Talk:Service of Documents (LTB): Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Disputing Service in a large multi-dwelling apartment building== | ==Disputing Service in a large multi-dwelling apartment building== | ||
Section 191 (1) of the [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17 RTA] reads: "A notice or document is sufficiently given to a person other than the Board", but what happens when the tenant claims that notice was never recieved? Well in the Divisional Court case [http://canlii.ca/t/h677c Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Zelsman, 2017 ONSC 5289 (CanLII)] the court states at paragraph | Section 191 (1) of the [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17 RTA] reads: "A notice or document is sufficiently given to a person other than the Board", but what happens when the tenant claims that notice was never recieved? Well in the Divisional Court case [http://canlii.ca/t/h677c Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Zelsman, 2017 ONSC 5289 (CanLII)] the court states at paragraph 52: | ||
::[52] The Board conducted a preliminary review of the review request without a hearing and denied the request with these reasons: | |||
::::<b><u>3. Regarding section 191, the Member set out her reasoning in some detail, concluding that a party need not prove that a document was actually received unless it is served by a means other than those permitted by the Act and the Board Rules. If the Board is satisfied the document, in this case, notices of rent increase, was served by one of the permitted means, then it has been sufficiently given”. This is a reasonable interpretation of section 191(1) and (2).</b></u> | |||
::::4. Similarly, it was not unreasonable of the Member to conclude on the basis of section 203 of the Act, which provides that the Board shall not make determinations or review decisions concerning eligibility for or the amount of geared-to-income rent, that the Board was without jurisdiction to determine whether the Tenant was entitled to geared-to-income rent. | |||
::::5. An interpretation of law will only be disturbed upon review if it is found to be unreasonable. | |||
::::6. I am unable to conclude that the Member’s interpretation of either provision is unreasonable. | |||
Revision as of 22:33, 2 March 2020
Disputing Service in a large multi-dwelling apartment building
Section 191 (1) of the RTA reads: "A notice or document is sufficiently given to a person other than the Board", but what happens when the tenant claims that notice was never recieved? Well in the Divisional Court case Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Zelsman, 2017 ONSC 5289 (CanLII) the court states at paragraph 52:
- [52] The Board conducted a preliminary review of the review request without a hearing and denied the request with these reasons:
- 3. Regarding section 191, the Member set out her reasoning in some detail, concluding that a party need not prove that a document was actually received unless it is served by a means other than those permitted by the Act and the Board Rules. If the Board is satisfied the document, in this case, notices of rent increase, was served by one of the permitted means, then it has been sufficiently given”. This is a reasonable interpretation of section 191(1) and (2).
- 4. Similarly, it was not unreasonable of the Member to conclude on the basis of section 203 of the Act, which provides that the Board shall not make determinations or review decisions concerning eligibility for or the amount of geared-to-income rent, that the Board was without jurisdiction to determine whether the Tenant was entitled to geared-to-income rent.
- 5. An interpretation of law will only be disturbed upon review if it is found to be unreasonable.
- 6. I am unable to conclude that the Member’s interpretation of either provision is unreasonable.
