The Tenants applied for an order determining that the Landlords failed to meet the Landlords' maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act') or failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards. This application was heard in Windsor on March 12, 2009. The Tenant N.P. attended the hearing for both Tenants. S.J., student-at-law, represented the Tenants. B.B. attended the hearing as a representative for the Landlords. B.P., agent, represented the Landlords. R.V. attended the hearing as a witness for the Landlords. For the reasons attached, Determinations:
1. The Landlords failed to repair the hole on the floor in the rental unit, in a timely manner,
which would have further prevented mice from entering the unit. Therefore, I find the Landlords failed to meet the Landlords’ obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act.
2. The Landlords failed to keep the rental unit free of a bed-bug infestation. Therefore, I find
the Landlords failed to meet the Landlords’ obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act.
3. The Tenants’ clothing, totalling $950.00, was disposed of as a result of the Landlords'
4. The Tenants incurred costs of $338.66. This represents the costs that the Tenants
incurred in laundry, clothing, detergents, storage bins, flour, garbage bags, kwellada lotions, allergy capsules, essential puffs, yardley cream, nix deremal, benadryl, and prescription medication as a result of the Landlord’s failure to repair and maintain the rental unit.
It is ordered that:
1. The Landlords shall pay to the Tenants a rent abatement of $840.00.
2. The Landlords shall also pay to the Tenants $338.66. This represents the costs that the
Tenants have incurred as a result of the Landlords' failure to repair and maintain the rental unit.
File Number: SWT-01844
3. The Landlords shall also pay to the Tenants $980.00. This represents the costs that the
Tenants have incurred for property the Tenants disposed of as a result of the Landlords’ failure to maintain the rental unit.
4. The Landlords shall also pay the Tenants $45.00 for the cost of filing the application.
5. The total amount the Landlords owe the Tenants is $2,203.66.
6. The Landlords shall pay the Tenants the full amount owing by April 25, 2009.
7. If the Landlords do not pay the Tenants the full amount owing by April 25, 2009 the
Landlords will owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from April 26, 2009 at 3.00% annually on the outstanding balance.
8. The Tenants have the right, at any time, to collect the full amount owing or any balance
April 14, 2009 _______________________ Date Issued Rosa
South West Region 4th floor, 150 Dufferin Avenue London ON N6A 5N6 If you have any questions about this order, call 416-645-8080 or toll free at 1-888-332-3234. File Number: SWT-01844
Reasons to Order SWT-01844 issued on April 14, 2009 by Rosa Votta. The residential complex consists of 121 units. Preliminary Matters:
1. On consent of the parties, the application is amended as follows: (a) The total amount the Tenants seek towards furnishings, a fur coat, medication and
(b) The tenancy to be terminated effective June 30, 2008.
2. In addition to the above the Tenants request the Board Order a reimbursement of a $25.00
parking ticket; $500.00 in moving costs; $560.00 to install cable, internet jacks, wall coverings and paint to renovate her new apartment.
3. $45.00 for the cost of filing the application 4. B.B is removed as a party to the application. The hearing commenced with the exclusion of witnesses. Issue with the Pigeons:
1. The Tenant’s claim was that she moved into the rental unit, on December 23, 2007
with her son. On May 28, 2008 the Tenant gave the Landlords notice to vacate effective June 30, 2008. The monthly rent was set at $700.00.
2. The Tenant expressed to the previous manager of the complex her concern with
respect to the high number of pigeons and droppings on the balcony. The Tenant was assured the landlord will take care of the issue.
3. The Landlord took over the management of the building before pest control
4. The cages that were placed on the balcony by pest control to catch the pigeons
were not effective. Eventually pest control replaced the cages and some pigeons were caught.
File Number: SWT-01844
5. The Tenant’s claim was that she cleaned the balcony, but the situation repeated
itself. The problems with the pigeons persisted until the Tenant vacated the rental unit.
6. B.B.’s evidence with respect to the pigeons was that once the Tenant informed her
of the issue, she engaged in the services of a professional exterminator to inspect and address the matter.
