Court File and Parties
CITATION: Sarangan v. Morguard Nar Canada Limited Partnership, 2018 ONSC 2864
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 242/16
LTB NO: CEL-37265-14 DATE: 20180507
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
C. HORKINS, CONWAY and C. MACLEOD JJ.
BETWEEN:
LOGA SARANGAN and RACHANABAHEN BACHANI
Glenroy K. Bastien, for the Appellants
Appellants
– and –
MORGUARD NAR CANADA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Martin P. Zarnett, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: May 7, 2018
Oral Reasons for Judgment
CONWAY, J. (Orally)
[1] The Appellants, Loga Sarangan and Rachanabahen Bachani, appeal the order of Member Theoharis of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Member”) dated March 4, 2016, terminating the Appellants’ tenancy and requiring them to pay $24,351.50, being the reasonable costs of repairing damage to the rental property. The Appellants also appeal the review orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated April 6, 2016 and April 19, 2016, denying review of the order.
[2] In September 2012, the Appellants moved into a rental unit in a high-rise building owned and operated by the Respondent, Morguard Nar Canada Limited Partnership.
[3] In February 2013, the Respondent’s Assistant Property Manager attended at the unit to perform an annual inspection. She later testified that the unit was unusually hot and humid; it felt like a “tropical forest”. She told the Appellants not to keep the unit hot and humid, to use the exhaust fans, and to open the windows.
[4] The Member found that the Respondent was first informed by the Appellants that there was mould in the unit in December 2013, at which point the Respondent immediately relocated the Appellants to a furnished unit so that the mould could be removed.
[5] In 2014, the Respondent brought an application under ss. 62 and 89(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (the “Act”), seeking to terminate the Appellants’ tenancy and seeking compensation for the removal of mould in the Appellants’ unit, which was allegedly caused by their willful or negligent conduct.
[6] The matter was heard between June 30, 2014 and January 25, 2016. Each of the Appellants testified, as did several witnesses for the Respondent, including an expert witness, Dr. Malik, who concluded that high humidity in the unit caused the build-up of mould, and that the Appellants were the source of the moisture.
[7] The Board granted the Respondent’s application on March 4, 2016. The Appellants requested reconsideration by the Board, but the original decision was upheld.
[8] There is no dispute that an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board lies to the Divisional Court, but only on a question of law (s. 210(1) of the Act) and that the standard of review on the board’s interpretation of its home statute, the Act, is reasonableness: First Ontario Realty v. Deng, 2011 CarswellOnt 244 (C.A.), paras. 17 and 21.
[9] The Appellants’ primary ground of appeal is that the Member found that the Appellants had negligently caused the mould, and that the mould was reasonably foreseeable to them, without any evidence to support that conclusion. We reject that submission. The Member had evidence that the Appellants kept hot and humid conditions in the unit because they thought it would create a better environment for their family. The Assistant Property Manager told them in February 2013 to cease keeping those hot and humid conditions in the unit.
[10] The Member found that they persisted in doing so, despite the Assistant Property Manager’s clear direction to them. There was therefore evidence on which the Member based her finding that it was reasonable foreseeable to the Appellants that damage to the unit would result if they continued to keep the hot and humid conditions in the unit. She rejected the submission that the damage was due to any lack of repair and maintenance on the part of the landlord.
[11] The Appellants further submit that the Member erred in law by providing vague and inadequate reasons. We reject that submission. The reasons of the Member were specific and detailed and permit this court to understand the basis on which the order was made: see Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, at para. 16.
[12] The Appellants have not established any error of law on the part of the Member and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
C. HORKINS, J.
[13] I have endorsed the Record Book as follows: “The appeal is dismissed. Oral reasons provided today. The parties have agreed on costs. The Appellants shall pay the Respondent costs fixed at $2,500 all inclusive.”
___________________________ CONWAY J.
I agree
C. HORKINS J.
I agree
C. MACLEOD J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 7, 2018
Date of Release: May 8, 2018
CITATION: Sarangan v. Morguard Nar Canada Limited Partnership, 2018 ONSC 2864
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 242/16
LTB NO: CEL-37265-14 DATE: 20180507
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
C. HORKINS, CONWAY and C. MACLEOD JJ.
BETWEEN:
LOGA SARANGAN and RACHANABAHEN BACHANI
Appellants
– and –
MORGUARD NAR CANADA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CONWAY, J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 7, 2018
Date of Release: May 8, 2018