Thursday 23 January 2020

Tenant Making Noise--a guide for new residential landlords

What should you do when your tenant is disturbing other tenants?

For the purposes of this article let us assume that you (the landlord) have an apartment building with multiple rental units.  It doesn't matter if it is a duplex, triplex, or even an apartment building.  The issue of dealing with tenants making noise attracts the same level of responsibility for the landlord regardless of the size of the building.

Again, to contextualize this article, let us assume that you (the landlord) receive written complaints, email complaints, text complaints and oral complaints from one or more tenants about the behaviour of one of your other tenants in the building.  Let's make the complaint about stereo noise, smoking in the hallway, shouting on the balcony and in the common hallways.  The complaint (from one tenant) or complaints from multiple tenants all involve these issues.  A complaint, to be legitimate, does not have to be about more than one thing.  The complaint could be only about noise, only about smoking, or only about some other single issue.  Also, the complaint does not have to identify a repeating pattern.  A single one time event is enough to make the complaint legitimate and is enough to require a landlord to take action to comply with their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Why does a landlord have to care about the effect of noise or other anti-social behaviours on other tenants?  Why can't the landlord simply tell the complaining tenant to approach the neighbour to "work it out"?  The answer is because the law provides to the tenant the right to have quiet enjoyment of their rental unit (apartment).

"Quiet Enjoyment" means something slightly different than "silent" enjoyment.  "Quiet Enjoyment" is a legal concept that is implied as part of every lease agreement and it means that a tenant renting from the landlord is granted by the landlord reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit for all usual purposes.  You (the landlord), when renting a unit to a tenant are giving the tenant, as part of the lease, an assurance and condition of the lease that the tenant will be able to enjoy the rental unit in all normal and usual ways.  Further, if anything happens to take away from the "quiet enjoyment" (reasonable enjoyment), then the landlord is breaching its lease/contract with the tenant unless the landlord takes steps to restore the tenant's "quiet enjoyment" of the rental unit.

Hence, if a tenant complains about a neighbour/tenant who is making loud noise, shouting in the hallways, smoking in the premises, or any other kind of unreasonable behaviour that interferes with the tenant's quiet enjoyment it is, legally, the landlord's responsibility to take action to fix it.  If the landlord does nothing, and the tenant being bothered continues to complain, and still the landlord does nothing, then the complaining tenant can actually file an application against the landlord for failing to take steps to make sure the tenant has reasonable enjoyment/quiet enjoyment of their rental unit.  If the tenant is successful, the landlord can be ordered to pay a rent abatement to the tenant, reimburse costs associated with the interference, and also be ordered to do anything that the Landlord and Tenant Board considers necessary to give the complaining tenant reasonable enjoyment of their rental unit.

THE COMPLAINT

So let's assume that you (landlord) received a complaint this morning from one of your tenants outlining stereo noise, smoking, and shouting.  Let's say that the complaint comes in via email and that it is detailed in one sense and vague in another--perhaps it reads like this:

 Hi Larry Landlord:  I just wanted to send you an email to let you know about a huge party last night in the building the cops had to come.  I  would like this to stop.  Thanks  Terry Tenant



LANDLORD'S RESPONSE

You may read this email and be taken aback at the idea that police had to respond to your building and that clearly something happened that you need to get to the bottom of.  In some respects this is true.  Being told that the police had to respond could send you on a trip to the police station trying to find out what happened based on the email received.   Going to the police station might reveal the information you are looking for or it might be a lengthy wild-goose chase that leads nowhere.

The reason is that while you have received a complaint that raises concerns you have not in fact received a complaint with enough detail to allow you to do anything meaningful.  As such, your reaction to receiving a complaint like the above (or similar), should be to write back to the tenant and ask the tenant for more details and for those details to be provided in written form.  Receiving the details in written form creates a useful record to guide you in your work and further is useful if you are ever being judged by the Landlord and Tenant Board for how you responded to a complaint about anti-social behaviour like noise, smoking, shouting etc..

As such, you might want to respond to the email complaint received by asking for the following:

Hi Terry Tenant:

I received your email about the huge party and before I can do anything would you please provide me more details and answer these questions (with whatever information you have):

  1. The date and time that the party started;
  2. The date and time that the party ended;
  3. Who were the people making the noise, causing the problem, and if you don't know the people which apartment was having the party?  Do you know the name of the tenant?
  4. What kind of things were happening that make you say it was a huge party?  Was there noise?  How did you know there was a party going on?
  5. Where was the party happening?  Just in the unit?  Which unit? Hallways, common area, backyard?
  6. Why are you writing to me about this party?  Were you bothered?  Were you affected by the party?  If so, how?
  7. Was anyone else bothered or affected by this party--in your household or others in the building?
  8. Are there any witnesses? Did you speak with police? Did you make a report? Do you have a report number? Did you take any pictures, video?

If you could write back to me with the requested details that would be very helpful.  Once I have the details I can start an investigation to figure out what happened and to figure out how this issue can be dealt with.  Please share with me any concerns that you have.

Thanks   Larry Landlord


As you may have noticed, the responding email to the tenant asks: Who, What, Where, Why, When, and How.  While it may seem like over-kill to ask a tenant for these kinds of details it is indeed very important to have these details so that you can do your job as a landlord properly (this is explained below).

As a result of you response to the tenant let's assume that you get this reply:

Hi Larry Landlord:

Thank you for writing back to me.  I was up all night (Jan 22) and called the police at 2:00 a.m. (Jan 23) to get them to shut down the party.  A stereo was blasting until past 2:00a.m. that I could hear from inside my own unit.  The pounding bass made everything in my unit vibrate and I couldn't sleep. People were running up and down the hallways shouting, hooting, and there was a lot of swearing--though it was a party.  I thought I'd try to talk to the tenant who was having the party but I couldn't find the tenant as there were too many people.  The unit that was having the party was apartment 4--the new people who moved in two weeks ago.  I smelled a lot of cigarette smoke in the hallways and it was even coming under my door which triggered my asthma.  There was a fair amount of cannabis smoke too.  The partiers were friendly and happy enough--for drunk people, but I really wasn't in the mood to join in because I had to be at work and at a job interview the next day.  The place finally quieted down around 3:30 a.m. when the police arrived.  I spoke with the officers because I called them.  They saw what was going on and the party was shut down quickly.  I didn't get a police report number.  Please, can you do something about this?  I didn't get any sleep and I have a job interview today that I am going to have to cancel.  There are lots of witnesses, I saw a lot of the neighbours partying too.  Terry Tenant

You might get a reply as detailed as this one above or maybe it will provide only a little bit more information.  You might need to go back to the tenant asking for more details or perhaps you will need to make a call to the tenant to get the information you need to understand exactly what happened.

