|
RTA - Expeditious Proceedings [s.183]. Miller Estate v. Arguelles
In Miller Estate v. Arguelles (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a tenant's RTA appeal, here from a 'personal possession' for a family member eviction. The case was complicated by the death of the owner during the LTB proceeding, and the LTB application separate listings of 'landlord' (the property manager) and the 'owner'.
Here the court considered the effect of the LTB's amendment of the application to change the applicant from the deceased owner to their estate:[13] The tenant has framed the issues on appeal as follows: ....2. Did the Board err in law by amending the eviction application to The Estate of Ann Miller, without naming an executor, trustee or administrator to pursue the eviction application? ....
Amending the Applicant to “The Estate of Ann Miller”
[23] The tenant is of the view that the Board erred in law by amending the eviction application to name as a party an estate with no personal representative and that “The Estate of Ann Miller” is not an individual, as required for an eviction under s. 48 of the Act. I disagree.
[24] Section 48 does provide that a landlord giving notice to terminate so that a child may occupy the unit must be an individual. Ann Miller was a party to the N12 notice. She was an individual. She remained so when the application was issued. Her death did not make her any less an individual for the purposes of that notice.
[25] Although it may have been preferable for the Board to amend the application to reflect a trustee of Ann Miller’s estate, it was not necessary that it do so because a specific individual representative of the estate was not required to determine the issues in this case.
[26] In proceeding as it did, the Board complied with its mandate under s. 183 of the Act, to adopt the most expeditious method of determining the questions arising in a proceeding that afforded to all persons directly affected by the proceeding an adequate opportunity to know the issues and be heard upon the matter. . Walters v. Centurion Property Associate Inc.
In Walters v. Centurion Property Associate Inc. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers the LTB's control of process jurisdiction, particularly as it relates to case management hearings and expeditious procedures:[26] The LTB has the authority to control its own process in accordance with s. 25.0.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 ("SPPA") and its Rules. The RTA permits the LTB to conduct inquiries it considers necessary before, during, or after a hearing and to question any person concerning the dispute. The RTA does not restrict the LTB's ability to control its process, other than to direct that the LTB adopt the most expeditious procedures that allow for a fair process: s.183.
[27] The LTB's authority to control its own process includes the ability of its members to ensure that its hearings, in accordance with s. 183 of the RTA proceed as expeditiously as possible without compromising fairness. This includes a member's ability to interrupt a party, provide direction to ensure that the hearing is conducted in an efficient manner, define, and narrow the issues to be decided, limit the evidence and submissions on any issue where there has been full disclosure, and question parties to focus the issues and the related evidence on relevant matters: See the SPPA and the RTA.
|
