|
RTA - Joinder. Beach v. Chowdhury
In Beach v. Chowdhury (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a tenant's RTA s.210 appeal, here where the LTB "terminated the appellant’s tenancy on the basis that the respondent landlord required the rental unit in good faith for residential occupation by her daughter".
Here the court considers an LTB 'joinder' issue:[12] I also do not find any breach of procedural fairness in the Board refusing to hear the tenant’s applications together with the landlord’s application. The tenant had filed two applications seeking compensation for maintenance issues. She sought to have them joined and heard with the landlord’s application. The Board member refused to join them because the tenant only filed her applications shortly before the hearing. The landlord’s application had been ongoing for over a year and scheduled to be heard on an expedited basis during an urgent hearing block. The Board member acknowledged there could be some relevant evidence related to the tenant’s applications at the hearing before her. She stated she would allow that evidence but that she was not prepared to determine the tenant’s applications themselves, including whether compensation was due to the tenant.
[13] The Board’s ruling was well within its authority to control its own procedure. The Board member was also entitled to limit the evidence on the maintenance issues. She was not determining those applications. There was no breach of procedural fairness since the Board directly addressed the central point of the maintenance issues as they related to the landlord’s good faith. That is, at paras. 26 to 29 of the initial order, the Board considered the tenant’s argument that the landlord served the notice to terminate the tenancy as retaliation over maintenance disputes and, particularly, because of a dispute over a large water bill. The Board dismissed the argument, relying on (1) the landlord having served a separate notice of termination regarding non-payment of the water bill; and (2) the fact that the daughter’s testimony was not discredited by the tenant’s maintenance disputes. In short, the Board member appropriately considered the evidence of the maintenance issues as submitted by the appellant but ultimately did not agree they demonstrated an absence of good faith. There was no breach of procedural fairness in the treatment of the maintenance applications or related evidence.
|
