The appellant tenants appealed a decision denying them a rent abatement after their apartment building's elevator was out of service for 96 days due to a latent defect.
The Landlord and Tenant Board found that the landlord had acted diligently and reasonably in maintaining the elevator and replacing it, and thus did not breach its duty to maintain the residential complex in a good state of repair under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
The Divisional Court affirmed the decision.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's contextual interpretation of s. 20(1), which considered the reasonableness of the landlord's actions, was reasonable and did not constitute an error of law.
