Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
|
|
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
|
| |
|
| * [[Estoppel]] | | * [[Estoppel]] |
|
| |
| ==[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.
| |
|
| |
| ==[http://canlii.ca/t/gw533 TST-74594-16-RV (Re), 2016 CanLII 88771 (ON LTB)]==
| |
|
| |
| 18. At the hearing the Tenant submitted that his allegations in this application, with respect to the rent receipts, are essentially the same as the allegations he raised at the hearing of TST-64205-15. The Tenant submitted that the rent receipts that are the subject of the current application were issued for different months than the rent receipt at issue in application TST-64205-15 and so this issue has not been decided with respect to the newer rent receipts.
| |
|
| |
| 19. At the hearing I explained to the Tenant that it appears that the rent receipt allegation in this application may be barred by the doctrines of issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel.
| |
|
| |
| <b><u>20. Issue estoppel is a branch of res judicata. Issue estoppel precludes a litigant from raising issues in a proceeding that were already adjudicated in a previous proceeding.</b></u> It appears that the essence of the rent receipt allegation in the current application was adjudicated in order TST-64205-15.
| |
|
| |
| 21. It appears that <b><u>cause of action estoppel</b></u> also applies here, <b><u>to the extent that the Tenant’s allegation in the current application is with respect to rent receipts that are different from the one at issue in application TST-64205-15. The Tenant should have raised the issue with respect to the rent receipts provided after the June 2016 receipt as an amendment to application TST-64205-15.</b></u>
| |
|
| |
| 22. When the Tenant was asked for his submissions on whether the doctrines of cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel apply to the allegation about rent receipts in this application, the Tenant requested that this allegation be withdrawn. I granted the Tenant’s request. This allegation is therefore withdrawn, with prejudice, because the Tenant requested that this part of the application be withdrawn after hearing about the cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel issues. In other words, the Tenant’s request to withdraw this part of the application is a concession that this part of the application is barred by cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel.
| |
|
| |
| ==[http://canlii.ca/t/gw4xl TSL-77468-16-RV (Re), 2016 CanLII 88717 (ON LTB)]==
| |
|
| |
| 10. The Tenants’ first two issues were adjudicated in a previous proceeding by order TST-78343-16/TST-78380-16. The Tenants are estopped from litigating these issues as per the doctrine of issue estoppel, which is a branch of res judicata. Issue estoppel precludes a litigant from raising issues in a proceeding that were already adjudicated in a previous proceeding. <b><u>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.</b></u>
| |