7. R.V. an employee of A.P.C. claim was that the actions they took to resolve the issue
Issues with the Mice:
1. The Tenant’s claim was that from Easter 2008, to approximately June 2008, the residential
complex had an infestation of mice. Pest control gave the Tenant 25 mouse traps. In one week the Tenant caught two mice per day.
2. B.B. acknowledged the residential complex encountered an infestation of mice. In learning
about the mice B.B. engaged in the services of a professional exterminator. The pest control company set up bait stations and resolved the infestation.
Issues with the Bed-bugs:
1. The Tenant’s claim was that around Easter of 2008, she noticed red bite marks spreading
all over her body and on her son’s body.
2. On several occasions when the pest control company was there to deal with the mice, the
Tenant asked pest control to inspect for bed bugs. While on several occasions they did not find any bedbugs, towards the end of May 2008, pest control finally found a bed-bug on her son’s bed.
3. The Tenant’s son, MG, moved out of the rental unit on the recommendation of his support
4. The Tenant’s claim was that on the recommendation of the exterminators, B.B. instructed
her to launder and clean everything. She was expected to wait for ten days before the exterminator came to fumigate.
5. On May 24, 2008, the Tenant decided to move. B.B. offered her another apartment. The
Tenant refused because she could not continue to live under the conditions with all the pests.
6. The Tenant’s claim was that she did not inform the Landlord, that in early June she also
File Number: SWT-01844
7. The Tenant’s claim was that she expended a considerable amount of money for: (a)
hygiene products, (b) cleaning products; (c) laundry, (d) lotions, (e) prescriptions, (f) storage bins; (g) garbage bags and (h) a parking ticket because she drove herself to the hospital in a complete panic. She also claims that the exterminators damaged a chair and she cannot use her sofa bed or mattress. Clothing including three windercoats, a fur coat and her son’s clothing needed to be disposed.
8. The Tenant’s claim was also that she incurred costs for: (a) moving, (b) reconnection
services in her new apartment; (c) decorating costs and (d) paint and wallpaper.
9. R.V. an employee of the pest control company, claim was that even with the assistance of
a colleague, it took five inspections, to confirm the presence of bed-bugs in the rental unit. The bed-bugs were difficult to detect earlier because the Tenant vacuumed on a regular basis. The pest control company accordingly treated the unit. Following this process they discovered a carpet beetle in the rental unit.
10. B.B.’s claim was that in learning about the bed-bugs the pest control company fumigated
the unit. On May 24, 2008, although the bed-bug situation was resolved, the Tenant declined an offer to move to an alternate unit in the residential complex.
Determinations:
11. The Tenants first informed the Landlords about the problems with the pigeons in April 2008
and the Landlords engaged in the services of an exterminator. The professional exterminator was not successful in completely resolving the issue with the pigeons. The Tenants were caused discomfort. Despite this, the Landlords, in this particular situation, cannot be held responsible for a location which pigeons select to sporadically inhabit.
12. The Landlords acknowledged a mice-infestation. The Landlords in a reasonable time
period authorized an exterminator to resolve this problem. Regardless, the issue with the mice in the rental unit was not fully resolved. By failing to fix the hole on the floor in the rental unit in a timely manner, which would have further prevented the mice from entering the unit, I find the Landlords failed to meet the Landlords’ obligations under subsection 20(1) of the Act, to maintain the rental unit in a good sate of repair. The Tenants’ request for a re-abatement is appropriately considered for the rent period commencing April 2008 to June 30, 2008.
13. The bedbugs were discovered only at the Tenant’s persistence within a three to four
month period of the Tenants moving into the unit. Therefore, I find it more likely than not that the Landlords, failed to maintain the rental unit, pursuant to subsection 20(1) of the Act, free of a bed bug infestation.
