Yes No Share to Facebook
Internet Access Removal: a Landlord Removing Wifi or Other Similar Services
Question: Can landlords be held accountable for failing to provide Internet access to tenants?
Answer: Yes, as demonstrated in KC, LCD and DS v. SC, 2017 CanLII 48961, landlords are obligated to uphold the terms of tenancy agreements, including the provision of essential services like Internet access. Failure to do so can result in legal repercussions and financial restitution for tenants. Ensure your rights are protected—contact us for a consultation today.
Decision Summary: KC, LCD and DS v. SC, SOT-76586-16 (Re)
The case of KC, LCD and DS v. SC, 2017 CanLII 48961, involves the Landlord Tenant Board decision regarding the provision of Internet accessibility whereas the decision examines whether the landlord failed to provide continued Internet access to the tenants and whether such constituted as a disruption in the supply of a vital service. The findings within this case highlight the importance of landlords maintaining the commitments established within a tenancy agreement; and in particular, the duty upon a landlord to ensure continued delivery of an essential services that enhances the daily living conditions of tenants.
Factual Details
The tenants, during negotiation of terms for the proposed tenancy agreement, sought details regarding Internet access. In response, the landlord stated that Internet access would be provided via sharing of access to the Internet service subscribed to by the son of the landlord. Subsequently, the son of the landlord vacated the premises and the son removed the Internet services. The landlord failed to replace the Internet service.
Decision Reasons
The Landlord Tenant Board found that the offering of Internet access by the landlord as well as the reliance upon the offer of availability of Internet access by the tenant established a binding term within the tenancy agreement for the provision of Internet services to the tenants by the landlord. The Landlord Tenant Board found that the failure of the landlord to arrange substitute Internet access after the son vacated the premises constituted as a failure to maintain a vital service owed to the tenants. Specifically, the Landlord Tenant Board stated:
38. At the beginning of the tenancy the first and second named Tenants asked about internet access and the Landlord told them his son had it for the house and gave them his password.
39. The third named Tenant says he needs internet access because he self-publishes online. The first named Tenant says she would not have entered into the rental agreement for her room but for the fact there was internet access. She must access her flight schedule on-line regularly.
40. As with the laundry access issue, the Landlord’s son was in fact a landlord and he was free to agree to include internet access as part of the agreement. Further, it appears that the Landlord is the one who provided the password initially, so it simply cannot be said internet access was not an included service in the tenancy agreement. It was.
41. When the Landlord’s son moved out July 30, 2016, the internet service was discontinued as he was the one paying for it.
42. Because the Tenants needed it they ended up getting their own. They paid for three months’ worth of service at $64.95 per month starting September 1, 2016.
43. Given all of the evidence before me I am satisfied that failing to provide internet access after the Landlord’s son moved out substantially interfered with the Tenants’ reasonable enjoyment and is a breach of s. 22 of the Act. The Tenants had a right to and a reasonable need for internet access, it was included in the tenancy agreement, and they had to purchase their own when it was cut off.
Remedy Granted
The Landlord Tenant Board, for the removal of the Internet service, among other things, ordered the landlord to pay reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the tenants as well as ordered the landlord to provide a rent abatement in favour of the tenants.
Full Case
The official case judgment is available here: KC, LCD and DS v. SC, 2017 CanLII 48961
Conclusion
The KC, LCD and DS v. SC, 2017 CanLII 48961 case emphasizes the importance of of maintaining consistent services and the legal implications for failing to adhere to contractual obligations including duty to supply vital services.