Make sure to take note when trying to collect the details about the complaint that you get a sense of how serious the complaint is.  If the complaining tenant doesn't follow up with you or refuses to cooperate, or demands anonymity, or is otherwise hesitant to take the matter any further, this tells you a lot about what you will ultimately be able to do (even if you manage to substantiate the complaint).

THE INVESTIGATION

Having received the complaint and having details about what is alleged to have occurred it is necessary for you to reach out to the tenant being complained about.  Depending on the seriousness of the complaint you might decide to call that tenant or email the tenant.  The communication with the tenant (being complained about), should not be confrontational nor accusatory.  It isn't a fight and I don't suggest that you approach it in that way.  You are not contacting the tenant being complained about as the advocate for the complaining tenant---you're not there to make the case against this tenant.  Instead, you want to approach this as a fact finding mission with the intent being to just understand what happened.  In this regard, you might want to start off with the tenant indicating that you received a complaint about a party in the building on Jan 22/23 and that you are investigating the complaint.  And from there you see what the tenant says.

The complained about tenant might email you back or perhaps it is an oral conversation.  However it goes, you should document the response and information that get from contacting this tenant.  Perhaps, given the size of the party, you decide to contact one of your other tenants in the building who you've known for a long time to ask what happened.  Document the information you get from this as well.  The point is to collect as much information as you can as efficiently as possible.

How many people you talk to and how much effort you put into the investigation really depends on how much information you get, what the evidence looks like, the seriousness of the issues, and what action you think will need to be taken.

INVESTIGATION RESULTS

Let us assume that as a result of the investigation you have figured out what happened.  For the purpose of this article I'm going to list two different conclusions from the investigation to demonstrate how two different conclusions can lead to two different actions you might take.

Conclusion #1

The tenants in apartment 4 are 3 young guys all in University.  When you contacted one of the tenants he said, "yeah sorry, but it wasn't so bad and was a lot of fun.  Mid-term exams were finished so we blew off some steam.  We didn't invite all those people they just showed up.  I don't know how they got in the building but we didn't let them in.  Anyway, people were having fun, no one got hurt, and it was a good time.  So I don't think it's a big deal.  The neighbour downstairs complains about everything and is a real stick in the mud.  The cops shut us down because of the complaint but didn't charge us at all.

Conclusion #2

The tenants in apartment 4 apologized immediately upon contacting them.  It turns out they threw a Superbowl party.  They went to every unit in the building and invited all the neighbours before the party and asked if they would be cool with a fun, loud, and boisterous "block party" in the building. Everyone was cool and loved the idea--especially the "free beer" from the kegs brought in.   They thought that everyone in the building was cool, everyone was invited, and no one said anything negative.  Turns out that they thought the complaining tenant was away as another tenant said that Terry Tenant was away on business.   They said the party was awesome and the first sign of any issue was the police showing up.  The party was shut down immediately and they asked the cops who complained because they wanted to apologize to that person.  The police said that "privacy" prevented them from sharing that information.  

About the smoking--tobacco and cannabis---they said they noticed it too and that they asked those guests who were smoking to go outside or to leave.  They are aware of the no smoking clause and that they don't smoke and find it very disrespectful that people would presume to smoke in the building without permission.

WHAT TO DO WITH THE INVESTIGATION CONCLUSIONS?

The investigation conclusions (both versions), confirm to you that there was a party, it was loud, and that there was activity (smoking, shouting, stereo), that would very likely be disturbing to other tenants.  The legal question is whether the complained about activity amounts to a "substantial interference with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex for all usual purposes by the landlord or another tenant or substantially interferes with another lawful right, privilege, or interest of the landlord or another tenant."   This legal question is the legal requirement for serving a Notice of Termination under section 64 of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).

As we look at the provisions of section 64 (above) ask yourself whether the investigation conclusions justify a determination that there was a "substantial" interference.  Not just any noise, party, or shouting that bothers another tenant is enough to meet the legal test for eviction.  The complained about activity must be "substantial".  Further, the "substantial" interference must also be interfering with "reasonable" enjoyment.

"Reasonable" enjoyment does not mean any kind of enjoyment that a tenant has.  The "enjoyment" that is interfered with must be "reasonable" within the context of the building and the community and the other circumstances of the residential complex.  For example, a tenant may really enjoy almost perfect silence in the early evening and then want to go to bed at an early hour (for whatever reason). If a tenant moves in above that tenant but lives a different life style with perhaps children playing or toddlers bumping around or babies crying or with a dog that barks occasionally or who watches television until late in the evening or who has several friends over regularly to play cards or other activity which isn't "perfectly silent" and the ordinary sounds of those activities transfer between the units due to the construction of the building--this is not an interference with "reasonable" enjoyment. 

A tenant's demand for "perfect silence" is not reasonable when the noises complained about arise from normal living and objectively reasonable behaviour.  At a certain point there are some sounds and building noises that are part of apartment living in that building and these sounds must be accepted.  Tenant's who cause normal sounds will not be in breach of section 64 RTA.


IS THERE A SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE with REASONABLE ENJOYMENT?

I think in both investigation conclusions that it is fairly obvious that there was a substantial interference.  The music was admittedly loud.  The police shut down the party.  The sound travelled between units and vibrated the walls.  The smoking was contrary to the lease as well as the Smoke Free Ontario Act and it triggered asthma and made another tenant ill.  That a tenant would want to be able to sleep peacefully during the night is, I think, "reasonable enjoyment" as is not wanting to inhale second hand smoke.   In all respects, I think, both investigation conclusions support a determination that the tenants in apartment 4 breached section 64 RTA and that Terry Tenant's complaint is justified.

WHAT DO YOU DO THEN?

Section 64 of the RTA is the legal basis for dealing with a tenant substantially interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of the premises.  Section 64 is the section that supports a Notice of Termination in  Form N5.  The Form N5 is available on the Landlord and Tenant Board website.  The letter "N" stands for "notice".  The number "5" simply means that it is the 5th notice.

Because of what you have determined in your investigation you should consider serving the tenant in apartment 4 with a Notice of Termination in Form N5.

