|
RTA - Collective Bargaining. Faruk v. The Landlord and Tenant Board
In Faruk v. The Landlord and Tenant Board (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered a multi-tenant judicial review (not a RTA s.210 appeal, which would be more usual), grounded in administrative fairness and abuse of process, of interrupted RTA proceedings where the LTB member had resigned before the hearing was completed and the LTB ordered a de novo hearing. The substantive issues were COVID-era arrears of rent and s.83 relief form eviction.
In this quote the court dismisses the tenants' Charter s.2(d) ['freedom of association'] and 'collective bargaining' arguments:1. Was the landlord required by s. 83(3)(d) to negotiate with the association?
[15] This entailed a consideration of the freedom of association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in contra-distinction to a supposed right to collective bargaining. As found by the Landlord and Tenant Board, this is not like the Labour Relations Act[16] which authorizes unions to both organize and negotiate collectively with their employers. The Board held that the freedom of association of those tenants who are members of the Crescent Town Tenants’ Union is protected, but they are not provided with the right to bargain collectively with the landlord:Since the purpose of subsection 83(3)(d), is to protect tenants’ Charter freedoms to organize and join associations, the subsection should be read broadly to afford fulsome protection of those freedoms. However, it cannot be read as protecting tenants’ Charter freedom to negotiate collectively.[17] 2. The meaning of subsection 83(3)(c)
[16] The tenants argued that they had a legal right to bargain collectively. They were seeking to enforce that right and, thus, should be protected through the application of subsection 83(3)(c). Having found there was no right to collectively bargain, the Landlord and Tenant Board determined that the “[t]enants’ subsection 83(3)(c) defense cannot succeed”.[18]
|
