Right of Appeal (LTB): Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Appeals]] | ||
==Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 <ref name="RTA"/>== | ==Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 <ref name="RTA"/>== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:(5) The Divisional Court may also make any other order in relation to the matter that it considers proper and may make any order with respect to costs that it considers proper. 2006, c. 17, s. 210 (5). | :(5) The Divisional Court may also make any other order in relation to the matter that it considers proper and may make any order with respect to costs that it considers proper. 2006, c. 17, s. 210 (5). | ||
<ref name="RTA">Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17></ref> | <ref name="RTA">Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17></ref> | ||
| Line 23: | Line 22: | ||
[7] From the materials filed by Mr. LaFontaine on this motion, it is apparent that his quarrel with the Board’s decision at most raises a question of mixed fact and law – namely, whether the particular configuration of his rental accommodation brought it within the exemption in s. 5(i) of the RTA. '''The limited right of appeal available under s. 210 of the RTA leads me to conclude that there is little merit to Mr. LaFontaine’s proposed appeal of the Divisional Court’s order'''. In those circumstances, I do not see that the justice of the case requires granting Mr. LaFontaine an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal. | [7] From the materials filed by Mr. LaFontaine on this motion, it is apparent that his quarrel with the Board’s decision at most raises a question of mixed fact and law – namely, whether the particular configuration of his rental accommodation brought it within the exemption in s. 5(i) of the RTA. '''The limited right of appeal available under s. 210 of the RTA leads me to conclude that there is little merit to Mr. LaFontaine’s proposed appeal of the Divisional Court’s order'''. In those circumstances, I do not see that the justice of the case requires granting Mr. LaFontaine an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal. | ||
<ref name="Grant">Lafontaine v. Grant, 2019 ONCA 552 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j17m6>, retrieved on 2020-06-03</ref> | <ref name="Grant">Lafontaine v. Grant, 2019 ONCA 552 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j17m6>, retrieved on 2020-06-03</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 13:52, 27 September 2020
Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 [1]
210 (1) Any person affected by an order of the Board may appeal the order to the Divisional Court within 30 days after being given the order, but only on a question of law.
- (2) A person appealing an order under this section shall give to the Board any documents relating to the appeal.
- (3) The Board is entitled to be heard by counsel or otherwise upon the argument on any issue in an appeal. 2006, c. 17, s. 210 (3).
- (4) If an appeal is brought under this section, the Divisional Court shall hear and determine the appeal and may,
- (a) affirm, rescind, amend or replace the decision or order; or
- (b) remit the matter to the Board with the opinion of the Divisional Court. 2006, c. 17, s. 210 (4).
- (5) The Divisional Court may also make any other order in relation to the matter that it considers proper and may make any order with respect to costs that it considers proper. 2006, c. 17, s. 210 (5).
Lafontaine v. Grant, 2019 ONCA 552 (CanLII)[2]
[6] The Divisional Court noted that s. 210 of the RTA restricts the right to appeal from the Board to questions of law. The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. LaFontaine’s appeal on the basis that it did not raise a question of law. Instead, that court stated that Mr. LaFontaine was challenging the findings of fact made by the Board: “[H]e disagrees with the Board’s finding that he has his own kitchen and bathroom in the basement, and he disagrees with the finding that the Respondent was not required to share any such facilities with him.”
[7] From the materials filed by Mr. LaFontaine on this motion, it is apparent that his quarrel with the Board’s decision at most raises a question of mixed fact and law – namely, whether the particular configuration of his rental accommodation brought it within the exemption in s. 5(i) of the RTA. The limited right of appeal available under s. 210 of the RTA leads me to conclude that there is little merit to Mr. LaFontaine’s proposed appeal of the Divisional Court’s order. In those circumstances, I do not see that the justice of the case requires granting Mr. LaFontaine an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17>
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Lafontaine v. Grant, 2019 ONCA 552 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j17m6>, retrieved on 2020-06-03