The N5 Form is the correct form to use when the issue is "substantial interference".  Unfortunately, it is also one of the trickiest forms to use under the Residential Tenancies Act.   If you have not filled out an N5 before you will need to set aside some time to read the form and the online guide and take time to understand how the form works.   An N5 is a voidable Notice of Termination meaning that a tenant who receives one will be given a chance to correct their behaviour and continue their tenancy.

There are blank spots throughout the N5 Form that you need to fill out. You can get help on how to fill out the various blanks by reading the Guide.  

There are two areas in the Form that are most susceptible to fatal error.  A fatal error is one that makes the Form void and useless.  Do not presume that a small mistake can be corrected.  For the most part, an N5 must be correct and any error results in the form being declared void and you must start all over again.  There is no benefit of the doubt and there is no sympathy for it being your "first time" and simply not knowing or making a mistake.  The Appellate caselaw is clear that certain errors in a Notice of Termination are not correctable.

Hence, I would urge you to pay attention to the blank part of the form in which you must insert the Termination Date.  Note that the termination date is a future date that you insert based on a specified number of days of notice.  For an N5 the number of days for a 1st N5 is 20 days and for a 2nd N5 it is 14 days.  Be sure to understand how to calculate time and how to count days in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Board Rules.

The second blank spot that creates major problems is the part of the Form N5 that has you insert the "Details for this Notice".   The Form gives the impression that you can fill in the required detail in the small space provided.  What you should actually do is type into the space "see attached" and then attach a sheet of paper to the Form that provides the proper level of detail.

WHAT IS THE PROPER LEVEL OF DETAIL IN AN N5?

This question is answered by looking back at the level of detail you asked for from the complaining tenant.  The law provides that a tenant who receives an N5 Notice is entitled to a very high level of detail so that they know exactly what is being alleged and so that they know exactly what conduct to stop and so that they can know exactly whether the allegations are legitimate or wrong.  A tenant who receives an N5 will use the allegations as the basis for the claim against them and it is these allegations that the tenant will seek to defend against.

If the Details in the N5 are vague or insufficient then the N5 is void.  A void N5 means that the Landlord and Tenant Board has no power to evict and no power to consider the application.  Your case will be dismissed, the application fee that you paid will be wasted, and you will have to start again.

The "Details" that you should be providing in the N5 should cover: Who, What, Where, When, Why and How.  These details would include the dates and times of the incident.  The incident should be described and it should be explained how the incident substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex by the landlord or another tenant.    Allegations that are generic or just general allegations of "bad behaviour" are unlikely to be sufficient to meet the details requirement.

TO SERVE THE N5 NOTICE OF TERMINATION or not?

Is serving a Notice of Termination a landlord's only option when the complaint is well founded?  As you will recall you have two very different investigation conclusions arising from the same complaint?  Does your response, as a landlord, need to be the same for both?

The short answer is "no".  As a landlord you have a duty to investigate, determine what happened, and then decide what the next appropriate steps should be.  Simply because the legal test is satisfied does not mean that you must serve legal notice to terminate a tenancy.  You are entitled to exercise some judgment and to be reasonable in your approach.  When deciding how to deal with an issue (after the investigation is done), you might consider how the tenant reacted, the chance of further problems, the evidence available at a hearing, the assumption of responsibility by the tenant, remorse shown by the tenant, and the likely outcome at a hearing.

The first investigation outcome led to a conclusion, I think, that the tenant was indifferent to the problems that he caused.  He did not accept responsibility, blamed the complainant, and suggested that responsibility actually fell to someone else.   It does not seem that this tenant will have learned anything by virtue of the complaint and there is nothing to suggest that there was a misunderstanding or other circumstance that makes the incident less blameworthy.  For this tenant, serving a voidable 1st N5 Notice of Termination makes sense.

The second investigation conclusion is very different.  While an N5 could still be served--is it required to be served?  I suggest that it is not.  Here you have a tenant who sought buy-in from the neighbours and thought he had everyone on board.  He was remorseful of the problem caused and sought to apologize to the tenant who complained.  During the event he recognized his responsibility and tried to deal with smokers who were breaking the Rules. 

Further this tenant was seeking to have a party and make fun for all of the tenants in the building.  A block party style celebration in an apartment building is something that you might not want to discourage.  A happy tenant community that communicates well leads to a happy building.  As a landlord you likely want to encourage this.  Given what you have concluded would serving an N5 be over the top?

Of course you can serve the N5 but there are other considerations.  If you are satisfied that serving an N5 is unnecessary then make note of your conclusions and reasons and end the matter there.  You may then wish to contact the complaining tenant (Terry Tenant) and advise that you have looked into the matter and that you are satisfied that it will not happen again.  Invite the tenant to contact you if anything further does occur in the building.

FURTHER INCIDENTS

If you served the N5 on the tenant and the "substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment" continues within 7 days of serving the first N5 then you may apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board using Form L2.  

The "L" letter stands for Landlord and the "2" number simply means 2nd application form.  The L2 application relies on the N5 Notice of Termination that you served.  You may file the application on-line with the LTB and in due course the Landlord and Tenant Board will send you a Notice of Hearing to attend (presuming that the tenant did not move out in accordance with the N5).

If, after serving the N5, the tenant stopped the complained about behaviour for at least 7 days then the first N5 Form has been voided and you can not apply to the LTB on that Notice.  However, if after 7 days but before the expiration of 6 months the tenant does something again then you can serve a 2nd N5 Notice of Termination and then apply to the LTB using the Form L2.

AT THE HEARING

When you are drafting your N5's and making the various allegations in these Notices you should consider whether you are in a position to prove the allegations at a hearing.  For proof you will need witnesses to attend at the hearing to testify about what happened.  If the witnesses are unwilling to come or the person who complained refuses to cooperate in telling the LTB what happened then the entire process of serving a Notice and filing an Application is likely a waste of time.  As the landlord you have the burden of proof (on a balance of probabilities) to prove that the things you allege in the N5 actually happened.  If you can not convince the adjudicator that what you say happened did indeed happen then your case is dismissed.  A tenant is not required to prove anything at all because the burden rests with you as the landlord.

The examples in this article (noise, smoking, shouting) were all experienced by Terry Tenant.  The person disturbed by the incident is Terry Tenant and as such the evidence from Terry Tenant is very important to have.  Could you rely on a letter or affidavit from Terry Tenant as opposed to having her come to the hearing?  Not really.  While the Landlord and Tenant Board will accept a letter or an affidavit, if the tenant challenges the allegations and explains something contrary to what is written by Terry Tenant then it is likely that the LTB will accept the evidence from the person who actually showed up to testify over the person who only wrote a letter.

