|
RTA - Rent - Above-Guideline Increase (AGI). Huang v. The Windfields Place
In Huang v. The Windfields Place (Div Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed an RTA s.210 appeal, here on infrequently appeal-litigated 'above-guideline increase' (AGI) grounds:[1] The appellant Mr. Huang appeals from two decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board addressing the respondent landlord’s request to increase rent above the “guideline.” The guideline, as determined by the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (the Act) is measured against the consumer price index. An application to increase rent above the guideline amount is known as an “AGI order.”
[2] The Board in this case granted an AGI order permitting the landlord to increase the rents for units in the residential complex by 3.58% above the guideline. Under s. 126(1) of the Act, a landlord may apply for an AGI order where, among other things, it has incurred “eligible capital expenditures.” In its initial order, dated November 8, 2024, the Board found that the landlord’s work in replacing windows and doors, exterior leak repair, and lighting retrofit constituted eligible capital expenditures.
....
[6] The Board was entitled to find the replacement of the windows and doors were capital expenditures. The definition of capital expenditure in s. 126(7) of the Act includes an expenditure that is “necessary to protect or restore the physical integrity of the residential complex or part of it. Subsection 18(1) of Ont. Reg. 516/06 (the Regulation) defines “physical integrity” to include exterior doors and exterior windows. The doors and windows were over fifty years old and the work cost the landlord over $600,000. Although Mr. Huang submitted the expenditure needed to be “extraordinary,” that word is only used in s. 126(1)(1) of the Act and not in s. 126(1)(2), which is the relevant provision addressing eligible capital expenditures. There was no error of law in finding the work on the doors and windows to be eligible capital expenditures as defined in the Act.
[7] In response to Mr. Huang’s submission that he should not pay increased rent since his own doors and windows were not replaced, s. 126(1) of the Act permits an AGI order “for any or all of the rental units in a residential complex.” Since the doors and windows were replaced to protect the physical integrity of the building, the Board did not err in finding the AGI order could apply to all units rather than only to the ones receiving the new doors and windows.
....
[9] There was similarly no error in allowing the “tenants’ association” to make submissions. The association consisted of a small group of tenants who had banded together to retain a lawyer. The parties to a proceeding before the Board include any affected tenants: Act, s. 187(1). The Act also does not preclude the right of tenants to organize themselves into associations: Act, s. 83(3)(d). The Board may add or remove parties to a proceeding as it considers appropriate. Act, s. 187(2).
[10] Mr. Huang submits that this association was not elected and not authorized to represent the tenants in the affected buildings. Assuming this to be the case, the group’s participation did not prevent other tenants from representing themselves individually. Several did so, including the appellant. Mr. Huang essentially disagrees that the tenants who banded together were entitled to name themselves a tenants’ association when they only had authority to represent themselves. But he has not shown any basis on which their participation impacted him.
|
