In the May issue of Hi-Rise, Michelle, of Ask Michelle, was correct, not only from a social perspective but also from a legal perspective. She advised Norm to complain to the building manager about noisy children playing in the hallway, rather than acting alone.

According to the Residential Tenancy Act, tenants and landlords have the responsibility to ensure that they not substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or the residential complex. The Act, however, does not specify that a landlord is responsible for a tenant’s behaviour. That is defined in common law.

In the case of HEK and BJC (Tenants) and TPM (Landlord), the Tenants endured constant loud music and a barking dog from the neighbouring unit. They called law enforcement, who issued a fine to the noisy neighbours. They asked the Landlord for help to no avail. The Tenants were forced to move. The Board found that the Landlord failed to provide the Tenants with their reasonable enjoyment of their unit and ordered the Landlord to compensate them in the amount of $2,203.66, which included allowing the tenancy to be terminated early, a rent abatement for three months, their moving costs, and reimbursement of the sublet processing fee.

The HEK case would be considered serious. Other cases with disruptive tenants are considered less serious and dismissed.

In the case of GG (Tenant) and TCHC (Landlord), the Tenant’s Application was dismissed because the behaviour of the tenant being complained of was so minor and fell under the nature of minor annoyances. This case involved a senior tenant (Mr. H.) who was, at times, verbally abusive and made threatening gestures towards the Tenant. The police were involved and the tenants were told to stay away from one another. Other incidents that annoyed the Tenant followed, including when Mr. H. entered the recreational room, where the Tenant was playing his trumpet alone, and opened the fire door which is to remain closed, then leaving it wide open when he left.

In another incident, the Tenant was in the building’s small library and left the door open slightly so he wouldn’t be trapped because of the problems with the door. Mr. H. then entered with a plate of food. The Tenant told Mr. H. to take his food upstairs but Mr. H. entered anyway. The Tenant then held the door with one hand and Mr. H. stumbled and dropped his food on the floor. The Tenant sent a letter to the Landlord complaining of Mr. H. not following simple instructions and not staying away from him.

A further incident of Mr. H. entering the library occurred, but this time Mr. H. fell to the floor and may have hit his head. According to the Tenant, he did not want to touch Mr. H. for fear of being accused of assault, so he left. The Tenant then called the Landlord and two special constables were dispatched to the scene. The Tenant later saw Mr. H. walking about. According to the evidence, Mr. H. simply wanted to be left alone, and the Tenant wanted Mr. H. to be relocated. The Board found that the behaviour the Tenant complained of was in the nature of minor annoyances, and that the Tenant anticipated something which actually did not happen, i.e. the fear of being alone with Mr. H. The Tenant’s application was dismissed.

The GG case is a good example of a minor or nuisance annoyance. The same could be said of children running the hallways for a short period of time. As the HEK case points out, there are remedies for tenants who live with disruptive neighbouring tenants.

____

Bettina is a licensed paralegal, who practices in Toronto in landlord/tenant, human rights, wrongful dismissals, personal injuries, property damage, debts, contracts, and negligence. She can be reached by email: bw_paralegal@yahoo.ca, or by phone: 647-340-3352.