OUTCOMES OF N5 / L2 applications

There is a very wide range of outcomes when it comes to these kinds of cases.  The Landlord and Tenant Board is not actively seeking to terminate tenancies and evict people.  In fact, the RTA requires the LTB to consider preserving tenancies if at all possible.  An adjudicator is required to consider relieving against eviction when it is reasonable to do so.  In deciding this the adjudicator will take into account all of the circumstances as well as any issues that may arise under the Ontario Human Rights Code (HRC) if the issues arise from a disability or other HRC factor. 

At the hearing you will be first offered mediation (typically) and if that does not result in a settlement the case will proceed to hearing.  As the applicant you will proceed first and prove the allegations in the N5's to the best of your ability.  You will call witnesses, tender documents, show video, photos, and whatever else it is that you have to prove the case.  As your witnesses testify, the tenant (or the tenant's lawyer) will be permitted to cross-examine your witnesses.  

Once your case is concluded the tenant is permitted to lead evidence and defend against the allegations.  The tenant could deny what happened or perhaps admit what happened but provide a different explanation or context for the incident.  The tenant's entire case could be aimed at getting the LTB adjudicator to exercise discretion and let them stay notwithstanding the incident.

You will be permitted to cross examine any of the tenant's witnesses and the tenant as well if the tenant gives evidence.

The hearing will end with you and the tenant making submissions and arguing to the LTB what you think the evidence proved and what the proper outcome of the case should be.

The adjudicator will very likely reserve the decision.  This means that the decision will be written out and delivered in the mail in the coming month or so.  There is no strict deadline for a decision being made though the service standard suggests a 30 day period for a decision to be rendered.  

CONCLUSION

This article is a high level view of how to deal with complaints about tenant's making noise.  Within this article there are topics that have been skimmed over but which you should still learn about.  The technicalities of Notices of Termination, how applications are filed, how evidence is presented, how law is argued, and the various possible outcomes and how to argue for them are all major aspects of arguing and presenting cases before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Is it reasonable for a landlord to be expected to know how the Residential Tenancies Act is to be applied in detail?  My personal view is that every landlord has an obligation to know the structure of the RTA and the high-level structure of the law.  Every landlord should be aware of their legal obligations and the legal rights of tenants in the big picture.  A landlord can get into far too much trouble if they don't have a basic understanding of the Residential Tenancies Act.  Beyond that, I do think it is a bit much for a landlord to have a detailed appreciation of the RTA.

Unless you are a very unlucky landlord and have very troublesome tenants you should hope to have very little interaction with the LTB and hope to not really need Notices of Termination.  If you have selected and screened your tenants well you could reasonably avoid the LTB and the legal niceties of eviction.   However, the key is to be aware of your obligations and to know when you are getting out of your depth.  When that occurs, consider retaining a paralegal or lawyer who does this kind of work on a day in and day out basis to properly guide you.  While the expense of legal help is unavoidable at least you will have the best chance of dealing with a problem and solving it.  Landlord's can suffer serious losses if they have a tenant disturbing other tenants and whose behaviour isn't controlled.  Other tenants will only tolerate being bothered for so long before they give a notice to terminate their own tenancy (so you lose a good tenant) or they decide to file an application against you to force you to do your job and pay them money for not doing it.

TAKE AWAY FROM THIS ARTICLE

You will hopefully realize that when you receive complaints about tenants making noise from other tenants that you have a duty to respond to that complaint.  You must investigate and determine what, if anything, needs to be done about the incident complained about.

Michael K. E. Thiele
www.ottawalawyers.com

15 comments:

  1. Here's one for you....

    I live in a "rooming house" type environment where each of 4 tenants pays the landlord separately. My co-tenants are complaining to the landlord that I am keeping them up.

    Here's the thing...I work from 10am to 6pm, and often get home between 9pm and 11pm. They get up and leave for work at 5:30 or 6am, and are in bed asleep by 9 or 10pm.

    I respect their hours, and I am in the living room, browsing the internet with the sound off. I'm not cranking the tunes, yakking on the phone, or watching movies. For the most part I am very, very quiet...but just walking around or climbing the stairs to use the washroom generates complaints about noise.

    Last night I was at the casino for SuperBowl and arrived home at 2am, I entered very quietly, closed the door gently, and made very little in the way of noise. Nonetheless, the others went crying to the landlord and now he's threatening to evict on the principle of "majority rules".

    So how does THAT work? Are there any defined hours for noise? For example, if the restrictions are "no noise after 11pm" does that mean I am allowed to start a movie at 9pm, knowing they are heading for bed? What is considered "excessive" noise? Surely walking up the stairs and flushing a toilet shouldn't qualify.

    I get it, people have rights, and especially in a shared environment, people need to respect the rights of others to lead a normal life. But if I can't crack my knuckles 3 hours after my shift ends, then what about MY rights to quiet enjoyment of my home, even though my room-mates are on a different sleep schedule?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi: I think that you are focusing on exactly the right questions/issues. Certainly, as a tenant you have a right to quiet enjoyment of the rental unit as much as anyone else in the property. Other tenants can not expect you to conform to the way that they live. I do not think that such an expectation is reasonable. You describe your own actions as considerate and if this is indeed how you are behaving then I have great difficulty finding fault with your behaviour.

      This notion of "majority rules" is, quite frankly, nonsense. The Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) does not contemplate a "majority rules" system of landlord and tenant relations. Tenants have individual rights and individual obligations. How these rights and obligations over-lap is the trick.

      Your conduct, if it is to be the basis of eviction, must amount to a "substantial interference" with "reasonable enjoyment". Can going to the bathroom, flushing the toilet, mounting stairs, be considered "substantial interference"? It is highly unlikely. Of course, if you are flushing the toilet repeatedly for your amusement and are walking up and down the stairs repeatedly for exercise and further causing normal sounds to happen over and over and over again for you won amusement--then perhaps indeed these sounds could constitute "substantial interference". However, if the behaviour is as you describe then I simply don't see it.

