Summary:
1. Lightbulbs: LTB rulings are divergent
2. Furnace filters: landlords' duty
3. Notes on 'de minimis'
(1)
LIGHTBULBS
Lighting is part of the building system, and municipal property standards, Ontario Regulations and the Building Code set requirements for lighting in a building. If there is no lightbulb, the lighting system does not work, and landlord's duty is to ensure that it is in working order.
One view is that, since the unit comes with lightbulbs (including inside appliances that are supplied by the landlord), the landlord has a duty to maintain them under RTA section 20, unless the tenant caused undue damage under RTA section 34.
If there are additional appliances brought by the tenant, then it's the tenant who would be responsible for the lightbulbs in his own appliances.
Ontario Regulation 517/06 sets out some provincial maintenance standards that need to be followed under the RTA, including the following from O. Reg. 517/06 section 19:
"Artificial lighting
19. (1) Adequate artificial lighting shall be available at all times in all rooms, stairways, halls, corridors, garages, and basements of a residential complex that are accessible to tenants. O. Reg. 517/06, s. 19 (1).
(2) Artificial lighting shall be provided in exterior common areas to permit these areas to be used or passed through safely, and to provide security. O. Reg. 517/06, s. 19 (2).
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a residential complex that has never been connected to an electrical power system. O. Reg. 517/06, s. 19 (3).
(4) Artificial lighting that has been installed in outbuildings normally used by tenants, including garages, shall be kept in operable condition. O. Reg. 517/06, s. 19 (4).
(5) Artificial lighting shall be maintained in a good state of repair. O. Reg. 517/06, s. 19 (5)."
Landlord's Self-Help Centre also seems to take the position that it is the landlord's duty:
"Do I have to change a light bulb for the tenant?
Most tenants will usually do it themselves; however, the Act states that tenants are only responsible for ordinary cleanliness of the unit. Therefore, this would fall under the landlord’s maintenance obligations."
However, LTB decisions seem to be divergent on lightbulbs. Some place this responsibility squarely on the landlord (as part of maintenance duties under RTA section 20), others - on the tenant (one ruling even going as far as calling it part of "ordinary cleanliness" under RTA section 33).
You be the judge:
1)
"22. I would state at this point that although it is extremely common for tenants to take on the task of purchasing and replacing light bulbs, the Act places responsibility for maintenance and repair squarely on the shoulders of the Landlord. Subsection 20(1) says:
A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.
23. So the Landlord should not be charging tenants for light bulbs."
2)
"(DG) also testified that the reason the light fixture was not working is because the light bulb was burned out. Despite the fact the Tenant is responsible to replace light bulbs, the Landlord provided the replacement bulb and the problem was remedied."
3)
"Furnace Filters
[63] The Tenant alleged that the Landlords needed to provide furnace filters to meet their maintenance obligations. However, supplying consumables such as light bulbs and furnace filters could equally be considered a tenant’s responsibility. The tenancy agreement was silent on the matter of furnace filters. Since the Tenant did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Landlords were obligated to supply furnace filters, I find the Landlords did not fail to met their maintenance and repair obligations under the Act."
4)
"I have denied the claim for the cost of halogen light bulbs because the Landlord is not responsible for providing light bulbs inside the unit."
5)
"13. I find that the Tenant did not have the consent or authority of the Landlord to purchase the LED light bulbs, GFI switches and locks. Further, no receipts were submitted by the Tenant to support his claim that he spent the claimed money."
6)
"Light Bulbs
12. The Landlord claimed the Tenants’ purposely removed light bulbs from fixtures when they moved out. The Tenants denied doing this.
13. The Landlord claimed $40.00 to replace bulbs. He had no receipts to support this amount. At the hearing the Landlord said he spent about $15.00 on bulbs and the remainder claimed was for his labour/time.
14. I have made no finding as to whether or not the Tenants removed light bulbs since I do not consider this minor issue to amount to undue damage, which must be established pursuant to section 89 of the Act."
7)
"Once they moved in, the Tenants say that, not only were the renovations not complete, but they observed the following problems with the rental unit:
[...]
• Each light fixture required 5 light bulbs, but only 1 bulb was in each fixture;"
The adjudicator never mentioned that the responsibility for replacing light bulbs should be on the tenant. Instead, he said about the whole list of maintenance issues (including the lightbulbs) the following:
"I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that all of the maintenance issues the Tenants have documented are genuine and they substantially interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the unit to such an extent that they were forced to moved out of the unit after only 3 days. Therefore, I find that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord's obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act to maintain the rental unit in a good state of repair and fit for habitation."
