Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
|
|
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Category:Landlord Tenant]]
| |
| [[Category:Legal Principles]]
| |
|
| |
|
| ==[http://canlii.ca/t/hwm6q TSL-87859-17 (Re), 2018 CanLII 121025 (ON LTB)]==
| |
|
| |
| 21. The HRTO order makes explicit findings about this issue and part of the remedy awarded is in relation to this issue. This issue is therefore barred by issue estoppel, which is a branch of the doctrine of res judicata.
| |
|
| |
| 22. Issue estoppel precludes a litigant from raising issues in a proceeding that were already adjudicated in a previous proceeding. The principles behind the doctrine of issue estoppel are that litigation should have finality (it should not be allowed to continue indefinitely), inconsistent results should be avoided, judicial resources should not be wasted on duplicative claims, and parties should not be permitted to harass one another with duplicative claims.
| |
|
| |
| 23. The criteria for issue estoppel, as per Richard A. Feldman in his Residential Tenancies, 9th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2009) at p.90, are:
| |
| ::i) the same question (issue) currently being advanced has already been decided in an earlier proceeding;
| |
| ::ii) that earlier decision was final; and
| |
| ::iii) the parties (or their privies) are the same now as in that earlier proceeding.
| |
|
| |
| 22. The criteria for issue estoppel are met here.
| |
|
| |
| ==[http://canlii.ca/t/j0fk7 TST-45022-13 (Re), 2018 CanLII 141683 (ON LTB)]==
| |
|
| |
| 7. In order TST-44900-13, issued on February 26, 2018, I found that the Landlord’s actions in serving a notice of entry soon before a hearing scheduled for November 16, 2012 did not substantially interfere with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the premises. I find that the issue of the service of a notice of hearing soon before a Board hearing is scheduled is barred by the doctrine of issue estoppel. The Tenant has raised the same factual allegations as she did in application TST-44900-13, an order was issued that resolved these allegations, and that order has not been successfully reviewed.
| |
|
| |
| 11. In order TST-44902-13, issued on April 9, 2018, I found the issue of hiding information that the rental unit violates municipal standards was barred by the doctrine of issue estoppel. For the same reasons as I gave in that order, I find again that the issue of hiding information that the rental unit violates municipal standards is barred by the doctrine of issue estoppel.
| |
