Partly Vague (Notice of Termination)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-05-19
CLNP Page ID:	1787
Page Categories:	Defective Notice (LTB)
Citation:	Partly Vague (Notice of Termination), CLNP 1787, <4Q>, retrieved on 2024-05-19
Editor:	P08916
Last Updated:	2021/10/25

SWL-16024-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88648 (ON LTB)

4. In response to the complaints received, on March 9, 2018, the Landlord served the Tenant with a first N5 Notice of termination (the ‘first N5 Notice’) pursuant to subsection 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’). The first N5 Notice lists four dates for the allegations. The first two entries, January 8 and March 7, 2018 list only the dates when the Tenant was issued written notices with respect to earlier incidents, but offer no references to when these events were alleged to have occurred.

5. With respect to the first two entries, I find that the first N5 Notice is unduly vague and lacks necessary references to specific dates and times for the incidents alleged. While the Landlord’s Agents may well have intended to lead direct evidence of the Tenant’s alleged misconduct at the hearing that prompted them to serve the written warnings, the problem lies in the actual text of the originating document – the first N5 Notice – which is the document against which the respondent Tenant must craft her answer. I find on the balance of probabilities that the vague allegations contained in first two entries of the first N5 Notice frustrated his ability to fully and properly respond to the application. If the Tenant is deprived of the ability to know the precise dates of various allegations prior to the hearing, the missing information necessarily compromises his defence.

6. According to the Ontario Divisional Court’s decisions in both Kuzyk v. S.K. Properties and Ball v. Metro Capital Property and Lockhurst, if a Notice of termination issued by a landlord is confusing to the degree that a reasonable person could not understand the precise actions or omissions that caused the landlord to pursue eviction, a Member would find it defective. Specifically, the Court in Ball stated that “particulars should include dates and times of the alleged offensive conduct, together with a detailed description of the alleged conduct engaged in by the tenant.”

7. In the present case, I find that the first N5 Notice is defective with respect to the first two entries marked January 8, 2018 and March 7, 2018 since these descriptions are excessively vague and devoid of necessary details with respect to the allegations that provide the basis for the application. The Landlord may not rely upon these portions of the notice to terminate the tenancy.

Hryciuk v. Ontario (Legislative Assembly), 1996 CanLII 4013 (ON CA)

As to why the court should interfere even though Judge Hryciuk had taken no clear objection to the process, Hartt J. cited the following observation of Le Dain J. in Cardinal v. Kent Institution, 1985 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643 at p. 661, 24 D.L.R. (4th) 44:

. . . I find it necessary to affirm that the denial of a right to a fair hearing must always render a decision invalid, whether or not it may appear to a reviewing court that the hearing would likely have resulted in a different decision. The right to a fair hearing must be regarded as an independent, unqualified right which finds its essential justification in the sense of procedural justice which any person affected by an administrative decision is entitled to have. It is not for a court to deny that right and sense of justice on the basis of speculation as to what the result might have been had there been a hearing.

Ontario Football Conference v. Brampton Minor Football Association, 2020 ONSC 1061 (CanLII)

[23] The fundamental principles associated with the administration of justice and civil procedure include the need to ensure that justice not only be done but be seen to be done, following a procedure that is just and fair. The duty of procedural fairness requires that litigants have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 (S.C.C.), at paragraph 28; Ariston Realty Corp. v. Elcarim Inc., 2007 CanLII 13360 (ON SC), [2007] O.J. No. 1497 (S.C.J.), at paragraph 29.