The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board granting the respondent landlord an above-guideline rent increase based on capital expenditures for balcony repairs.
The tenant argued the Board erred in law by failing to properly determine if the expenditures were necessary to restore physical integrity, failing to provide adequate analysis, and failing to apply issue estoppel based on a previous 2012 application.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, as it properly applied the legal test, made factual findings that the work was different from the previous application, and adequately supported its conclusion that the repairs were necessary eligible capital expenditures.
