|
Administrative - Misnomer. Bourgoin v. Schneider
In Bourgoin v. Schneider (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an RTA appeal argument grounded in 'misnomer':[21] The tenant’s first ground of appeal is that the LTB erred in law by making an order in favour of a non-party to the tenancy agreement as follows:“The Landlord and Tenant Board erred in law by reviewing the application by a non-party to the tenancy agreement and in making an award in favour of such non-party.” [22] Respectfully, I am not persuaded that this ground of appeal has any merit.
[23] From the record, it is clear that Waltmar was always the landlord under the lease agreement with the tenant, and always the vendor under the APS with the purchaser. None of this is disputed. The landlord’s eviction application inadvertently named Mr. Schneider (i.e., who is the principal of Waltmar) as the landlord instead of Waltmar due to clerical error as the landlord’s counsel explained in correspondence to the LTB sent on February 24 and 25, 2025 that raised and explained this inadvertence. I am satisfied that the error was due to clerical inadvertence that resulted in a mere irregularity or misnomer that the LTB did not correct in granting the Order even after being alerted to the error by the landlord.
[24] There is no real dispute that the misnomer should be corrected to properly identify the landlord in this case. Jurisprudence amply supports the principle that an amendment to correct a misdescription or misnomer in naming a party is warranted where the party knows that it was the intended party: Ormerod v. Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital, 2009 ONCA 697 at para 21; Lloyd v. Clark, 2008 ONCA 343 at para 4.
[25] Given the coincident intention to name Waltmar as the landlord in the eviction application and the knowledge of both parties that Waltmar always was the landlord, I am satisfied that the doctrine of misnomer applies to support an amendment of the pleadings to correctly name Waltmar as the landlord in this matter: r. 5.04(2). In turn, I am not persuaded that the tenant has a viable ground of appeal that raises a question of law based on this simple misnomer due to clerical inadvertence. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the tenant’s first ground of appeal is devoid of merit.
|
