letters are received from the condominium property management, resulted from the complaints of other residents of the condominium regarding noise disturbance emanating from their tenants’ units. Keep in mind that the Condominium Corporation can hold the condo owners liable if no effort to take necessary steps rectifying their tenants’ annoying and disruptive conducts. The rationale is that there is only a legal entity between the condo owner and the Condominium Corporation, but no legal entity between the condo tenant and the Condominium Corporation under this circumstance. As a result, the Condominium Corporation can only bring this matter to the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT), seeking for legal cost or/and indemnification cost or/and other related costs incurred in violation of condo by-laws pertaining to noise disturbance, as well as asking for an order to rectify the problem. There was an article published on February 19, 2023 with the title of “Condo owner must also pay up for tenant’s disruptive behavior, tribunal says”.

My suggestion for the condominium landlords in this situation is to first notify and communicate this issue with the tenants in an attempt to correct their behavior. In case of a complete disregard of compliance by the tenant, the condominium landlord can commence a LTB procedure by giving a N5 notice to his/her tenant for annoying and disruptive behavior. By doing so, the condominium landlord can demonstrate to the Condominium Corporation that he/she is taking reasonable and necessary steps to address this issue, rather than ending up with more significant legal cost or/and related costs incurred, when the Condominium Corporation takes this matter in their hands directly to the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Having considered that the condominium landlord can give a tenant notice of termination pursuant to s. 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA), it is important to acknowledge that relationship between the condominium landlord and other residents of the condominium is quite different compared to other types of rental premise. As for the condominium, the resident of another unit, who complained about the noise disturbance emanating from the tenant’s unit, is not another tenant, especially if the condominium landlord would like to argue about the substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment of another tenant in accordance with s. 64(1) of RTA.

In order for this issue to fall within the jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board, the first or/and second N5 notice should be given based on the indemnification cost, i.e., lawyer’s fee for legal letter, already charged to the landlord or/and other costs incurred in the noise violation of condo by-laws or/and other governing documents. Then, the submission of L2 application can be dealt with LTB, because section 64 (1) of the Act concludes that it also applies to the substantial interference with the Landlord’s lawful right, interest and privilege when cost is already charged to the landlord for the breach.

Furthermore, It can also be considered as the substantial interference with the Landlord’s lawful right, interest and privilege, if there are strong wordings contained in the legal letter from the Condominium Corporation leading to the conclusion of a definite commencement of legal proceeding contingent upon the same recurring behavior next time, despite no legal proceeding brought against the landlords yet (TSL-14775-11 for reference). Exception occurs when the legal letter merely addresses that the Condominium Corporation may take legal action , if the landlord cannot stop it from happening again.

It is highly recommended that the condominium landlord to consult with the legal representative prior to any commencement of the LTB proceeding, because it can get a bit complicated under the condominium scenario, not to mention the relevant details it entails on the N5 notice as well as its voiding period.

Disclaimer: This information is not intended to be construed as a legal advice, but strictly for your information only. Please contact Trustworthy Legal Services for an independent legal advice in your particular situation. The first consultation is required prior to the retainer of your case.

Follow on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Like or/Share this article if you find it is useful.

0 Comments

What happens when IDEL (Infectious Disease Emergency Leave) expired on July 30, 2022?

10/2/2022

0 Comments

Trustworthy Legal Services is your Legal Expert helping people with civil disputes in the areas of Employment, WSIB, Small Claims, Landlord & Tenant, and other tribunal matters with the compensation amount of $35,000 or less. Contact for Legal Advice in Ontario at 647-891-9089.

Deemed IDEL (Infectious Disease Emergency Leave) was retroactively effective on March 19, 2020 to place employees on an unpaid job-protected leave of absence without triggering a termination as a result of COVID-19, and extended until July 30, 2022 by the government.

Following the expiry date of IDEL, the non-unionized employees’ rights under ESA (Employment Standards Act) whose has a significant reduction in hours of work or pay can no longer be considered on the job-protected emergency leave due to COVID-19. It triggers the employee’s entitlement to full notice of termination or termination pay in lieu of notice period and other entitlements, if an employee hasn’t been recalled to work on or before July 30, 2022 which could lead to a permanent termination.   Likewise, a temporary layoff, which results in a significant reduction in wages and hours of work starting on or after July 31, 2022, may constitute to a constructive dismissal claim.

The above-mentioned IDEL leave is not applicable to non-unionized employees’ rights under common law. It is not legal to place an employee on a temporary layoff under common law, unless there is any clause of temporary layoff provision expressly stipulated in the employment contract, or established past practices, or through employee’s consent verbally or in writing.   In case an employee doesn’t accept a temporary layoff, while no term permitted in the employment agreement, he or she is entitled to notice of termination or termination pay in lieu of notice period and other entitlements due to a permanent termination without cause.