      The next part of the test is "reasonable enjoyment". What constitutes "reasonable enjoyment" is an objective question (as opposed to subjective). It is "objective" in the sense of what would the "reasonable person" think (this used to be called the "reasonable man" test). It's not what your co-tenants think or what they've cooked up amongst themselves as reasonable behaviour. It is an outside objective question. On this end of the spectrum I think you're safe as well. Reasonable enjoyment in a rooming house can not encompass a level of quiet and privacy that is equivalent to a fully self contained apartment. Even in the context of self contained apartments what constitutes "reasonable" varies depending on the age of the building, construction methods, etc.. I don't think that "reasonable enjoyment" in a rooming house can extend to an expectation that all residents will go to sleep at the same time, enter the premises at the same time, leave to work at the same time, use the facilities within a set period, and not watch t.v., computers, and all the things you describe. Your behaviour, as you describe it, fits well within what I would consider the kind of behaviour (and consequent noise from that behaviour) that tenants in a rooming house would simply have to accept.

      Accordingly, if the landlord did try to evict (likely an N5 Notice of Termination), I don't think that he would be successful if the evidence comes out as you describe it.

      Of course, evidence collection is a bit of a trick. The evidence against you will likely be a bunch of complaining co-tenants. Hence, to the extent that you are able you might want to collect corroborating evidence of how you live and the noises you cause for your defence.

      Good luck
      Michael K. E. Thiele
      www.ottawalawyers.com

      Delete
  2. While on a year-long sabbatical, I rented my second "work-adjacent" home, fully-furnished (located 4 hours from my main home) to two tenants and a girlfriend. Nine months later I discovered that my house was raided by the police and the tenants face a total of 32 felonies between them. The house and its contents were severely damaged, furniture was moved, damaged, and the house rendered filthy (a drug distribution operation and brothel were run from my home). I had the tenants sign a form N9 (Tenant's Notice to End the Tenancy), although their bail conditions included keeping clear of the house in which their criminal activities took place.

    We're in the middle of an extensive clean-up and repair, which will take months. I also plan to file for damages in Small Claims Court, but my question is this: is it true that landlords effectively relinquish most of their rights to a property once a lease is signed? Of course landlords retain their ownership, and the right to enter a property in order to effect a repair, or with 24 hours notice, etc. But in reconsidering my future as a landlord, is this accurate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi: I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "relinquish most of their rights". Certainly, when you sign a lease with a tenant you convey certain rights to the tenant and to the extent that you are giving the tenant certain rights you are relinquishing your rights in that respect. If you wanted to see exactly what you are giving up and what you are granting to the tenant you might want to read the Residential Tenancies Act. Part III of the RTA sets out the Responsibilities of Landlords (section 20-32), and in that you will see that you are granting (by lease and statute) and fair amount of rights to the tenant. Scan the other parts of the Act and you will see that your ability to contract for terms you find acceptable is not in fact possible if what you want is contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act. The law limits your ability to contract freely.

      Are you effectively relinquishing your rights as a residential landlord? I suppose the answer in many respects is "yes"--especially when it comes down to controlling the property, accessing the property, regaining possession of the property and determining who occupies the property (i.e. guests, roommates). Your ability to recover the property is limited to the reasons provided for in the RTA and a fairly pervasive theme in the RTA is "security of tenure" which roughly means that a tenant is granted the right to remain in the property for an unlimited amount of time with the right to quiet enjoyment of the property without harassment from the landlord. The exception to "security of tenure" are the grounds provided for in the RTA which allow you to serve a Notice of Termination and apply to the LTB for eviction.

      Michael K. E. Thiele
      www.ottawalawyers.com

      Delete
  3. Thank you for the quick and direct response. You covered what I had intended when I wrote "relinquish most...rights."

    This part of your reply: "Are you effectively relinquishing your rights as a residential landlord? I suppose the answer in many respects is "yes"--especially when it comes down to controlling the property, accessing the property, regaining possession of the property and determining who occupies the property (i.e. guests, roommates). Your ability to recover the property is limited to the reasons provided for in the RTA ..." is especially interesting, and not widely known, I'd imagine. I'm certain that an expanded column on this particular aspect of the RTA would be of interest to many.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Michael,

    This is for a slightly unrelated landlord/tenant issue, but I wasn't sure if you would see my comment if I wrote it on an older post.

    I sublet a furnished apartment in a co-op building and put a large grey rug I didn't like in a community storage space (seems foolish now, but hindsight is 20/20 and the rug did not seem especially valuable). When I tried to retrieve it, the rug was gone. She became distraught and told me the rug was priceless; she has a receipt to prove she bought it in 2001 for $5000. She never told me the furniture was expensive and it did not look very pricey, so I was shocked. I replaced the rug with a less expensive one and said it was all right if she kept my $1000 damage deposit as she was so upset.

    She is now suing me in small claims for $7000 (she did a cheap online valuation on 'ValueMyStuff' of the rug that put the cost at $5000 US). My question is: am I responsible for the original value of an object that was almost 20 years old? How can I prove this website's recommendation doesn't make any sense? She also had the rug insured, so she has already gotten her money back.

    I can't find a lot of tenant law about furnished apartments, most of it seems to be about damages to property. What if the apartment was returned in good condition, but one object was stolen due to (arguably) my own negligence?

    Thank you so so much in advance for your help. This blog has been a lifesaver for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Gemma:

      The Residential Tenancies Act doesn't have much to offer you. This would be especially the case if this is a Co-op as the RTA is of limited application to Co-ops. However, it is possible for a Co-op to rent out units as RTA covered relationships as opposed to member rights and occupancy rights as a co-op member (different altogether). If the person you sublet from was a tenant (RTA covered) then your sub-tenancy would likely be RTA covered as well with the tenant being your landlord. That being said, would it help you very much if this is an RTA covered tenancy?

      The RTA has no section dealing with furnished apartments. Hence, dealing with the "contents" from a statutory perspective I think would incorporate the idea of "negligent" or "wilful" damage which are the criteria under the RTA for imposing liability on a tenant for causing damage. I don't know that this is really helpful for you as it doesn't seem applicable for what has happened here. Certainly, you removed the rug intentionally--hence that would be wilful. However, the intent wasn't "damage" and in fact the wilful aspect had nothing to do with damage. It was more of a decorating issue to make the place more homey. Could you expect the rug to be stolen from the community storage space? Wasn't it reasonable to put it there?

      As there RTA isn't too helpful I think there will be other legal principles at play. Those, are beyond the scope of this blog--and beyond the scope of my immediate knowledge (i.e. I'd have to do some research on what "law" should apply). If I was researching I think there might be something fruitful in the law of "bailment" so I would research around that and see what the cases say. Your "contract" which is the sublease, would also be relevant but I imaging it is silent on the issue of stuff in the unit. Would straight up "negligence" law apply? It's hard to see how but I can imagine the question being analyzed from a perspective of negligence whether or not that is the correct law--as there is something attractive about looking at an issue from the perspective of "fault".

