Powers to Order a Substitute Rental Unit (RTA)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-10-04
CLNP Page ID:	1931
Page Categories:	[Category:Hearing Process (LTB)]
Citation:	Powers to Order a Substitute Rental Unit (RTA), CLNP 1931, <7Y>, retrieved on 2024-10-04
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2022/06/22

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

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.

...

[67] Moreover, to restrict a reinstatement order to a situation where the locks are changed would leave many other tenants, evicted directly or indirectly by other means, without a remedy of reinstatement. As the respondent’s factum points out, a landlord might directly or indirectly oust a tenant from possession by other means, such as the use of security guards, threats or intimidation, blocking access to the property, cutting off utilities, or taking advantage of a tenant’s physical or mental disabilities. The appellant submits that the induced vacating provision would apply to them However, that ignores the fact that many such tenants would want to return to their home, and the monetary relief in s. 31(2) would not be an adequate remedy. Section. 31(1)(f), read in a large and liberal manner and in light of its broad words, provides a remedy of reinstatement for these tenants who have been unlawfully evicted, even if the locks were not yet changed.

[68] It is important to remember that since the respondent’s tenancy was not terminated in accordance with the Act, he remains a tenant, and he has the lawful right to possession of the unit. In Board decision TSL-06175-10-RV, 2010 CanLII 65490, the Board stated at para. 3: “this issue is primarily one of logic … If the tenancy was not terminated then the Tenant must have the right to possess the rental unit as that is a right that goes along with the tenancy agreement.”

[69] Reading s. 31(1)(f) broadly to allow the Board to order reinstatement is consistent with the remedial purpose of the Act. As noted by Jack Fleming, in Residential Tenancies in Ontario, 3rd ed. (Canada: LexisNexis, 2015 at p. 1017),

A wrongfully evicted tenant who is requesting to be put back into possession should normally receive such an order. To allow a landlord to illegally evict a tenant and then not put the tenant back into possession (where the tenant wishes to reoccupy the rental unit) would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Fleming states as well that the Board has the power to order that the tenant be given possession of the rental unit pursuant to s. 23(1) of the SPPA (an order to prevent an abuse of process), s. 31(1)(f) of the Act, and s. 31(3) through (5) of the Act.