|
RTA - Expeditious Proceedings [s.183]. Richmond v. Rodriguez
In Richmond v. Rodriguez (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court quashed a S.210 RTA appeal, here where the LTB could not produce a transcript and the tenant argued breaches of fairness.
Here the court considered the tenant's argument that a limit on cross-examination constituted a 'Procrustian' (SS: my term) fairness issue, citing the RTA s.183 'expeditious' provision:[13] I am not persuaded that the Board breached the tenant’s right to procedural fairness. Applying the factors in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817, at paras. 22-27, I agree the question of whether a tenant should be evicted is a serious matter with a significant impact on the tenant. On the other hand, the Board is a high-volume tribunal that is specifically required to adopt the most expeditious method of determining questions in a proceeding that affords all parties an adequate opportunity to know the issues and be heard: RTA, s. 183. The Board’s rules permit the Board member to define and narrow the issues, question a party or witness, and limit the evidence or submissions on an issue.
[14] In this case, the hearing started at 9:50 a.m. The Board member advised the parties during the hearing that he had another hearing starting at 1 p.m. As set out above, he allowed the parties a hearing of approximately two hours. The landlord’s evidence was submitted by documents, including a declaration from the landlord’s mother. The landlord’s representative directed the Board member to this evidence at the outset, but the bulk of the time was spent on the tenant’s representative’s questioning. The Board member also directly asked the tenant a few questions.
[15] I do not accept there was a breach of procedural fairness in curtailing the tenant’s representative’s questioning. In addition to the amount of time afforded to the representative, the record shows that the cross-examination was meandering and that at least some of the questioning was of limited relevance. For example, the tenant’s representative tried to cross-examine the landlord on an issue regarding the landlord removing the tenant’s hockey sticks from the furnace room and about the tenant inviting neighbours to pick grapes from the backyard. It was open to the Board member to curtail this questioning on the basis that it was not sufficiently probative to the landlord’s good faith.
[16] Similarly, it was open to the tenant’s representative in the time allotted to him to ask to cross-examine the landlord’s mother. Section 72 of the RTA states the landlord is required to provide an affidavit sworn by the person who intends to move into the unit. The landlord in this case therefore provided a declaration by the mother. It was open to the tenant to summons the mother to ensure she attended. In any event, the tenant’s representative did not ask to question the mother. . Equity Builders Ltd. et al. v. Landlord and Tenant Board et al.
In Equity Builders Ltd. et al. v. Landlord and Tenant Board et al. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court (mostly) dismissed a multiple-proceeding combination of both LL-initiated JRs and RTA s.210 appeals, here respecting multiple units in a Sarnia apartment building. After a fire "the Chief Building Official for the City of Sarnia issued an order to the Landlord directing that the premises be vacated", followed by a second order several days later restricting access to a lesser number of units. The LL subsequently refused re-entry to tenants not covered by the later less restrictive order, eventually resulting in RTA orders of illegal lock-out for numerous units - and that "the Landlords had substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment by the Tenants of their units; and found that the Landlords obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the Tenants".
Here the court notes the 'remedial' (similar to 'consumer') law interpretation applicable to the RTA, immediately followed by the RTA s.183 'expeditious proceedings' provisions:[54] In Elkins v. Van Wissen, 2023 ONCA 789, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized that the RTA is “remedial legislation with a tenant protection focus. The purposes of the [Act] are set out in s. 1. The first purpose listed is ‘to provide protection for residential tenants from…unlawful evictions’”: at para. 42. This case concerns an allegation of unlawful evictions.
[55] In White v. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, 2022 ONCA 146, the Court of Appeal elaborates on the tenant protection focus of the Act as follows, at para. 10:The Act is remedial legislation designed to redress the imbalance of power between landlords and tenants. It removes leases from the ordinary contract law principles that would otherwise govern and establishes extensive statutory rights for tenants. The Act enjoys primacy over all other legislation, save the Ontario Human Rights Code, and the parties are prohibited from waiving or limiting the protection the Act provides. [56] With respect to the allegation regarding procedural fairness, it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of the RTA is to “encourage speedy, fair and efficient access to justice in residential tenancy matters”: Ontario (Rental Housing Tribunal) v. Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, 2002 CanLII 41961 (ON CA), [2002] 161 O.A.C. 57, at para. 16. Section 183 of the RTA requires the Board to “adopt the most expeditious method of determining the questions arising in a proceeding that affords to all persons directly affected by the proceeding an adequate opportunity to know the issues and be heard on the matter.” . Miller Estate v. Arguelles
In Miller Estate v. Arguelles (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a tenant's RTA appeal, here from a 'personal possession' for a family member eviction. The case was complicated by the death of the owner during the LTB proceeding, and the LTB application separate listings of 'landlord' (the property manager) and the 'owner'.
Here the court considered the effect of the LTB's amendment of the application to change the applicant from the deceased owner to their estate:[13] The tenant has framed the issues on appeal as follows: ....2. Did the Board err in law by amending the eviction application to The Estate of Ann Miller, without naming an executor, trustee or administrator to pursue the eviction application? ....
Amending the Applicant to “The Estate of Ann Miller”
[23] The tenant is of the view that the Board erred in law by amending the eviction application to name as a party an estate with no personal representative and that “The Estate of Ann Miller” is not an individual, as required for an eviction under s. 48 of the Act. I disagree.
[24] Section 48 does provide that a landlord giving notice to terminate so that a child may occupy the unit must be an individual. Ann Miller was a party to the N12 notice. She was an individual. She remained so when the application was issued. Her death did not make her any less an individual for the purposes of that notice.
[25] Although it may have been preferable for the Board to amend the application to reflect a trustee of Ann Miller’s estate, it was not necessary that it do so because a specific individual representative of the estate was not required to determine the issues in this case.
[26] In proceeding as it did, the Board complied with its mandate under s. 183 of the Act, to adopt the most expeditious method of determining the questions arising in a proceeding that afforded to all persons directly affected by the proceeding an adequate opportunity to know the issues and be heard upon the matter. . Walters v. Centurion Property Associate Inc.
In Walters v. Centurion Property Associate Inc. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers the LTB's control of process jurisdiction, particularly as it relates to case management hearings and expeditious procedures:[26] The LTB has the authority to control its own process in accordance with s. 25.0.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 ("SPPA") and its Rules. The RTA permits the LTB to conduct inquiries it considers necessary before, during, or after a hearing and to question any person concerning the dispute. The RTA does not restrict the LTB's ability to control its process, other than to direct that the LTB adopt the most expeditious procedures that allow for a fair process: s.183.
[27] The LTB's authority to control its own process includes the ability of its members to ensure that its hearings, in accordance with s. 183 of the RTA proceed as expeditiously as possible without compromising fairness. This includes a member's ability to interrupt a party, provide direction to ensure that the hearing is conducted in an efficient manner, define, and narrow the issues to be decided, limit the evidence and submissions on any issue where there has been full disclosure, and question parties to focus the issues and the related evidence on relevant matters: See the SPPA and the RTA.
|
