Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
|
|
| (25 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Premium}}
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Disputing Service in a large multi-dwelling apartment building==
| |
|
| |
| Section 191 (1) of the [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17 RTA] reads: "A notice or document is sufficiently given to a person other than the Board", but what happens when the tenant claims that notice was never recieved? Well in the Divisional Court case [http://canlii.ca/t/h677c Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Zelsman, 2017 ONSC 5289 (CanLII)] the court states at paragraph 52:
| |
|
| |
| ::<i>[52] The Board conducted a preliminary review of the review request without a hearing and denied the request with these reasons:
| |
|
| |
| ::::<b><u>3. Regarding section 191, the Member set out her reasoning in some detail, concluding that a party need not prove that a document was actually received unless it is served by a means other than those permitted by the Act and the Board Rules. If the Board is satisfied the document, in this case, notices of rent increase, was served by one of the permitted means, then it has been sufficiently given”. This is a reasonable interpretation of section 191(1) and (2).</b></u>
| |
| ::::4. Similarly, it was not unreasonable of the Member to conclude on the basis of section 203 of the Act, which provides that the Board shall not make determinations or review decisions concerning eligibility for or the amount of geared-to-income rent, that the Board was without jurisdiction to determine whether the Tenant was entitled to geared-to-income rent.
| |
| ::::5. An interpretation of law will only be disturbed upon review if it is found to be unreasonable.
| |
| ::::6. I am unable to conclude that the Member’s interpretation of either provision is unreasonable.
| |
|
| |
| ::::[55] The Review Order demonstrates the application of rule 29 and the Interpretation Guideline. I am not persuaded that the Board erred in law in denying the review request.</i>
| |
|
| |
| What the above case demonstrates is that the only obligation on the landlord is to <b><u>serve</b></u> a notice in a manner permissible by the rules, the landlord is under no obligation to prove the tenant actually received the notice.
| |
|
| |
| In a large apartment building there are often letter small mail boxes on the ground floor of that building. Those mail boxes are governed under the authority of the [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-10/index.html Canada Post Corporation Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-10)]. Of particular interest is [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-83-743/index.html Mail Receptacles Regulations (SOR/83-743)] Section 10(c) which states:
| |
|
| |
| ::<i>10 Where a mail delivery service is inaugurated or extended to serve an area, delivery shall be effected to buildings in that area, subject to the following conditions:
| |
| ::::(c) delivery shall be effected to parcel compartment units in an apartment building or office complex if the conditions set out in Schedule IV are complied with;
| |