      If I were you I would take the invoice, go to a carpet store and see what a replacement costs. Ask too, what a 20 year old carpet is worth and get an opinion about the current value of a used 20 year old carpet. Carpets in a rental unit have a legislated useful life of 10 years--you can find this in Schedule 8 of O/Reg 516/06--it is the table of Useful Life of Thing Purchased (yes, it is weird that such a chart exists).

      I think the chart is useful to you because it sets out some statutory expectations. It's not absolute and is a guideline only. However, if carpets on floors in rental units are expected to last 10 years it begs the question why the 20 year old carpet on the floor in your unit isn't totally worn out. Perhaps it explains why you thought it so ugly and presumed it was not worth very much. That is a useful way of setting up an argument about reasonable expectations.

      Perhaps the tenant who owned the carpet couldn't see that her $5000 carpet was worn out and done because she still hadn't gotten over paying $5000 for a carpet? What does a carpet that is 20 years old really owe you?

      Delete

    2. You mention and I think it is a strong argument, that the tenant didn't warn you about anything expensive in the unit. You haven't mentioned the monthly rent or the quality of the "fit up" of the unit. If the rent is run of the mill range and the other stuff in the unit is "typical"--Ikea, Sears, Walmart, Leons, The Brick, type furniture why would anything in the unit say to you be very careful about this particular item because it is very expensive. If the "fit up" shouts "regular" why would you be expected to take particular care with a rug. I say this because I wonder if a tenant shouldn't be required to point out particularly expensive items and warn a sub-tenant that somethings are especially valuable and to be very careful.

      If a tenant I was renting from said--"that is a $7000 rug in the living room", I'm fairly certain that I would say "roll it up and put it in storage please pending me moving out". I say this having kids, a dog, and the tendency to slosh my wine and beer when the good times are rolling. You can't put an heirloom rug on the floor, not tell the sub-tenant about its exceptional nature, and then come after them when something happens to the rug. That makes no sense. I presume the tenant would be equally distraught if a pet wrecked it (you have a right to pets), a kid wrecked it, or a big red wine stain adorned it--would it be reasonable to sue for $7000 to replace an unremarkable rug due to accidental damage? I think not.


      I'd explore also the idea of this communal storage area. That sounds different to me than an abandoned items area. Is it expected that what you put there will still be there later? If so, isn't it reasonable to store a junky looking thing there until it is needed again? I think so. Had the tenant told you it was $7000 I imagine you would have kept it in the unit or had it placed in secure storage. The "seems foolish" part I don't think is actually "foolish". Your behaviour strikes me as reasonable in the context of what you knew--and what you reasonably could know at the time. Maybe you should have sent an email asking the tenant if you could move the rug to community storage? Or perhaps it is reasonable not to ask if you think you're dealing with something junky. Certainly the $1000 you offered gets you a reasonably nice area rug/persian rug whether at IKEA or at the rather common Persian Rug auctions that grace our cities on a regular basis.

      I don't see your action in putting the rug in "storage" as being negligent or foolish.

      I wonder too, has the tenant put up a notice in the building to inquire all the neighbours whether they have the rug? You presume theft, the tenant presumes theft. What if it was stolen but presumed abandoned. Perhaps the person who assumed it was abandoned would return it if a notice was put up and people were asked to return it. Often enough, property managers have email addresses of all of the tenants/owners/members--perhaps an email can be sent out to everyone asking if the person who took it (presuming the rug was abandoned) would please contact you to arrange for its return. This would be a useful exercise too as it would let you get some evidence about people's expectations about putting stuff in that storage area. If it is expected to be reasonably safe storage (but it isn't) why did the tenant not warn you about the thieving from storage. If you couldn't rely on the integrity of provided storage why weren't you warned?

      Anyway, that's about all I can think of for the moment. Good luck with this. If you don't mind, I'd like to hear the outcome. Your first step will be a pre-trial and if it doesn't settle there a trial. Frankly, I like your chances (gut reaction) and your offer of a $1000 seems very reasonable to me.

      Good luck
      Michael K. E. Thiele
      www.ottawalawyers.com

      Delete
  5. Hi Micheal,

    This is an unrelated question, but I haven't been able to find a more relevant article on your blog and this is the most recent post.

    I moved into a rental unit 8 months ago and recently I used the 'clothes processor' machine in the unit for the first time, only to discover that it is broken. I submitted a work order to fix it, and was then informed by my landlord that the machine was not provided by them, that it was most likely left behind by a previous tenant and missed by their technicians during my move in inspection. They say they are under no obligation to fix it, which is fine, however, they also say that since it has been several months since I moved in, I have 'inherited' the item and that it is now my responsibility to fix or remove, and that I should have figured it out sooner since on my lease it says that laundry is not provided.

    I want to argue that based on Section 41 of the Residential Tenant agreement, all items left by former tenants should have been removed prior to my moving in. I also have an email from the landlord stating that all items left behind by previous tenants that are not included on an itemized list by the incoming tenant - which I did not provide - will be disposed of. Notably, no where in my lease, or in any emails, does it say that it is my responsibility to inform them of items left behind that are missed during the inspection that requires removal, nor a time period that such requests need to happen by. They claim that not helping with the removal is their protocol, but that protocol was never communicated to me and I cannot abide by rules I have not been made aware of.

    I just want the machine removed from my unit. Due to its size, I feel like it will cost quite a bit to pay for its removal, and I physically can't pick it up myself. Also, its more of the principal of it all. Two times previous to this situation they've denied maintenance requests I made, and I had to remind them of their legal obligations as a landlord for them to complete them. Additionally, during the conversation about the clothes processor, I was accused of lying to them, and that I had a deal on the down-low with the previous tenants (whom I've never had contact with) and am now regretting that decision.

    Its just frustrating as they are correct that it has been a while, and that laundry is not included according to the lease (though, it is a 'clothes processor' not a washing/drying machine so can it really be considered laundry?), and this situation falls into a grey area in terms of my rights as a tenant. I just don't feel like it should be my responsibility to deal the machine. I'm afraid that if I choose to just leave it, when I do move out they'll charge me for not removing it. I also feel that if they did a proper inspection in the first place I wouldn't be currently in this predicament.

    Any thoughts on the situation would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi: So I am having trouble getting past the idea of whatever a "clothes processor" is. I confess googling it to see if this is something I should know about. It appears that even google doesn't know what a "clothes processor" is (at least not on the first page) other than as a job for people. A little deeper and it appears that the contraption is an all in one dryer/washer.

