Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

RTA - Time Extensions and Shortenings

. O’Shanter Development Company Ltd. v. Adai et al

In O’Shanter Development Company Ltd. v. Adai et al (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court canvassed RTA and LTB Rules regarding procedural time extensions and abridgements:

[21] Section 190(1) of the RTA allows the Board to extend or shorten time requirements related to making an Application for a rent increase beyond the guidelines under section 126 of the Act, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Board Rules of Procedure.

[22] The Rules of Procedure govern all matters before the Board. Rule 21.1 requires that requests for rescheduling can only be made with the consent of all the parties, and not less than five days before the scheduled hearing date.

[23] Rule 21.2 of the Rules of Procedure states that notwithstanding the requirements of Rule 21.1, a request to reschedule a hearing may be granted if the Board is satisfied that it was not reasonably possible for the party making the rescheduling request to comply with Rule 21.1.

[24] Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure addresses requests to extend or shorten time related to the hearing. Rule 16.4 indicates that the following factors may be considered in deciding whether to grant a request to extend time:

(a) The length of the delay, and the reason for it;

(b) Any prejudice a party may experience;

(c) Whether any potential prejudice may be remedied;

(d) Whether the request is made in good faith; and

(e) Any other relevant factors.

[25] Rule 16.6 of the Rules of Procedure states that if a request to extend time has already been denied, the party making the request may not make a second request to extend time unless there has been a significant change in circumstances.

[26] Rule 201(1)(a) of the RTA sets out the powers of the Board to “conduct any inquiry it considers necessary” before, during or after a hearing. Rule 201(2) further states:

In making its determination, the Board may consider any relevant information obtained by the Board in addition to the evidence given at the hearing, provided that it first informs the parties of the additional information and gives them an opportunity to explain or refute it.

. 6150 Yonge GP Inc. v Boxma

In 6150 Yonge GP Inc. v Boxma (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court applied a time limit extension [under RTA s.190(2)] to allow for a new cheque (after a bounced cheque earlier) written for a s.52(2)/55.1 ['Compensation under ss. 48.1, 49.1, 52, 54 or 55'] payment:

[8] We are not persuaded that the Board committed any error of law in this matter. With respect to the extension of time to compensate Ms. Boxma, s. 190(2) of the Act authorizes the Board to extend time requirements with respect to any matter in its proceedings, other than the prescribed time requirements. “Prescribed” in this context means prescribed by Regulation. The time stipulated in s. 55.1 is not a “prescribed time requirement” under s. 56 of the General regulation under the Act, O. Reg. 516/06s.

[9] The Board member exercised his discretion to extend the time requirement in this case taking into account that the landlord clearly attempted to provide compensation prior to the termination date but Ms. Boxma delayed several months in cashing the cheque. He also took into account that Ms. Boxma was still in possession of the rental unit at the time of the hearing. It was open to the Board member and entirely understandable that he extended the time requirements in this case in the exercise of his discretion.

. Jones v. Matthews

In Jones v. Matthews (Div Ct, 2012) considered (and declined to resolve) the interesting issue of what, if any, time extension law applied to a motion to extend time to commence an RTA s.210 appeal (which establishes a statutory time limit). Sadly avoiding this issue, the court considered whether the standard RCP R3.02 ['Extension or Abridgment'] test (which only applies to time limits established under the Rules of Civil Procedure) applied on a sort-of 'let's assume that it does' basis, but ultimately denied the request - so the issue didn't have to be resolved.

It's an interesting issue. The RTA has s.190 provisions which allow for the Board to extend or shorten time, which reads in part:

190(1) The Board may extend or shorten the time requirements related to making an application under section 126, subsection 159 (2) or section 226 in accordance with the Rules.

190(2) The Board may extend or shorten the time requirements with respect to any matter in its proceedings, other than the prescribed time requirements, in accordance with the Rules.

There is no corresponding mention of the RTA s.210 time limit prescribed in the General Reg 516/06, s.56, so that may create the argument that the LTB has jurisdiction to extend time under RTA 190(2) - after all the LTB has "exclusive jurisdiction" [RTA 168(2)]:

168(2) The Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all applications under this Act and with respect to all matters in which jurisdiction is conferred on it by this Act.

Alas, the court concluded on this point:

[9] Section 190 of the RTA gives the Board permission to extend time requirements in proceedings before it. Is the failure to confer a right to extend time on the Divisional Court in the RTA an indication no such power exists? The answer to that question should await another day.[1]