Onyskiw et al. v. CJM Property Management Ltd., (2016) 349 O.A.C. 253 (CA)

• Judge: Weiler, Cronk and Benotto, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 12, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2016), 349 O.A.C. 253 (CA);2016 ONCA 477

Onyskiw v. CJM Prop. Mgt. Ltd. (2016), 349 O.A.C. 253 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.023

Tammy Onyskiw, Sherrie Giroux et al. [Betty Prendergast, Danielle Deptuck, Luc Deptuck, Wilhelmina Diepeveen, Eileen Parsons, Cora McDonald, Garfield McDonald, Jeff Gill, William Harmer, Jamie Pelletier, John Diepeveen, Kathy Szabadka, Lorne Helman, Joyce Martin, Paula Woodland, Marion Pollard, Sandra Racine, Antonio Valdez, Maria Castro, Kathleen Fraser, Kimberley George, Ilona Berthiaume, Janet Allis, Katherine Gail Reid, Velma Laine, Joyce Marsden, Peter Thuot, Raymond, Gamble, Glynn Wheaton, Gordie Ainsworth] (tenants/appellants) v. CJM Property Management Ltd. (landlord/respondent)

(C61131; 2016 ONCA 477)

Indexed As: Onyskiw et al. v. CJM Property Management Ltd.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Weiler, Cronk and Benotto, JJ.A.

June 16, 2016.

Summary:

Tenants complained that their landlord, CJM Property Management Ltd., failed to comply with its duties under s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act to maintain the residential complex in a good state of repair because the building's elevator was out of service for 96 days in one year. Section 20(1) provided that "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". The Landlord and Tenant Board found that the landlord had at all times acted reasonably in having a program of preventive maintenance for the elevator, in repairing it when it broke down and in installing a new elevator. The Board denied the tenants' application for an abatement of rent. The tenants appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness. The Board was entitled to construe its home statute in a fashion that enabled it to consider the landlord's actions, in the circumstances that were presented, in deciding whether the landlord had fulfilled its responsibility under the section in question. Having found no error of law, the appeal was dismissed. The tenants appealed again.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Divisional Court did not err in selecting or applying the reasonableness standard of review. The Divisional Court's decision was reasonable. The Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusion of the Divisional Court that the Board's interpretation of its home statute and its decision in refusing to award an abatement of rent to the tenants was reasonable.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 1220

The premises - Repairs - By landlord - General principles - See paragraphs 38 to 94.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 1405

Premises - Fitness of premises for intended use - Fitness for habitation - See paragraphs 38 to 94.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 3883

Rent - Abatement of rent - When available - See paragraphs 38 to 94.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 7186

Regulation - Appeals - Standard of appellate review - See paragraphs 26 to 37.

Counsel:

Lesli Bisgould and Kenneth Hale, for the appellants;

S. David Lyman, for the respondent;

Brian A. Blumenthal and Eli Fellman, for the Landlord and Tenant Board.

This appeal was heard on April 12, 2016, before Weiler, Cronk and Benotto, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Weiler, J.A., on June 16, 2016.