      Anyway, the landlord's position is simply being made up as it goes along. I think you could in fact insist on it being repaired by the landlord and provided by the landlord. The lease is only one document that speaks to the terms of the lease--the presence of the unit in the apartment and confirmation that former tenant's stuff would be removed also speaks to the terms of the lease being that it is included in the rent. LTB caselaw recognizes that if things are on the premises that these are presumed included in the tenancy and that these items must work. You have more of an argument here than you recognize. That being said, it is an argument and not necessarily a conclusive victory.

      The balance of the landlord's position is pure nonsense. If the "processor" is not included in the tenancy then they better get it out of the unit. The whole delay time thing is, in my view, just plain silly. They risk the "processor" being found a term of the lease if they don't choose to remove it.

      How to solve this problem? The Landlord and Tenant Board would tell you to file an application and require the landlord to attend and remove the "processor". While you're at it you could ask for a rent abatement as well. Alternatively, you could file an application asking for an Order requiring the landlord to repair the machine (a T6 application), failing which if the landlord succeeds in arguing that the "processor" is not included then an Order requiring the landlord to remove it.

      The next alternative isn't really a sanctioned approach under the RTA but you must wonder what would happen if you dragged the unit into the hallway (presuming an apartment building) or you drag it somewhere else on the landlord's property and abandon it there. The landlord could get upset and perhaps might try to charge back the cost or maybe even serve you with a Notice of Termination and try to threaten the termination of your tenancy. Perhaps they would file with the LTB---but I think a sane landlord wouldn't waste the time and money. If they did, I think you'd win that case and certainly if the LTB for some reason felt the landlord was correct then I would expect relief to be exercised in your favour on paying the disposal costs.

      Good luck to you.

      Michael K. E. Thiele
      www.ottawalawyers.com

      Delete
  6. Hi Mr Thiele, I have a question for you. Last year I moved out of my house and rented the upper floor to a family new to Canada. I put my 20 year old son in the basement apartment of this semi-detached bungalow that was built in the 1950s, so floors are thin and not well insulated. These tenants have been complaining regularly about my son having friends over in the evening. The noise they are making is talking among themselves and laughing etc. I realize that sound travels between the floors but the tenant claims they go to bed at 10pm and need the house to be quiet, which I understand but I am not under the impression that 'excessive' noise is being made, and it is usually 11pm when the tenants are complaining about my son having friends over and hearing voices from their conversations. The last couple times the husband of the couple has gone down to the basement apartment and banged on the door in a very aggressive way and yelled at my son and his roommate there. Then they claim that my son and his roommate were disrespecting him. I feel like I have a situation on my hands as I don't feel that my son is making excessive noise, I know him and his buddies can have loud conversations, but I feel the constant complaints from the tenant are unfounded and that my son is not interfering with their enjoyment of the property. Not everyone goes to bed at 10pm, Also my son is complaining that when they get up in the morning at 6am that there is substantial noise from the upper floor, people stomping around etc. How should I address my upstairs tenant? I have spoken to my son already about having friends over and talking loud after 10 but not sure what to do with the tenant. Thank you, BB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the interesting question. Off hand, I can not think of any special category applicable to this rental situation. The section 5(i) exemption (sharing kitchen or bath) does not apply as I understand both units are separate and self contained. This isn't a small landlord building as your son isn't a landlord under the provision dealing with landlord's of small buildings (3 units or less--section 65 RTA). Hence, I think you deal with this as an ordinary tenancy vis a vis the upstairs tenant. Whether your son actually is a tenant under the RTA is debatable and fact specific (and those facts aren't here). It might matter whether your son is a tenant or if your son's occupancy is an extension of your privilege as the owner. I don't think he ever becomes a "landlord" though an argument could be made on the definition of landlord.

      Why does your son's status matter? Perhaps it doesn't. However, I see you approaching the upstairs tenant to advise that the complaints about noise from the basement are not well founded. I think you state that the nature of the construction of the house results in some sound transmission in the building that is unavoidable. Tell him that it isn't reasonable to require absolute quiet from the basement unit--in the same way that demanding absolute quiet from upstairs (at 6:00 a.m.) isn't reasonable either. You can reasonably tell the upstairs tenant that he will need to learn to accept the noise and come to an understanding with your son. Further, that if he bangs not the door, shouts, and intimidates your son that he will be served with an eviction notice and legal proceedings to evict will be initiated. You can invite the tenant to give notice and vacate as well. If the tenant needs absolute quiet then he is living in the wrong kind of building and he might as well move sooner than later. You can then take steps to find another tenant who perhaps has a lifestyle that mirrors more closely your son's lifestyle.

      If the trouble with the upstairs tenant continues I think you will be wanting to serve an N5. At that point, you will want to think about how to word the allegations. Is the upstairs tenant interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of another tenant? Or is the upstairs tenant interfering with a lawful interest or privilege of the landlord (which is to allow one's son to occupy an apartment). Either of these allow the service of the N5 but you will want to be more certain of the basis of the allegations against the upstairs tenant. If he decides to fight the eviction application you can be certain that he will raise the issue that the basement occupant is your son--which then can make live the basis of the notice of termination.

      All that being said, you should gather evidence, make notes, and have some investigation into the noise complaints. Beyond that, if the upstairs tenant starts making trouble again try to get your son to gather corroborating evidence of the upstairs tenant's behaviour. An eyebrow will undoubtedly raise when your "son" offers evidence against the upstairs tenant and you will want to ensure that you have clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.
      Michael Thiele
      www.ottawalawyers.com

      Delete
  7. Hi Mr. Thiele,

    I am a new tenant in a fairly nice apartment building that’s roughly 40 units tall. I live in a bachelor unit and in less than one month I’ve had more than 3 separate occurrences where I’ve been awoken by my noisy neighbours. The first instance it seemed like my neighbour to the left was throwing a small get together at 12am, with loud music. I called concierge and he confirmed the noise, knocked on their door and told them to quiet down. While they did quiet down a little bit, I could still hear their music, loud talking and loud bursts of laughter for a couple more hours. I called the concierge again but he didn’t agree that the noise was loud & that they were at a reasonable level. The second major occurrence was the other night, my other neighbour was having a loud argument with his girlfriend, loud enough to wake me up at 1am. Again I called the concierge but this time I also got a recording of their noise. However the concierge came to listen for noise for like 5 seconds, at a time where there was a small break in their argument. The concierge left quickly and texted me that there was no noise. However my recording and ears prove otherwise.