Let’s examine some of case decisions ruled pertaining to employees’ rights under common law during the pandemic.

Coutinho v. Ocular Health Centre Ltd demonstrates that IDEL regulations do not bar any employee from suing for constructive dismissal damages against their employers under common law, when placed on temporary layoff without any relevant clause expressly justified in the employment contract.

Jessica Coutinho was employed by Ocular Health Centre as the Clinic manager for almost 6 years, before being placed on a temporary layoff on May 29, 2022. As a result, Coutinho sued alleging her employer for constructive dismissal, whereas Ocular defended that a temporary layoff did not constitute to constructive dismissal because the employee was on a job-protected leave of absence (the “IDEL” regulations under ESA).

Pursuant to s. 8(1) of the ESA stipulates that “no civil remedy of an employee against his or her employer is affected by the Act”, except where an employee has previously filed the complaint under ESA alleging an entitlement to termination or severance for the same matter. Nevertheless, there was no evidence that Coutinho filed a complaint against Ocular under ESA previously for this alleged matter. Coutinho fully mitigated her common law damages by commencing employment with Tri-City Eye on July 22, 2020. Hence, she received her statutory entitlement to termination pay in the sum of $6,103.85 arising from the constructive dismissal after her duty to mitigate damages. The Ontario Court of Appeal remarked that Coutinho entitlement to her six-weeks’ salary as termination pay for her six years of service is not subject to a deduction of mitigation income, since statutory entitlements are not damages.

Fogelman v. IFG is another case to establish that IDEL regulations do not supersede employee’s right to allege for a constructive dismissal claim at common law. IFG hired Fogelman for almost 10 years and 8 months in a middle management position, until he was placed on a temporary lay-off on March 16, 2020 due to a downturn in business resulted from the impact of COVID-19. Fogelman was alleging that he had been constructively dismissed at common law, because his employment agreement did not permit the employer to place him on a temporary layoff. The definition of termination clause, in case of termination of employment, was in ambiguity in his employment agreement, and therefore it was in favor of employee’s interpretation that the common law dictates the employee’s entitlement to termination or severance.

The court finally awarded Mr. Fogelman his constructive dismissal damages for (i) pay in lieu of 15 months of reasonable notice, (ii) three unpaid vacation days and (iii) punitive damages of $25,000. The sum of $3,600 Mr. Fogelman earned during the notice period is deducted from the total sum referenced above to reflect Mr. Fogelman’s mitigation efforts. The court also referenced that CERB payment should not be offset any employee’s award for damages.

Disclaimer: This information is not intended to be construed as a legal advice, but strictly for your information only. Please contact Trustworthy Legal Services for an independent legal advice in your particular situation. The first consultation is required prior to the retainer of your case.

Follow on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Like or/Share this article if you find it is useful.

0 Comments

Can the Landlord's staying overnight occasionally in the rental premise be considered as the exemption of s. 5(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) to the tenancy lease when this Act doesn't apply?

9/6/2022

0 Comments

Living accommodation whose occupant or occupants are required to share a bathroom or kitchen facility with the owner, the owner’s spouse, child or patent or spouse’s child or parent, and where the owner, spouse, child or parent lives in the building in which the living accommodation is located;

Take an example of the case of TET-82410-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 113120 (ON LTB), when the Tenants accepted the lease that the rental unit “except basement part used by only landlord” upon the commencement of this tenancy. The Landlord, Y.W., argued that there was no kitchen in the basement area so as to purport her position of “sharing kitchen with the Landlord” under s. 5(i) of the Act; meanwhile, the lease was silent about the Landlord’s use of kitchen. It is a general rule of contract interpretation that any ambiguity in the lease is to be interpreted against the interests of the drafter that the Landlord and Tenants were not going to share the kitchen. In fact, the purpose of the lease was to give the Landlord’s right to stay overnight on an occasional basis and on notice to the Tenants, when she traveled to Toronto for business or to visit friends sometimes, but not intended to live in the rental unit as it was understood when notice of entry to the Tenants is required.

The third factor is to examine the real substance of the Landlord’s pattern of activities relating to the residential complex. S. 202(1) of RTA states:

In making findings on an application, the Board shall ascertain the real substance of all transactions and activities relating to a residential complex or a rental unit and the good faith of the participants and in doing so,

may disregard the outward form of a transaction or the separate corporate existence of participants; and

may have regard to the pattern of activities relating to the residential complex or the rental unit.

Given the case of TSL-75551-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 71276 (ON LTB) as an example for how this factor applies to the final decision, the Landlord, H.C., regularly used a bedroom on the first floor, when the Tenant lived in a bedroom on the second floor of the rental premise since 2006. There was no dispute that the Landlord and the Tenant shared the kitchen and the bathroom at the hearing. The adjudicator made the final decision on a balance of probabilities that this Act applies in this case despite what it is stipulated in s.5(i) of the Act. The rationale for this decision was resulted from the Landlord’s use of the bedroom on the first floor merely for convenience – he can do maintenance and other needs of the complex easily, and also can attend his family physician, pharmacy and hospital where he occasionally checks his eye in a close proximity to the rental premise. Lastly, the bedroom that the Landlord used in this rental premise was not his principal residence, whereas he and his wife own a house in Scarborough where they reside.

