Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Category:Landlord Tenant]]
| |
|
| |
|
| ===[http://canlii.ca/t/h677c Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Zelsman, 2017 ONSC 5289 (CanLII)]===
| |
|
| |
| [17] The main issues in dispute were whether there was a valid lease agreement in place and whether rent charged pursuant to that lease and subsequent rent increases were lawful.
| |
|
| |
| Issues in the appeal
| |
|
| |
| [27] Based on his factum and submissions, Mr. Kary identified the issues as follows:
| |
| (a) whether the respondent is estopped from enforcing the rent set out in the Lease Agreement originally in the amount of $1106 per month after making representations to the appellant that she could pay a lower rent and that the appellant relied upon when moving into the unit;
| |
| ::(b) whether the rent was lawfully increased;
| |
| ::(c) whether the Board had the power to determine what rent should be paid;
| |
| ::(d) whether the Board erred in holding that s. 191 of the RTA deems notice of document to be validly served if delivered by mail;
| |
| ::(e) whether the Board abdicated its jurisdiction when it applied an overly deferential standard of review to the order dated September 24, 2015.
| |
|
| |
| [28] The first four of those relate to the decision of the Board dated September 24, 2015 and the fifth relates to the Review Order. The issue of estoppel is key to the appeal.
| |
|
| |
| [33] The Supreme Court summarized the elements of promissory estoppel as follows:
| |
| The principles of promissory estoppel are well settled. The party relying on the doctrine must establish that the other party has, by words or conduct, made a promise or assurance which was intended to affect their legal relationship and to be acted on. Furthermore, the representee must establish that, in reliance on the representation, he acted on it or in some way changed his position.[5]
| |
|
| |
| [43] Fifth, the Board’s determination that the Lease Agreement dated December 17, 2010 was valid is a decision of mixed fact and law which is not reviewable on appeal.
| |
|
| |
| [44] I am not persuaded that the Board erred in law in failing to hold that the TCHC was estopped from seeking enforcement of the lease agreement dated December 17, 2010.
| |
|
| |
| [45] The related issue is the application of s. 203. At paragraphs 4-7 of the decision referred to above, the Board held that it had no jurisdiction to make determinations concerning eligibility for rent-geared-to-income assistance. And at paragraph 8 the Board held that its jurisdiction was to determine the amount of rent owing pursuant to the valid Lease Agreement. That is a correct interpretation of s. 203. I am not persuaded that the Board erred in law in coming to those conclusions.
| |
| ::B. Whether the rent was lawfully increased and
| |
| ::D. Whether the Board erred in holding that s. 191 of the RTA deems a notice or document to be validly served if delivered by mail
| |
