|
Administrative - Administrative Fines. Equity Builders Ltd. et al. v. Landlord and Tenant Board et al.
In Equity Builders Ltd. et al. v. Landlord and Tenant Board et al. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court (mostly) dismissed a multiple-proceeding combination of both LL-initiated JRs and RTA s.210 appeals, here respecting multiple units in a Sarnia apartment building. After a fire "the Chief Building Official for the City of Sarnia issued an order to the Landlord directing that the premises be vacated", followed by a second order several days later restricting access to a lesser number of units. The LL subsequently refused re-entry to tenants not covered by the later less restrictive order, eventually resulting in RTA orders of illegal lock-out for numerous units - and that "the Landlords had substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment by the Tenants of their units; and found that the Landlords obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the Tenants".
Here the court considers (and rejects) the LL appellants' argument that $525,000 administrative fine [under RTA s.31(1)(d)] was improper:Did the Board err in fining Equity Builders a total of $525,000?
[108] The Landlords argue that Tenant Applications arose out of single event and that, therefore, the fine imposed should have been one single amount limited to the maximum monetary jurisdiction, namely, $35,000.00. Instead, the Board imposed a fine of $35,000 per unit for 15 units for a total of $525,000.00. According to the Landlords, the Board essentially “split the case” with respect the fine, a practice which the Landlords submit this court has held to be improper. Further, by imposing a fine of $525,000 the Board infringed on the jurisdiction of the Superior Court in a manner that was impermissible.
[109] If the Board did have jurisdiction to impose the fine it did, the Landlords maintain that the quantum of the fine was a “marked departure from the Board’s precedents”. According to the Landlords, the Board imposed the fine without an explanation, which was procedurally unfair and unreasonable.
[110] The Board’s authority to impose an administrative fine is set out at s. 31(1)(d) of the Act:s. 31(1) If the Board determines that a landlord, a superintendent, or an agent of a landlord has done one or more of the activities set out in paragraphs 2 to 6 of subsection 29(1), the Board may,
....
(d) order that the landlord pay to the Board an administrative fine not exceeding the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court ... . [111] The Board found that the Landlords did one or more of the activities set out in the relevant subsections of s. 29(1) and that the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court is $35,000.
[112] Section 207(1) of the Act provides that the “Board, may, where it otherwise has the jurisdiction, order the payment to any given person of an amount of money up to the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.” [emphasis added.] The Landlords are correct that this section precludes the Board from awarding any Tenant any more than $35,000. However, the fines awarded are not paid to the Tenants; they are paid to the Board. Under s. 196 of the Act, if a landlord owes money to the Board as a result of a failure to pay a fine, the Board may do a number of things, including not allowing the Landlord to file an application with the Board, staying or discontinuing an application that has been filed with the Board and delaying issuing an order or discontinuing an application where the information about the unpaid fine comes to the attention of the Board after the hearing has been held.
[113] While not binding on Board adjudicators, the Board’s Interpretation Guideline 16 states:An administrative fine is a remedy to be used by the Board to encourage compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the “RTA”), and to deter landlords from engaging in similar activity in the future. This remedy is not normally imposed unless a landlord has shown a blatant disregard for the RTA and other remedies will not provide adequate deterrence and compliance. Administrative fines and rent abatements serve different purposes. Unlike a fine, a rent abatement is intended to compensate a tenant for a contravention of a tenant’s rights or a breach of the landlord’s obligations. [114] One of the Board orders under appeal and review in this proceeding, court file number DC-24-00000054-0000, contains extensive reasons for the Board’s determination as to the appropriate administrative fine. In the decision the Board refers to Guideline 16 and finds as follows, at paras. 44-54:44. In effect, I should consider the nature and severity of the breach, the effect of the breach on the tenant, and any other relevant factors, such as the conduct of the Landlord.
45. Deterrence for egregious conduct, beyond whatever deterrent effect simple damages might provide, is an over-riding factor.
46. In my view this is an appropriate case in which to impose the maximum administrative fine in the amount of $35,000.00. The Landlord not only blatantly disregarded the Act but also disregarded an order putting the Tenant back in possession. The Landlord’s behaviour demonstrates a contempt for the Board and for the Act where they engaged in ‘self help’ that must be addressed. I believe that there are no other remedies that would provide adequate deterrence and compliance in these circumstances.
47. The Tenant…[was] illegally locked out of her unit from February 27, 2023, to July 27, 2023 (150 days). They had to sleep on an air mattress. Their entire life was turned upside down awaiting the return of their unit.
...
50. The Board notes that the Landlord had been found previously to have illegally locked out Tenants after a fire…, that was confirmed at the Divisional Court, and at the Ontario Court of Appeal. A small fine of $500.00 had been awarded in that order “to deter the Landlord from contravening the Act in the future.” That application involved a single rental unit.
...
54. The Landlord’s actions not only constitute a breach of the May 8, 2023, order, and that of the Divisional Court their actions constitute an egregious disregard of the Board’s authority and of the Act. One of the explicitly stated purposes of the Act is to prevent unlawful evictions. In this case, despite being aware of a Board order putting the Tenant back in possession of the unit, the Landlord refused to voluntarily cooperate, and once possession was restored, proceeded to change the locks to the unit. Essentially the Landlord locked out the Tenant not only in the absence of legal authorization but in spite of the Tenant’s explicit legal authorization to possess the rental unit. This behaviour must be discouraged in the strongest terms. [115] The other Board orders under appeal and review contain similar reasons for the Board’s determination of an appropriate administrative fine. Thus, contrary to the Landlords’ submissions, the Board gave an extensive explanation for their decision to impose the maximum administrative fine – a decision based on the serious nature of the Landlords’ conduct, the serious effect on the Tenants of that conduct, the apparent disregard of the Landlords for Board orders and the fact that this was not the first time the Landlord had been fined for similar conduct arising out of similar circumstances. In the end the Board was convinced that such a fine was necessary to deter such conduct in the future. As this Court has found in Glonczi et al v. Dupont/Landsdowne Holdings Inc., 2024 ONSC 5645, and Toolabi v. Simpson 2019 ONSC 2686, the Board’s decision to an award a fine is a discretionary one. Discretionary decisions are entitled to considerable deference from this Court. The Landlords have pointed to no errors in principle that would justify interfering with those decisions.
[116] In this case the Board was not dealing with one Tenant application, but with a number of Tenant applications, which it decided to hear together. The maximums set out in the Act are per application maximums. The Board’s procedural decision to hear the applications together, in the interests of efficiency and due to the urgency of the common issue of illegal lockouts, did not limit the Board’s monetary jurisdiction to a single administrative fine of $35,000.
[117] The Board has previously found that it has the authority to order a landlord to pay the maximum administrative fine in respect of each rental unit in a residential complex where the landlord unlawfully denied the tenants their right to return to the rental unit. In doing so the Board rejected the landlord’s submission that the Board is a “person” within the meaning of s. 207(1) of the Act and held that that provision applied to parties and that administrative fines contained their own limits. That case (TST-90503-17 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87012 (Ont. LTB)) concerned three separate units in an eight-unit building. The Board found that the landlord had exhibited a blatant disregard of the Act by failing to allow the tenants to exercise their statutory right to return to their rental units after renovations to the building were completed. The Board ordered the landlord to pay administrative fines of $25,000 per unit, which was the maximum at the time. Thus, the fine imposed in this case is not “unprecedented”. It is larger because there were more applications before the Board and the maximums for each fine had increased.
[118] For these reasons there is no merit to the Landlords’ submission that the Board erred in its orders imposing an administrative fine.
|
