|
RTA - Purpose. Miller Estate v. Arguelles
In Miller Estate v. Arguelles (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a tenant's RTA appeal, this respecting s.48 ['Notice, landlord personally, etc., requires unit' (personal possession)] and s.71.1 ['Application based on certain notice' (supporting affidavit)] issues.
Here the court summarizes the purpose of the RTA, and make useful comments regarding the (at least initially intended) nature of administrative law:c. Remedial purposes of the RTA
[23] The stated purposes of the RTA are found in s. 1:The purposes of this Act are to provide protection for residential tenants from unlawful rent increases and unlawful evictions, to establish a framework for the regulation of residential rents, to balance the rights and responsibilities of residential landlords and tenants and to provide for the adjudication of disputes and for other processes to informally resolve disputes. [24] In White, at para. 10, this court described the overarching remedial purpose of the RTA, as follows:The [RTA] 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 [RTA] enjoys primacy over all other legislation, save the Ontario Human Rights Code, and the parties are prohibited from waiving or limiting the protection the [RTA] provides. [25] As remedial legislation with a tenant protection focus, the RTA must receive a fair, large and liberal construction that will best ensure its protective purpose is attained, resolving any ambiguity in favour of its tenant protection objects: Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority v. Godwin (2002), 2002 CanLII 41961 (ON CA), 161 O.A.C. 57 (C.A.), at para. 19; Price v. Turnbull’s Grove Inc., 2007 ONCA 408, 85 O.R. (3d) 641, at paras. 26 and 44; The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Chiarelli, 2014 ONCA 391, 120 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 72, per Juriansz J.A., dissenting in part, but not on this point, leave to appeal ref’d [2014] S.C.C.A. No. 326; Honsberger, at para. 19; Ricketts v. Veerisingnam, 2025 ONSC 841 (Div.Ct.), at para. 97, per Nakatsuru J., dissenting, but not on this point.
....
f. Conclusion
[56] The respondent [SS: the landlord] argues that allowing this appeal merely delays the inevitable. Similarly, the Board observes that allowing this appeal in the face of this inevitable result is a waste of its resources and undermines what this court emphasized in Chiarelli, at para. 74, is the “simplified and fair framework for the resolution of land-tenant disputes.”
[57] These submissions, respectfully, miss the point. Administrative efficiency can never serve to undermine the fundamental purposes of remedial legislative provisions designed for consumer protection. Nor can they override substantive principles of common law and statutory law.
[58] Moreover, there is no prejudice to the respondent in requiring compliance with the RTA and the common law and statutory requirements of estate law. The dismissal of this appeal is no impediment to the delivery of a proper N12 notice by an individual entitled to invoke s. 48 of the RTA and, if the notice is contested, a properly constituted eviction application.
|
