Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

(Ontario/Canada)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / Fairness (Administrative)
SMALL CLAIMS / CIVIL LITIGATION / CIVIL APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW / Practice Directives / Civil Portals

home / about / Democracy, Law and Duty / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Civil and Administrative
Litigation Opinions
for Self-Reppers

Simon's Favourite Charity -
Little Friends Lefkada (Greece)
Cat and Dog Rescue


TOPICS


RTA - Illegal Acts

. McLeod v. Wigwamen Incorporated

In McLeod v. Wigwamen Incorporated (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered an RTA s.210 appeal of an 'illegal acts' termination, here where a criminal charge had since been dismissed:
[16] Section 75 of the Act expressly states that the Board may make an order terminating a tenancy for committing an illegal act “whether or not the tenant…has been convicted of an offence.” The absence of a conviction therefore does not demonstrate an error of law on the part of the Board.

[17] Further, in this case, the evidence before the Ontario Court of Justice differed from the evidence before the Board. Nathanson J. was influenced significantly by an event that occurred the day before the alleged offence. The event affected his assessment of the property manager’s credibility. However, this evidence was not before the Board. Also, while Nathanson J. was not persuaded the Crown had established the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, he also did not find they did not occur. He stated: “To be clear, I am not in a position to make a finding that the thefts or the assault factually did not occur. …I have significant problems with both versions of events.” Overall, Mr. McLeod has not demonstrated the criminal ruling reveals an error of law in the Board’s reasons.

[18] Mr. McLeod’s further submission that the illegal act finding is not supported by the evidence does not raise an error of law. It is not the role of the court to reweigh the evidence or, absent an error of law, determine whether the evidence supports the Board’s conclusion. The property manager testified before the Board about the details of the assault he alleged occurred. Mr. McLeod disagrees with that evidence, but this is not a situation in which there was no evidence that could, if accepted, support the Board’s findings. This ground of appeal is dismissed.



CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.




Last modified: 12-02-24
By: admin