Right of Appeal (LTB): Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
[[Category:Landlord Tenant]]
[[Category:Landlord Tenant]]


==[http://canlii.ca/t/j17m6 Lafontaine v. Grant, 2019 ONCA 552 (CanLII)]==
==Lafontaine v. Grant, 2019 ONCA 552 (CanLII)<ref name="Grant"/>==


'''[6] The Divisional Court noted that s. 210 of the RTA restricts the right to appeal from the Board to questions of law. The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. LaFontaine’s appeal on the basis that it did not raise a question of law.''' Instead, that court stated that Mr. LaFontaine was challenging the findings of fact made by the Board: “[H]e disagrees with the Board’s finding that he has his own kitchen and bathroom in the basement, and he disagrees with the finding that the Respondent was not required to share any such facilities with him.”
'''[6] The Divisional Court noted that s. 210 of the RTA restricts the right to appeal from the Board to questions of law. The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. LaFontaine’s appeal on the basis that it did not raise a question of law.''' Instead, that court stated that Mr. LaFontaine was challenging the findings of fact made by the Board: “[H]e disagrees with the Board’s finding that he has his own kitchen and bathroom in the basement, and he disagrees with the finding that the Respondent was not required to share any such facilities with him.”


[7] From the materials filed by Mr. LaFontaine on this motion, it is apparent that his quarrel with the Board’s decision at most raises a question of mixed fact and law – namely, whether the particular configuration of his rental accommodation brought it within the exemption in s. 5(i) of the RTA. '''The limited right of appeal available under s. 210 of the RTA leads me to conclude that there is little merit to Mr. LaFontaine’s proposed appeal of the Divisional Court’s order'''. In those circumstances, I do not see that the justice of the case requires granting Mr. LaFontaine an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal.
[7] From the materials filed by Mr. LaFontaine on this motion, it is apparent that his quarrel with the Board’s decision at most raises a question of mixed fact and law – namely, whether the particular configuration of his rental accommodation brought it within the exemption in s. 5(i) of the RTA. '''The limited right of appeal available under s. 210 of the RTA leads me to conclude that there is little merit to Mr. LaFontaine’s proposed appeal of the Divisional Court’s order'''. In those circumstances, I do not see that the justice of the case requires granting Mr. LaFontaine an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal.
===Notes===
<ref name="Grant">Lafontaine v. Grant, 2019 ONCA 552 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j17m6>, retrieved on 2020-06-03</ref>

Revision as of 21:06, 3 June 2020


Lafontaine v. Grant, 2019 ONCA 552 (CanLII)[1]

[6] The Divisional Court noted that s. 210 of the RTA restricts the right to appeal from the Board to questions of law. The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. LaFontaine’s appeal on the basis that it did not raise a question of law. Instead, that court stated that Mr. LaFontaine was challenging the findings of fact made by the Board: “[H]e disagrees with the Board’s finding that he has his own kitchen and bathroom in the basement, and he disagrees with the finding that the Respondent was not required to share any such facilities with him.”

[7] From the materials filed by Mr. LaFontaine on this motion, it is apparent that his quarrel with the Board’s decision at most raises a question of mixed fact and law – namely, whether the particular configuration of his rental accommodation brought it within the exemption in s. 5(i) of the RTA. The limited right of appeal available under s. 210 of the RTA leads me to conclude that there is little merit to Mr. LaFontaine’s proposed appeal of the Divisional Court’s order. In those circumstances, I do not see that the justice of the case requires granting Mr. LaFontaine an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal.

Notes

[1]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Lafontaine v. Grant, 2019 ONCA 552 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j17m6>, retrieved on 2020-06-03