In general, the Landlord’s right to stay overnight occasionally in the rental premise, of which the tenant(s) share the kitchen or/and bathroom with the Landlord or his or her immediate family, cannot be justified as an exemption to the Act in the tenancy without ascertaining the real substance of the Landlord’s pattern of activity relating to the rental premise. Notwithstanding the justification of exemption under s 5(i) of the Act, the Landlord must also be residing in the rental premise prior to or at the same time when the Tenant’s moving in (not valid if the landlord was moving in after the Tenant(s)).

Disclaimer: This information is not intended to be construed as a legal advice, but strictly for your information only. Please contact Trustworthy Legal Services for an independent legal advice in your particular situation. The first consultation is required prior to the retainer of your case.

Follow on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Like or/Share this article if you find it is useful.

0 Comments

Amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act , 2006 (RTA) became effective on September 1, 2021

11/28/2021

0 Comments

Rent or compensation;
An amount for charges related to NSF cheque;
Costs for unpaid utility bills (i.e., heat, electricity and water);
Costs for damaging the rental unit (willfully or negligently);
Landlord’s expenses incurred because the former tenant or someone else visiting or living in the rental unit substantially interfered with the landlord’s reasonable enjoyment or lawful right, privilege or interest.

A Landlord requires to serve the L10 Application and the Notice of Hearing at least 30 days before the hearing date. At least 40 days before the scheduled hearing, a Landlord should submit a Request to use Alternative Service Method to the Board, if a tenant cannot be served by using one of the acceptable delivery methods. A Certificate of Service for L10 application in one of the acceptable delivery methods should be submitted to the Board at least 20 days before the hearing date.

N12 notice (Landlord’s or Purchaser’s Personal Use) or N13 notice (demolition, conversion or major repairs) to end Tenancy - Disclosure of all previous notices given

A declaration or an affidavit is required to file with the Board at the same time of the L2 application for Landlord’s Own Use or Purchaser’s Own Use (N12), which should demonstrate a good intention of requiring the rental unit for at least 1 year from the person who intends to move in identified on the notice. Furthermore, a Landlord should also indicate that if any previous N12 or N13 notice(s) were given to any tenant(s) in the past 2 years for this rental unit or any other rental unit(s) prior to this L2 application.

If previous N12 or N13 was given in the past two years prior to the L2 application, a Landlord should provide:

Date of the notice was served;
Address of the Rental Unit;
The identity of Intended occupant (N12) /Intended activity (N13) and
LTB file number if applicable for each notice.

T5 application - Tenant Application: Notice of Termination given in Bad Faith

A Tenant can file a T5 application with the Board within 1 year after he or she vacated the rental unit, if he or she believes that a notice of termination given in bad faith for Landlord’s Own Use or Purchaser’s Own Use (N12), or for demolition, conversion or major repairs (N13), with different remedies available as follows:

An order for a rent abatement;
A maximum of 12 months’ rent as general compensation;
A rent difference incurred in an increased rent of the new rental unit up to one year from when the date the tenant vacated;
An order for the Landlord to pay for the former tenant for reasonable out-of–pocket moving and storage expenses;
An administrative fine to the Board

A Tenant can file this application given with N12 notice, if the person identified in the notice hasn’t moved into the rental unit within a reasonable time after the tenancy ended.

A Tenant can file this application given with N13 notice, if the Landlord refused his or her right to move back, after the tenant had given the written notice of wanting to move back into the unit to the Landlord once demolition, conversion or major repairs was done (N13). A Tenant can also apply for this application to prove bad faith, provided that the landlord did not intend to do the work within a reasonable time after N13 notice was given.

Disclaimer: This information is not intended to be construed as a legal advice, but strictly for your information only. Please contact Trustworthy Legal Services for an independent legal advice in your particular situation. The first consultation is required prior to the retainer of your case.

Follow on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Like or/Share this article if you find it is useful.

0 Comments

<<Previous

How to deal with the tenant’s complaint of prolonged repair or non-compliance with landlord’s obligation to repair & maintenance?

When does Noise Disturbance caused by the condominium tenant fall within the jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board?

What happens when IDEL (Infectious Disease Emergency Leave) expired on July 30, 2022?

Can the Landlord's staying overnight occasionally in the rental premise be considered as the exemption of s. 5(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) to the tenancy lease when this Act doesn't apply?

Amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act , 2006 (RTA) became effective on September 1, 2021

Archives

Categories

Author