Due Diligence (Exercise of): Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
6. In Q Res IV Operating GP Inc. v. Berezovs’ka, 2017 ONSC 5541 (Div. Ct.) (CanLII), the Divisional Court affirmed that a party to a Board proceeding must exercise appropriate diligence to be aware of and to attend a Board proceeding. In this case, I find the Landlord’s lack of diligence to be the reason why she did not receive the notice of hearing. | 6. In Q Res IV Operating GP Inc. v. Berezovs’ka, 2017 ONSC 5541 (Div. Ct.) (CanLII), the Divisional Court affirmed that a party to a Board proceeding must exercise appropriate diligence to be aware of and to attend a Board proceeding. In this case, I find the Landlord’s lack of diligence to be the reason why she did not receive the notice of hearing. | ||
... | |||
13. Khani v. Zhang, 2019 ONSC 1362 elucidates the principle that parties to a dispute before the Board must demonstrate due diligence in their engagement with the process. In this instance, I find the Landlord’s oversight in monitoring her email and ensuring her contact information was up to date did not meet the requisite level of due diligence. This lack of diligence directly contributed to her failure to participate in the initial hearing, and as such, does not justify granting a review. Accordingly, the Landlord’s request for review is denied. | |||
<ref name="Reid">Shewen v. Reid, 2024 ONLTB 25484 (LTB-T-056551-22-RV), <[[File:LTB-T-056551-22 RV.pdf]], https://rvt.link/fo>, retrieved 2025-06-05</ref> | <ref name="Reid">Shewen v. Reid, 2024 ONLTB 25484 (LTB-T-056551-22-RV), <[[File:LTB-T-056551-22 RV.pdf]], https://rvt.link/fo>, retrieved 2025-06-05</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 15:05, 5 June 2025
| 🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2025-06-07 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2507 |
| Page Categories: | [Hearing Process (LTB)] |
| Citation: | Due Diligence (Exercise of), CLNP 2507, <https://rvt.link/fp>, retrieved on 2025-06-07 |
| Editor: | Sharvey |
| Last Updated: | 2025/06/05 |
Shewen v. Reid, 2024 ONLTB 25484 (LTB-T-056551-22-RV)
5. The Landlord claims she did not receive the notice by mail as that is not the correct address. The Landlord acknowledge receiving the notice of hearing by e-mail; however, it went to her junk mail folder. She did not check her junk mail folder until after the hearing.
6. In Q Res IV Operating GP Inc. v. Berezovs’ka, 2017 ONSC 5541 (Div. Ct.) (CanLII), the Divisional Court affirmed that a party to a Board proceeding must exercise appropriate diligence to be aware of and to attend a Board proceeding. In this case, I find the Landlord’s lack of diligence to be the reason why she did not receive the notice of hearing.
...
13. Khani v. Zhang, 2019 ONSC 1362 elucidates the principle that parties to a dispute before the Board must demonstrate due diligence in their engagement with the process. In this instance, I find the Landlord’s oversight in monitoring her email and ensuring her contact information was up to date did not meet the requisite level of due diligence. This lack of diligence directly contributed to her failure to participate in the initial hearing, and as such, does not justify granting a review. Accordingly, the Landlord’s request for review is denied.
References
- ↑ Shewen v. Reid, 2024 ONLTB 25484 (LTB-T-056551-22-RV), <File:LTB-T-056551-22 RV.pdf, https://rvt.link/fo>, retrieved 2025-06-05
