Order Been Enforced

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-24
CLNP Page ID:	1983
Page Categories:	Request to Review (LTB)
Citation:	Order Been Enforced, CLNP 1983, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-24
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2023/03/17

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Ali v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2019 ONSC 3627 (CanLII)

[4] In 2015, the appellant accrued arrears leading Toronto Community Housing to apply to evict her. On April 22, 2015, the LTB issued an order finding that she owned $7,895.34 in arrears and evicting her unless she repaid those arrears. At the appellant’s request that the LTB review that order, and on Toronto Community Housing’s consent, the parties entered into a mediated repayment agreement regarding the then existing arrears of $625. The agreement provided that she make an upfront payment of $125 and pay her rent and $30 per month towards her arrears on the first of each month. If the appellant did not comply, it was agreed Toronto Community Housing could reapply to evict.

[5] The appellant soon breached the mediated agreement and did so more than 12 times in total. On March 29, 2017, the LTB issued an order finding that the appellant had breached the mediated agreement and ordered her evicted. On July 10, 2017 the appellant was evicted from the unit. It has sat empty pending this appeal.

[6] The appellant moved to set aside that order and filed a T2 application about tenant’s rights with the LTB alleging Toronto Community Housing illegally locked her out of the unit when it evicted her. She alleged that she had not received the eviction order and did not know of her impending eviction until the sheriff arrived at the unit.

[7] The LTB issued an interim order preventing Toronto Community Housing from re-renting the unit and requiring it to preserve the appellant’s belongings in the unit until the set-aside motion and T2 application were decided.

TSL-67800-15-RV (Re), 2016 CanLII 39858 (ON LTB)

3. The hearing of the Landlord’s application took place on November 30, 2015 and the Tenant did not attend. On December 7, 2015, the Board issued Order TSL-67800-15 terminating the tenancy, effective December 18, 2015, unless the Tenant voided the Order. The Tenant did not void the Order and, on February 4, 2015, the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) enforced the Order by changing the locks to the unit.

4. On February 4, 2016, the Tenant attended at PCLS. In her pleadings, the Tenant states that she was shocked to learn about the enforcement of the Order as “she did not receive any notices about the hearing that resulted in the eviction order at issue”.

(...)

8. As I indicated during the hearing, based on the evidence before me and on the basis of the submissions made in the request and during the hearing, I am satisfied that a serious error occurred in the proceedings as the Tenant was not reasonably able to participate.

(...)

25. Given the evidence before me, including that already alluded to in the review portion, above, I am ordering this Tenant to be put back into possession and her tenancy reinstated.

26. In a case such as this, the Board may exercise its authority to “make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it as it considers proper to prevent abuse of its processes” pursuant to subsection 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”): MTHA v. Ahmed, [2001] O.J. No. 1477 (Div.Ct.).

(...)

28. In my opinion the wording of subsection 23(1) of the SPPA makes it clear that the provision is designed to give the Board the power to prevent any abuse of process, not only an abuse caused by the opposing party. If, as is the case here, a party is deprived of the reasonable right to participate in a hearing for reasons beyond her or his control, then that is, inherently, an abuse of process and amounts to a denial of the right to natural justice.

29. Logically, where a Tenant successfully argues, on a review, that she or he was not reasonably able to participate in the hearing, and the Board’s order has been enforced by the Sheriff but the unit remains vacant, I believe that the Board does have the jurisdiction to order that Tenant back into possession, once the review is granted, in order to prevent an abuse of process. This is especially so as, upon a successful review request, the initial order is null, the tenancy between the parties has not been terminated, and the Tenant retains the right to possession of the unit by virtue of the tenancy agreement. This may not be so where a new tenant is in possession of the unit, but that is not the case here.