|
RTA - Notice of Hearing. Ramsay et al. v. Shafiq
In Ramsay et al. v. Shafiq (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an RTA s.210 appeal, here regarding "whether or not the Appellants were unable to participate in the eviction hearing because they allegedly did not receive the Notice of Hearing" (the case also refers to SPPA s.7 'Effect of non-attendance at hearing after due notice'):The Statutory Framework As It Relates To Notices Of Hearing And Implications Of Non-Attendance
[14] There is no dispute that parties to a proceeding before the LTB are entitled to receive notice of the hearing. The LTB has a discretion to either serve a notice of hearing on all parties or to order the applicant to serve the notice of hearing on the other parties. See sections 188-189 of the RTA.
[15] Pursuant to s. 191(3) of the RTA where the LTB mails a notice of hearing, it is deemed to have been given on the 5th day after mailing.
[16] Pursuant to s. 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (the SPPA), where a notice of hearing has been given, s. 7 of the SPPA provides that a tribunal may proceed with a hearing in the absence of any party.
[17] Where an order has been made by the LTB that finally determines a party’s rights, the LTB may, pursuant to s. 21.2 of the SPPA and rule 26 of the LTB’s Rules of Procedure (the Rules), review such final order. Section 209(2) of the RTA specifically authorizes the LTB to review a decision if a party was not reasonably able to participate in the proceeding.
[18] In this case, it is argued that the Appellants were not reasonably able to participate in the eviction hearing because they never received notice of that hearing.
[19] In Zarei v. Afsharian, 2023 ONSC 5317, Corbett J., at para 3, succinctly dealt with a similar issue as follows:The primary issue raised by the appellants is a question of procedural fairness – they say that they did not receive notice and thus did not have an opportunity to participate in the hearing. A question of procedural fairness is reviewed in this court on a standard of correctness. However, in this case the issue of procedural fairness raised by the appellants turns solely on a finding of fact by the Board: the Board found that the appellants received notice of the hearing. Given that finding, which is not subject to appeal in this court, no issue of procedural fairness arises, and for this reason the appeal must be dismissed. [20] As the Board member did in Zarei, in the present case, Member Delaney made factual findings concerning the service/receipt of the Notice of Hearing. The RTA and the LTB Rules presume that once a notice is sent by the LTB it is deemed received 5 days later. Member Delaney did not accept the evidence of the Appellants and in doing so accepted the evidence of the Respondent that he had in fact “hand delivered the N12 Notice to the tenants personally on April 10, 2022 and they were both present at the time.”
[21] The factual findings of LTB Member Delaney as it relates to the issue of service or delivery of the Notice of Hearing are findings of fact and are not subject to appeal. As such, the first issue raised by the Appellants is dismissed. . Ramlal Hemchand v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation
In Ramlal Hemchand v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court notes a novel LTB facility for parties "who do not have access to technology":[16] There is then the issue of whether it was unfair to proceed on the new date, without the tenant. The LTB has put forward a document indicating that the notice of hearing (for the new date) was mailed to the tenant along with information permitting the tenant to use the Public Access Terminals (“PATs”) that the LTB makes available to parties who do not have access to technology. . Zarei v. Afsharian
In Zarei v. Afsharian (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court notes LTB practice regarding service of documents and availability of hearing dates, here where the appellant landlord argued that they did not receive a notice of hearing:[7] We note that this was an “open file” with the LTB and that parties have an obligation to ensure that their email service address is accurate. The Board has a high volume of cases before it and cannot discharge its function to provide timely adjudication of residential tenancy disputes if parties can avoid and delay their hearings by their own failure to maintain their email addresses. Further, the status of Board matters – including hearing dates – may be viewed on the Board’s web site – so, if a party was unable to access their email, they could still follow the progress of their file by checking the web site. In this context, in the circumstances of this case, I see no error in the Board’s conclusion that notice was given to the landlords.
[8] Ms Afsharian [SS: co-landlord] also argued that there is no evidence that Mr Zarei [SS: co-landlord] opened the email on delivery of it, or that notice was given to her of the hearing. These arguments do not avail the appellants. The LTB is entitled to deem that a delivered email is proper service and that service on one residential landlord is service on all landlords. There was no evidence before the LTB that would render these inferences unavailable in the circumstances of this case.
|
