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