|
Administrative - Practice. Kiani et al v. Rivera et al.
In Kiani et al v. Rivera et al. (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a landlord's RTA s.210 appeal, here brought against LTB findings "that the respondents’ tenancy in a rooming house was subject to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (“RTA”) and awarded damages to each of the tenants are after being locked out from the rooming house".
Here the case raises, but does not resolve, the practice issue of whether some witnesses should be excluded while other witnesses are testifying, so as to not 'tailor' their evidence:Issue #2: Was the Landlord denied procedural fairness as the respondent tenants were permitted to listen to the evidence of the appellants and their witnesses prior to presenting their own evidence?
[21] The Tenants, as parties, are entitled to listen to the evidence presented by the Landlord. The Landlord submits that the respondent tenants should not have been present to hear the evidence presented by the other tenants as they could change their evidence based on the testimony they heard from the other tenants. However, there is no evidence that respondent tenants did so and counsel for the Landlord was unable to direct me to such evidence. Accordingly, there is no basis for this ground of appeal. . The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs v. Minister of Public Affairs and Business Delivery and Procurement
In The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs v. Minister of Public Affairs and Business Delivery and Procurement, (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR, here brought against a decision of "the Director under the Discriminatory Business Practices Act" (DBPA) which disagreed that provisions of "two agreements the University of Windsor entered into with student groups in the context of protest encampments on university property" violated the DBPA.
The case illustrates (what to me) is a frequent and obvious fairness violation - that of disregarding a written argument because the party "did not focus on this submission in oral argument". This fairness 'sin' may be committed in any of administrative tribunal, judicial review and appeal hearings, and - IMHO at the very least - requires the adjudicator to inquire of the submitting party whether they consent to the practice or not:[23] Although the University raised the question of prematurity in its written material, it did not focus on this submission in oral argument. We therefore decline to address it.
|
