Robinson v Sinvapragasam

Landlord wins · Whitby · 2025-04-25

Adjudicator

Julie Broderick

Dispute

Maintenance, Substantial Interference, Withholding Vital Services

Notice

Maintenance (T6), Tenant rights (T2)

Landlord

R.S., T.R.

Tenant

M.R., C.B., S.A.

Landlord rep

T. Sivapatham

Tenant rep

D. Woodcock

What happened

Tenants filed T2 and T6 applications alleging numerous maintenance issues (hot tub leak, electrical problems, leaks, mold) and substantial interference (loss of cold water, issue with the basement being an illegal unit). The Board found the Tenants' testimony lacked credibility and was vague. Most maintenance issues were addressed reasonably and timely by the Landlord. The hot tub leak was proven but no remedy was awarded due to lack of evidence on damages. The T2 claim was dismissed as the Landlord offered a rent reduction for the loss of the basement stove and the Tenants exaggerated the impact. Ultimately, both applications were dismissed.

The ruling

The Tenants' T2 and T6 applications are dismissed in their entirety. The Board determined that the Tenants' testimony was largely unreliable and vague. Although some maintenance issues were acknowledged, the Landlord was found to have responded to almost all of them in a reasonable and timely manner. For the few proven breaches, such as a leaky hot tub, no remedy was awarded because the Tenants failed to provide evidence of any resulting financial loss. The claim of substantial interference due to an illegal basement kitchen was also dismissed, as the Landlord had already compensated the Tenants with a significant rent reduction.