|
Statutory Interpretation - Double-Negative
COMMENT
This is a fresh at 2026 sub-topic, though the issue has been with us well-before that. Some statutory wording, which can occur widely in different topic areas, can use a textual 'double-negative' which is difficult for both lay and legal professional alike to interpret. Examples are found in:- the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) s.83(1)(a) ['Power of Board, eviction']:
83(1) Upon an application for an order evicting a tenant, the Board may, despite any other provision of this Act or the tenancy agreement,
(a) refuse to grant the application unless satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be unfair to refuse; or ... , and
- the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (CPA) s.93(2) ['Court may order consumer bound']:
93(2) ... a court may order that a consumer is bound by all or a portion or portions of a consumer agreement, even if the agreement has not been made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, if the court determines that it would be inequitable in the circumstances for the consumer not to be bound.
CASES
. Andre Edwards v. Centurion Property Associates Inc.
In Andre Edwards v. Centurion Property Associates Inc. (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a tenant's joint RTA s.210 appeal/JR, these brought against the granting of "an eviction order because the Tenant persistently paid the rent late".
Here the court acknowledges the problems with the 'double-negative' textual drafting of RTA s.83 ['Power of Board, eviction'], which reads in relevant part "refuse to grant the application unless satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be unfair to refuse":[11] The Tenant then submits that the Adjudicator applied the incorrect test under s. 83 of the Act, submitting that the test was applied backwards. Counsel to the landlord notes that this issue was not raised in the request for a review. In any event, an error has not been shown. The Adjudicator concluded that it would be unfair to grant relief from the eviction under s. 83(1). That subsection says the LTB may refuse to grant the eviction unless it would be unfair to refuse. The double-negative is not helpful. Read in context, I do not find the paraphrasing of s. 83 in the reasons for decision led to a legal error.
|