    That same noisy neighbour was again loudly shouting with his girlfriend while playing video games it sounded like? Again past 11pm, I have recordings of this disturbance but didn’t call the concierge due to fear of concierge not staying long enough to see if my noise complaint is valid. The noise this time was small loud bursts of yelling /cheering every few minutes or so that again disturbs my reasonable enjoyment of my unit as I am trying to sleep

    What legal basis do I have to make a complaint about noise? I feel so defeated as it’s been less than a month into my year long lease and if this is the problems I will have to deal with, it’s truly ruining my reasonable enjoyment of the unit.

    Do I draft a letter to my landlord documenting these disturbances? Do I even have a strong argument to make or would it even make a difference? This goes beyond normal day to day living, to be awoken in the middle of the night is very unpleasant. I’m just worried that because the concierge thought differently that my complaint doesn’t have that much merit.

    Any advice on how to proceed would be appreciated . Do people ever even win cases of noise complaints with the tenant board? What sort of proof is needed. Thanks in advance

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for this question and I am sorry for your luck in having noisy neighbours. I'll offer some comments on what you can do but--I fear--it will be rather unsatisfactory in that your problem will not be resolved any time soon.

      I am curious about your comment that your building is approximately 40 stories tall --I think you meant that as opposed to there being 40 units in total? The existence of a concierge suggests 40 stories too. Anyway, it matters because it makes me wonder if you are living in a condominium building. In the last number of years I haven't come across too many "nice" buildings that are entirely tenanted with a concierge--but perhaps you are?

      The possibility of being in a condo raises a complicating issue. Condominium units are owned by individuals or corporations. Within your 40 story building the units below, above, beside, you may or may not be owned by the landlord who owns your unit. That is a complicating factor as the steps your landlord can take--under the Residential Tenancies Act are severely curtailed. An example to explain--if you rented a free standing single family home on regular urban street and you had an unruly family move into a house beside you or across the street--what could you expect your landlord to do? Your landlord can't serve a notice on those neighbours under the Residential Tenancies Act. Your landlord can only deal with other tenants of whom he is also the landlord. If your neighbours are also your landlord's tenants then there are options to serve a Notice of Termination (Form N5) for substantially interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of the unit by other tenants. Basically, if you convince your landlord that your neighbour is noisy and disturbing you then your landlord can terminate the neighbours tenancy and evict them to solve your problem. However, if the neighbour is not your landlord's tenant then your landlord has no recourse against that neighbour under the Residential Tenancies Act.


      Delete
    2. On the assumption that you are living in a condo and your landlord is not the landlord of the noise making neighbour you will need to convince your landlord to make complaints to the condo management company or to the Board of Directors depending on how the building is run. The basis for complaint will be found in the Condo declaration, bylaws, rules. If you are in a condo then you should have been given these documents as an attachment to your own lease (check and see).

      Most condos have rules within their organizing documents that require owners (and their tenants) to not disturb other owners (or their tenants). The wording of how that is made a requirement can be unique from unit to unit. It is often described as no owner shall allow noise to escape from their unit to another unit--something like that. What you want to have happen is for your landlord to initiate a complaint to the condo management company. The Condo Manager, when satisfied that the complaint is warranted (i.e. collect evidence as you have) will then contact the owner and perhaps the tenant occupants (if your neighbour is a tenant and not an owner) and inform them of the breach of the condo rules. The Condo Manager will then require compliance.

      If the Condo Manager is ignored and the noise continues there is then a process of escalation. The Condo Manager threatens the owner of the unit with sanctions, costs, legal fees, as a consequence if the noise does not stop by brining a Court proceeding against the owner and quite likely also the occupant tenant. Now there is a new(ish) Tribunal--called the Condominium Authority Tribunal. It has jurisdiction to deal with nuisance claims and there are a few cases on the website to take a look at. Whether this is a required forum for raising these issues--or an option only--I am not sure. The point though is that you are aiming to get your landlord to compel the Property Manager to initiate proceedings against the owner of the noise making unit and to get compliance Orders.

      If it is possible to proceed to the Superior Court of Justice (instead of the CAT) I think this still remains the preferred route for a hearing process with teeth. It also seems "quicker" than Tribunal proceedings in Ontario at this time.

      Aside from convincing your landlord to complain to the Property Manager with the goal of getting the Property Manager to action your complaints; you may want to look into whether you have any rights of direct action against the neighbour. There is always an action in nuisance. Also, if I recall correctly, the Condominium Act gives some standing to all affected persons and you might be able to bring proceedings to enforce the Condo Rules yourself. In a way--that sounds good. But in reality, it is expensive and unlikely.

      What you can do, is collect evidence of the noise, report it to your landlord, do that repeatedly and demand that your landlord take action with the Property Manager. Compel the landlord to take all the necessary steps and compel the landlord to take action against the neighbouring owner (if necessary). Of course, your landlord will resist this as doing so is expensive and time consuming. However, your angle here is that if your landlord doesn't use the tools that he has under the Condominium Act to provide for your reasonable enjoyment of the premises then you can argue that your landlord is in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act----because you have a right to reasonable enjoyment. If your landlord does nothing (or very little), you can file an application against your landlord (T2 Form--see LTB website) and argue for a rent abatement because your landlord isn't doing what he should to get your reasonable enjoyment of your unit.

      You can likely tell that the foregoing is a nightmarishly long process--potentially. It's all nice in theory but in the meantime (while the process unfolds) you have a hard time sleeping.

      Good luck
      Michael K. E. Thiele
      www.ottawalawyers.com

      Delete

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Any answers provided are intended to reflect the Law of Ontario, Canada. The answers are not legal advice and no one should rely on the answers provided as legal advice. The answers are intended to be general information about Ontario Law and are the personal view of the author based on the limited facts provided to the author. The answers may not be legally accurate and may indeed be contrary to the law of Ontario. Answers and conclusions drawn may have been different if facts had been shared that have not been disclosed in the comment/question. This blog is intended to assist people in learning about Ontario Landlord and Tenant Law. However, if you have actual legal problems this blog should under no circumstances replace proper legal advice obtained by retaining a lawyer or licensed paralegal to advise you. Nothing in this blog, comments submitted or answers provided, gives rise to a solicitor and client relationship. Comments are published as submitted and commenters should be aware that if they identify themselves in a comment that their identity will become public upon the comment being published. Comments that have been published may be deleted upon request to the author.

The content of this article and any responses to comments are intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Search This Blog