File Number: SWT-01844
14. The Landlords in learning about the issues with the pigeons, mice and bed-bugs engaged
in the services of professional exterminator to attend to the issues. Regardless, the Tenant’s request to expenses with respect to the mice and bed-bugs is reasonable as follows: a total of $132.75 for laundering clothing; $12.91 towards detergents; $65.00 for storage bins; $14.00 for flour; $7.90 for garbage bags; $40.67 for Kwellada medication; $14.66 for allergy capsules, essential puffs and yardley cream; $22.99 nix deremal; $11.85 for benadryl; and $15.93 for prescription medication.
15. The Tenants’ representative submits that in Order TNT-00129, the Board ordered the
tenancy terminated. In that order, the Landlord took three months to hire a pest control company. In this situation, the Landlords in learning about the issues promptly engaged in the services of a professional exterminator. Interpretation Guideline 5 – Breach of Maintenance Obligations, suggests that termination of the tenancy should be used in serious cases if the rental unit is not fit for human habitation or the condition of the rental unit is so poor as to threaten the safety or well-being of the tenants. Although the Tenants established the issues caused her and her son discomfort the Landlords took prompt measures to attend to the issues. The Landlords also offered the Tenants an alternate unit in the complex. The evidence does not support the termination of the tenancy is warranted. Costs related, thereto, are not appropriately considered.
16. The Tenants’ representative argued the Tenants did not receive the full package of
commodities as expected, and are entitled to an abatement of rent. The Landlords’ representative argued the Tenant lived in the rental unit during the tenure. The request of a rent-abatement of 100% is excessive and not reasonable. A rent abatement of 40%, totalling $840.00 is appropriately considered for the period commencing April 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008.
17. The Tenants failed to inform the Landlords of cockroaches or of the carpet beetle. The
Landlords were not aware that the exterminator found these pests. The Landlords, therefore, did not have a reasonable opportunity to rectify the situation. A rent-abatement is not appropriately considered.
18. The Tenants, at a minimum did not provide a list of the clothing and corroborating costs,
related thereto, which the Tenants claimed had to be destroyed because they could not be treated. I find it reasonable to reduce these costs to $350.00.
19. The Tenants, at a minimum did not provide corroborating evidence to support the costs the
Tenants, claimed to replace three winter coats and a fur coat. I find it reasonable to reduce these costs to $300.00.
20. The Tenants, at a minimum, did not provide a list of the clothing and corroborating costs,
related thereto, for M.G.’s clothing, that the Tenants claimed had to be destroyed because they could not be treated. I find it reasonable, to reduce these costs to $300.00.
21. The Tenants, at a minimum, did not provide corroborating costs related to N.P.’s claim for
material that had to be purchased related to her job as a seamstress. I find it reasonable to reduce these costs to $30.00.
File Number: SWT-01844
22. The Tenants did not incur costs to replace the mattress or sofa bed. These items were
given to the Tenants. Costs related thereto are not appropriately considered.
23. The Tenants at a minimum did not provide corroborating evidence that the leg on the chair
could not be repaired or that the couch was stained beyond repair. Replacement costs are not appropriately considered.
24. It is not reasonable the Landlords pay the Tenant’s parking ticket. It is the Tenant’s
responsibility, regardless of personal circumstances, to adhere to parking regulations.
April 14, 2009 _______________________ Date Issued Rosa
SouthWest Region 4th floor, 150 Dufferin Avenue London ON N6A 5N6
Antimicrobial Use in the Treatment of Calf Diarrhea Calves with diarrhea often have small intestinal overgrowth with Escherichia coli bacteria, regardless of the inciting cause for thediarrhea, and 30% of systemically ill calves with diarrhea have bacteremia, predominantly because of E coli. Antimicrobial treatmentof diarrheic calves should therefore be focused against E coli in the small
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Defendant has filed notice of the intent to present evidence, including expert testimony, on the issue of partial responsibility and lack of intent, pursuant to ORS 161.300. This trial memo explores the issues and law that Defendant expects will be presented at trial regarding 16 partial responsibility and lack of intent. Defendant relies upon the au
Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 
File Number: SWT-01844