8)
"Lightbulbs
10. When the Tenants moved in, some of the lightbulbs in the unit were missing or burnt out. The Tenants wanted to replace them, but they did not know how to find bulbs that would fit the fixtures. They asked the Landlords to replace the bulbs. The Landlords replied by showing them a photo of the correct bulbs and identifying a hardware store that carried them. The Tenants persisted, and eventually the Landlords provided them with new lightbulbs.
11. Replacing burnt-out lightbulbs is such a trivial task that I am not prepared to find that it is encompassed in a landlord’s maintenance obligations. It seems to me that lightbulb replacement falls within the rubric of “ordinary cleanliness,” which is a tenant’s responsibility under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘RTA’).
12. Photos of the light fixtures are in evidence before me, and I can easily recognize them as a very common type of fixture for which bulbs are available at any hardware store. I do not find that the Landlord had any special obligation to assist the Tenants in finding bulbs to fit fixtures."
9)
"2. ... The Tenant also did not prove the presence of mould at the rental unit; and did not prove that he minimized his losses with respect to kitchen lightbulbs.
[...]
39. Furthermore, although the Tenant also testified at the hearing that the Landlord did not respond to the Tenant’s complaint of burnt-out kitchen lightbulbs, there was no evidence that the Tenant took the reasonable step of purchasing replacement lightbulbs to minimize the Tenant’s losses. No order, therefore, shall be issued against the Landlord for the kitchen lightbulbs."
_________________________________________
(2)
FURNACE FILTERS
"Maintenance of heating systems
17. Heating systems, including stoves, heating appliances, fireplaces intended for use, chimneys, fans, pumps and filtration equipment, shall be maintained in a good state of repair and in a safely operable condition. O. Reg. 517/06, s. 17."
LTB rulings that I've seen seem to treat replacement of furnace filters as the landlord's duty of maintenance under RTA section 20.
For example:
1)
"Furnace filters
53. The Tenant testified that when she moved into the rental unit she noticed that the furnace filter needed to be changed. The Tenant testified that she reported this issue to the Landlord immediately after noticing it. The Tenant testified that the Landlord’s response was to tell the Tenant to go to a hardware store and buy replacement filters. The Tenant testified that she bought two replacement filters at a total cost of $30.00. The Tenant testified that in December 2015 she asked the Landlord to reimburse her for the cost of the furnace filters but the Landlord did not do so and has not done so to date.
54. The Tenant testified that at some point in the tenancy she asked the Landlord to arrange to have the furnace serviced. The Tenant testified that the Landlord has not sent anyone to service the furnace. The Tenant testified that she had no problems with heat during the winter.
55. Based on the Tenant’s uncontested evidence I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that when she moved into the rental unit the furnace filter required replacing and that the Tenant replaced it at her own expense and the Landlord has not reimbursed the Tenant for the cost of the furnace filter. I therefore find that the Landlord has breached her obligations under s.20 of the Act with respect to the furnace filter.
56. Based on the Tenant’s uncontested evidence I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the Landlord failed to have the furnace serviced. However, the Tenant did not submit any evidence that the furnace required servicing or that there was any problem at all with the functioning of the furnace. In fact, the Tenant testified that there was adequate heat in the rental unit throughout the winter. I am therefore not satisfied that the Landlord has breached s.20 of the Act with respect to her failure to have the furnace serviced.
57. The Tenant testified that she spent $30.00 on replacement filters for the furnace. This is a reasonable cost for two furnace filters. The Landlord will therefore be ordered to reimburse the Tenant for this cost.
58. There will be no further remedy ordered for this issue. The Tenant gave no evidence as to any impact that the Landlord’s failure to reimburse her has caused with respect to the Tenant’s use and enjoyment of the rental unit."
2)
"85. M.M. explained that N.M. had inadvertently delivered the “wrong” type of filters at the rental unit, but when M.M. offered to resolve this mistake, the Tenant told him not to bother and that she would resolve the problem herself. She never mentioned a problem with the filters again until the issue appeared in the T6 Application. As well, although the Tenant chose to purchase her own air filters for the furnace, I find that she failed to demonstrate that the cheaper filters provided by the Landlords were inadequate."
