Talk:Void for Vagueness (LTB)

Cases to Consider

Krishna v. Alexandra Park Co-operative, 2022 ONSC 92 (CanLII)

[43] The notices did include the appellant’s altercation with the security guard as a ground. In addition, one of the notices specifically noted racist insults as a ground, along with many other particulars of disruptive conduct. The appellant relies on Ball v. Metro Capital Property, [2002] O.J. No. 5931 (Div. Ct.) for this position. However, that case arose in a different context since the landlord had given little or no details in the notices.

[44] Here, there was extensive evidence about the appellant’s behaviour, beyond the remarks he now focuses on. Member Lang relied on all the evidence regarding the allegations of disturbing conduct. Other members of the Co-op gave evidence, one of whom testified that the appellant told her that white people do not like her (she is a person of colour) and made several other highly offensive statements as well. In response to her evidence, the appellant testified that he would never utter racial slurs. Member Lang weighed all the evidence, finding that the appellant did make the offensive remarks.

[45] Member Lang also weighed all of the evidence about the alleged remarks made to the security guard. She considered the absence of an express denial, along with the other evidence. The appellant had ample opportunity to respond to the evidence. There were about seven weeks between the Co-op’s witnesses and the appellant’s testimony.

[46] The appellant has not demonstrated a breach of procedural fairness regarding notice.

Morguard Residential v Asboth, 2017 ONSC 387 (CanLII)

[7] The landlord specified in the notices that the units in question were provided as temporary accommodation pending completion of rental replacement units pursuant to an agreement with the City, that Ready for Occupancy Notices had been sent to the tenants but they refused to proceed in a timely manner, and that as a result the reasonable enjoyment of the complex by the landlord, as well as another right of the landlord, were substantially interfered with. While interference with the rights of other tenants was also mentioned in the notices, this was clearly surplusage. The notices further provided that if the appellants did not correct the problem within seven days, the landlord could apply to the Board to have the tenants evicted.

[8] The appellants did not “correct the problem” within seven days, and the landlord brought an application to the Board pursuant to s. 69(1) of the Act for an order terminating the tenancies of the appellants and evicting them.

...

[27] The reviewing member found that the member did not make a serious error in finding that the N5 notices were sufficient. There was a sufficient nexus between the behavior alleged in the N5 notices and the evidence submitted at the hearing to reach this conclusion.