Simon's Legal Resources

RTA - Appeals - Expertise

. Frolov v. Shakori [expertise and control of process]

In Frolov v. Shakori (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court dismissed a tenant's heavily-contested RTA termination appeal, here grounded in non-payment of rent.

The court considers appellate SOR deference accorded to LTB findings and rulings, here citing the tribunal's expertise and it's 'control of process':

[51] Considerable deference is owed to procedural rulings made by a tribunal with the authority to control its own process. The determination of the scope and content of a duty to act fairly is circumstance-specific, and may well depend on factors within the expertise and knowledge of the tribunal, including the nature of the statutory scheme. Any assessment of what procedures the duty of fairness requires in a given proceeding should take into account and respect the choices of procedure made by the tribunal itself, particularly when the statute leaves to the decision‑maker the ability to choose its own procedures, or when the agency has an expertise in determining what procedures are appropriate in the circumstances. See Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. VIA Rail Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 15 at para. 231.

. Stenka v. Garten

In Stenka v. Garten (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered the role of the LTB's expertise as a factor in the appellate SOR under RTA s.210:

Standard of Review

[15] Appeals from decisions of the LTB to this court are limited to questions of law: RTA, s. 210(1). The standard of review on questions of law is correctness. While issues of procedural fairness are reviewed on a correctness standard, this does not detract from the need to respect the LTB’s specialized function, expertise and familiarity with the RTA: Reisher v. Westdale Properties, 2023 ONSC 1817, [2023] O.J. No. 1273 (Div. Ct.), at para. 10.