Failed to Attend (Scheduling Mistake by Representative)(LTB)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-27
CLNP Page ID:	2062
Page Categories:	[Request to Review (LTB)]
Citation:	Failed to Attend (Scheduling Mistake by Representative)(LTB), CLNP 2062, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-27
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2023/01/24

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Starlight Investments v Burns, 2021 CanLII 147971 (ON LTB)

2. For the following reasons, I find that the Landlord’s request for review should be granted. The Landlord’s legal representative says that they did not receive notice for the November 16, 2020, hearing. The Board’s records indicate that a notice of hearing was sent by email to a paralegal who may, or may not, have been the Landlord’s legal representative at the time. At the review hearing, the Landlord’s legal representative explained that, at the time, the Landlord’s ownership was in a state of flux and it was not overly clear who was representing the Landlord at the relevant time. I would also note that it is not clear from the Board’s records whether a notice of hearing was sent to the Landlord’s legal representative by mail.

3. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Landlord did not receive notice of the November 16, 2020, hearing and was not reasonably able to participate. For these reasons, I find that the Landlord’s request for review should be granted.

Hamilton Holdings Inc. v Adams, 2021 CanLII 66111 (ON LTB)

1. The Landlord or a representative of the Landlord did not attend the hearing on December 4, 2020 and alleges that on the day of the scheduled hearing their Representative for an undisclosed health issue was not reasonably able to participate at the hearing.

2. In the Landlord’s request to review they plead the reason for applying for the request is because the order contains a serious error. Not being able to reasonably participate in a hearing does not constitute a serious error.

3. The stated reasons set out in the request do not provide sufficient details to ascertain why someone authorized on behalf of the Landlord could not have attended to participate in the hearing. The notice of hearing clearly provides instructions and states that –

It is very important for you to attend the hearing. If you are late, or if you do not attend your hearing, it may take place without you, and if you do not attend the hearing or send a representative, your application may be dismissed without any further notice. If you cannot participate in the hearing or are experiencing technical difficulties, you are to immediately contact the Board.

4. The Board has to control its process, in this instance, an allotted time and resources were provided to assist parties to resolve the application, and therefore parties, especially applicants are expected to attend/participate in the scheduled hearing.

5. In my opinion, a representative of the Landlord could and should have at the very least attended the hearing, and as a preliminary matter on the day of the hearing make a request to the Member to consider adjourning the proceedings.

6. On the basis of the submissions made in the request, I am not satisfied that there is a serious error in the order or that a serious error occurred in the proceedings. I am also not satisfied that the Landlord was not reasonably able to participate in the hearing.

TET-82333-17-RV (Re), 2017 CanLII 94004 (ON LTB)

1. The hearing for the Tenants’ application was scheduled on October 2, 2017 and it was heard on October 2, 2017 in Toronto.

2. The Tenants did not attend the hearing on October 2, 2017 and the Tenants’ application was found abandoned and it was dismissed.

3. The Tenant testified at the hearing that the Tenants did receive the notice of hearing for October 2, 2017. The Tenant testified that somehow the Tenants forgot about the date of the hearing.

4. The Tenant testified that he got confused because there was so much going on in their life that they forgot the date of the hearing.

5. The order TET-8233-17 was issued on October 4, 2017 and the Tenant agreed at the hearing that they received the order within a week.

6. The Tenants submitted a request to review the order on October 25, 2017.

7. I have considered all of the relevant evidence provided at the hearing and find that the Tenants received the notice of hearing for a hearing of their application on October 2, 2017. Therefore a proper notice was served by the Board and the Tenants did not attend the hearing and I am not satisfied that they thought the hearing was not on October 2, 2017 and it was on some other day.

8. I further find that the order TET-82333-17 was issued on October 4, 2017 and the Tenants received the order within a week and the Tenants waited till October 25, 2017 to submit a request to review the order. I find that if this was important to the Tenants they should have acted immediately.

9. The Tenant failed to provide any convincing testimony that the Tenants were not reasonably able to participate in the hearing on October 2, 2017. His only argument was that because there was so much going on in their life they got mixed up with the date of the hearing. Then again when the Tenant was asked at the hearing about why they waited till October 25, 2017 to file a request to review the order, his answer was the same that they were confused because of so much going on in their life.

10. On the basis of the submissions made in the request, I am not satisfied that the Tenants were not reasonably able to participate in the hearing on October 2, 2017, therefore the request to review the order shall be denied.

TSL-64804-15-RV-BIR (Re), 2016 CanLII 39870 (ON LTB)

5. The Tenant’s initially stated that his legal representative, while properly retained, was not present and unavailable. However, it soon became apparent that the Tenant could not have communicated the date of this review hearing to his representative as he had not spoken to the representative since well before he filed his Board initiated review request with the Board and a review hearing was scheduled. Further, having last spoken to his legal representative in December 2015, it is unclear, and indeed curious, how the Tenant could possibly know that his representative was “unavailable” to attend this review hearing.

(...)

8. In my view, and based on the evidence before me, the Tenant is a resourceful individual who had ample time to consult with, and retain if necessary, legal representation before the date of the hearing. Based on the evidence before me, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Tenant did not communicate the date of this review hearing to his legal representative and did not attend at a legal clinic in an effort to obtain legal representation for this hearing.