Tenants Awarded $428 in Brockville Rental Dispute
Tenants awarded $428 in Brockville rental dispute over landlord's failure to properly prepare unit
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: September 12, 2024
Case Summary
815 Macodrum Dr, Brockville, ON K6V6P6
Decision in favor of
tenant
Balance Owed to Tenants
$428
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Application Date
Feb 2022
Hearing Date
Apr 2023
Order Date
Jun 14, 2023
Dispute Summary
Tenants applied for an order determining that the Landlord failed to meet the maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 or failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards. They also alleged the Landlord or the Landlord's superintendent/agent harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with them, substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex, and withheld or deliberately interfered with the reasonable supply of a vital service, care service, or food that the Landlords are obligated to supply under the tenancy agreement.
Determinations
- Tenants signed rental application for January 1, 2022 lease
- Tenants paid $2,800 deposit prior to move-in
- Tenants took possession on January 1, 2022
- Tenants vacated on January 11, 2022 due to unit condition
- Landlord willing to address Tenants' concerns in early January
- Rental unit not uninhabitable/unoccupiable to justify termination
- Landlord failed to ensure unit was cleaned and prepared for move-in
- Landlord's failure substantially interfered with Tenants' enjoyment
Case Study
The Tenants' T6 Application was brought pursuant to s.29(1) Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'), alleging the Landlord breached an obligation under s.20(1) to provide and maintain the rental unit in a good state of repair and fit for habitation. The Tenants also brought a T2 Application pursuant to s.29(1) of the Act, alleging the Landlord harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with them, and/or substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment, or with the reasonable supply of a vital service the Landlord is obligated to supply. The Tenants vacated the rental unit 10 days after moving in, citing numerous issues with the condition of the rental unit. The Landlord argued the issues were minor and could have been addressed. The Adjudicator found the Landlord should have exercised greater due diligence in preparing the rental unit, but the condition did not constitute a fundamental breach of the lease agreement to justify the Tenants' immediate departure.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
Landlord argued the issues were minor and could have been addressed.
Actions
Landlord's agent acknowledged the rental unit remained vacant for approximately one month prior to the Tenants' move-in, allowing dust to accumulate. The agent also testified the alleged mold was sprayed and treated.
Tenant
Actions
Tenants vacated the rental unit 10 days after moving in due to the poor condition of the unit, including unclean bathtub, slow draining shower, mold, missing flooring, missing interior door, and lack of ceiling lighting.
Decision Summary
The Landlord is ordered to pay the Tenants a rent abatement of $380 and $48 for the cost of filing the application, for a total of $428. If the Landlord does not pay the full amount by June 25, 2023, the Landlord will owe simple interest at 6% annually on the outstanding balance.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
417
Landlord Favorable
83.2%
Tenant Favorable
12.9%
Mutual Agreement
3.8%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Application Fee
$48
Rent Deposit
$2,800
Total Owing
$428 (Owed to Tenants)
Source
Similar Cases
Click to switch between case outcomes
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Goklani v Cannata
Toronto tenants' maintenance dispute against landlord dismissed by LTB
Jeff v Ferguson
Woodstock landlords awarded $35,186 in rent arrears, tenants face eviction for non-payment.
Oxford Properties Group v Benjamin
Tenant ordered to pay $22,461.70 for flood damage with conditional tenancy preservation
Sufi Properties Ltd v Nieman
Tenants ordered to pay $16,866 in rent arrears to Former Landlord after complex dispute.