3)
"According to the invoice filed by the Landlord, the problem was caused by plugged furnace filters and intake grates.
16. The furnace was not in a good state of repair as required by subsection 20(1) of the Act, and the disrepair should have been prevented by regular maintenance, for example, changing the furnace filters and cleaning the intake grates. Although the Landlord took the necessary steps to get the repair completed, the repair was not completed within a reasonable time given the nature of the problem. The Tenant, J.D., gave evidence that the Tenants were cold at night and had difficulty sleeping. The Tenants’ discomfort may have been reduced if they had accepted the space heater initially offered, but they would not have had to suffer any discomfort if the Landlord had performed regular, necessary maintenance such as changing the furnace filters. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant an abatement of 50% of the rent for the period from December 1, 2009 to December 11, 2009, which totals $145.56 (calculated as follows: $805.00 (rent paid for December 2009) X 12 months per year ÷ 365 days per year X 11 days X 50%)."
4)
"e) Furnace filters: the Tenant advised about the filters on September 13, 2016 and the Landlords responded the same day. There was a plan to replace the filters in a few weeks. However, two days later, the property manager purchased filters and on contacting the Tenant, she advised she had already replaced the filters without the Landlords’ approval. The filters the Landlord purchased were left with the Tenant for future use."
5)
"Furnace filter
15. The Tenant has not substantiated that a furnace filter was required. He testified that due to concerns with air quality, he inspected the furnace filter and discovered a foam sponge instead of a filter in the furnace. He submitted photos of this “sponge”. The Tenant seeks reimbursement of the $40 cost to purchase a furnace filter. He did not provide a receipt for this purchase.
16. The Landlord said the Tenant did not report this issue to him.
17. A Landlord cannot be held responsible for an issue he does not know about.
18. This claim is dismissed."
6)
"There was also no plausible evidence presented that would lead me to believe that by failing to install the furnace filter provided by the Landlords, because according to the Tenants it was the wrong size, constituted damages to the furnace."
__________________________________________
(3)
DE MINIMIS
It is important to note that the common law maxim of "de minimis non curat lex" ("the law is not concerned with insignificant matters") likely wouldn't apply to questions on keeping the property in a good state of repair (though some LTB rulings do apply it, but seemingly more so to questions of rent abatement and other remedies for disrepair).
"1. This application concerns a number of relatively minor disrepair complaints that the Landlord seeks to dismiss in their entirety on the basis of de minimis non curat lex which is a Latin phrase describing a principle of the common law that says the law does not notice or care for trifling matters. Unfortunately for the Landlord, the Board is not a judicial body making decisions based on the common law. Rather, it is a creature of statute charged with interpreting and applying the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’).
2. The section of the Act that the Tenant relies on in this application is subsection 20(1) which says: “A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.” Therefore, it is the task of the Board to examine each of the disrepair complaints of the Tenant, determine whether or not the evidence establishes that the item is not in a good state of repair or whether or not the problem makes the unit uninhabitable, or whether or not the local municipal standards by-law has been breached. In that context the minor nature of the complaints is totally irrelevant. If the Board determines that section 20 has been breached, then the issue becomes what remedy if any is the Tenant entitled to. It is only in the context of deciding on a remedy that the minor nature of any of the Tenant’s complaints becomes relevant as the quantum of any abatement to be awarded depends largely on the impact of the disrepair on the Tenant."
"34. As for the light in the walk-in closet, the Tenant’s affirmed and uncontradicted evidence is that the light was not working until November 4, 2014. Again, by virtue of subsection 29(2) of the Act I can only order a remedy from October 23, 2014 to November 4, 2014. Given the very small timeframe involved, the nature of the issue and lack of evidence going to when the Landlord was first informed about the disrepair, it is appropriate to apply the maxim de minimis non curat lex to the Tenant’s claim in this regard, and an order will not issue."
Disclaimer:
You should not act or rely on any information provided in this blog. It is not legal advice, and the content is provided for general discussion and general information purposes only and to help encourage further research. To ensure your interests are protected, retain or formally seek legal advice from a licensed legal professional.
Never disclose details about your specific legal matters outside of situations when you have established solicitor-client relationship with a qualified legal professional. By using this blog, you acknowledge and accept this warning and agree to waive all liability for use of any information contained in this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment