Defendant had renovated a house which suffered leaks due to inadequate work having been done in the basement which Plaintiff (tenant) argued was a breach of the 1972 Act.
CA allowed her claim, stating that the duty to make a dwelling fit for habitation applied to nonfeasance (omitting to do the proper work) as well as malfeasance (doing the work but negligently).
A dwelling was unfit for habitation where an essential attribute of it was missing
There is no logic in saying that acts of omission that render a dwelling unfit for habitation are not to be included in the act, but that positive acts are.