Powers to Order a Substitute Rental Unit (RTA)

🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 ©
Date Retrieved:	2025-05-02
CLNP Page ID:	1931
Page Categories:	[Category:Hearing Process (LTB)]
Citation:	Powers to Order a Substitute Rental Unit (RTA), CLNP 1931, <7Y>, retrieved on 2025-05-02
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2022/06/22

Ottawa-Carleton Association for Persons with Developmental Disabilities/Open Hands v. Séguin, 2020 ONSC 7405 (CanLII)

[1] Ottawa-Carleton Association for Persons with Developmental Disabilities/Open Hands (“the appellant”) appeals an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated September 5, 2019 that ordered it to reinstate the respondent André Séguin to the care home in which he had been living prior to his eviction. The appellant argues that the Board had no authority to order reinstatement, and it had denied procedural fairness to the appellant during the hearing that led to the order.

[2] For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the appeal, as the Board had the statutory authority to make the reinstatement order, and there was no denial of procedural fairness in the way the hearing was conducted.

...

[22] The Board member was informed by the appellant’s counsel and Don Ferguson, the Executive Director of the appellant, that the respondent’s former room remained empty, but that the Ministry had assigned the room to another individual JJ. JJ was in transitional temporary housing paid for by the appellant because of the Board’s order to keep the room vacant. Mr. Ferguson also told the Board that he feared the staff would quit if the respondent were reinstated, and he might have to close the home.

[23] The parties subsequently filed written materials. In its material, the appellant submitted that reinstatement should not be ordered, and if the parties could not resolve the dispute, the appellant should be required to pay $25,000 for the difference in costs of rent and services.

The Decision of the Board

[24] In the final decision dated September 5, 2019, the Board found that the appellant had substantially interfered with the respondent’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or the residential complex, because it had evicted him without proper notice of termination and without an order of eviction from the Board. The member concluded that it was appropriate to order the respondent reinstated to possession of the rental unit, and she ordered that he be allowed to return to the rental unit immediately.