|
RTA - Illegal Acts . Taghva v. MLYM INC.
In Taghva v. MLYM INC. (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an RTA s.210 appeal, this brought against a successful landlord application "to terminate the tenancy on two grounds: because the tenant committed an illegal act by possessing and pointing what turned out to be a fake gun at two people in the residential premises and because the tenant seriously impaired the safety of those people.".
Here the case both reviews the law of 'illegal acts' [RTA s.61,75] as a ground of termination, and also considers the practical effect of making an 'admission':[3] At the outset of the LTB hearing, the facts as set out in the notices of termination were admitted by the appellant, who was represented by counsel. The admissions included the pointing of what turned out to be a replica gun at a person who was representing the landlord and at another tenant of the building. The tenant testified. He agreed that he was charged with a criminal offence and pled guilty to a lesser offence. The LTB ordered the tenancy terminated and, after considering relief from eviction, postponed the order to vacate to April 30, 2025. As a result of commencing this appeal, the tenant has had an automatic stay of the eviction order until the decision on this appeal.
....
[7] At the LTB, the tenant, through counsel, accepted the allegations as true. Those facts cannot be challenged on this appeal. As set out is s. 75 of the Act, a conviction is not required. However, in his testimony, the tenant admitted to pleading guilty to a criminal offence that was a lesser charge, for which he received a conditional discharge including terms that he not possess a firearm.
[8] Section 61(1) of the Act permits the termination of a tenancy if a tenant “commits an illegal act” in the residential complex. There was no legal error finding that there was an “illegal act” in this case.
[10] The appellant also submits that his counsel misrepresented the situation to the Adjudicator. However, he has not put forward evidence in support of this submission and in oral argument did not mention any failure by the lawyer that would change the outcome of this appeal. . Ali v. Capreit
In Ali v. Capreit (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court allowed an RTA appeal, here where an eviction was grounded at the LTB level by "a threat ... allegedly made to one of their staff in the management office" by a single mother of three.
Here the appellant did not attend the main LTB hearing on the argument that "she was not reasonably able to participate in the hearing":[2] No complaint was made to the police. But the landlord sought to terminate Ms. Ali’s tenancy under s. 61(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (RTA) on the ground she committed an illegal act in the residential complex.
....
Procedural Fairness
[7] Ms. Ali did not have a chance to challenge a serious allegation that she threatened to shoot someone in the office. A crime that requires proof, even under the civil standard of proof, of not only the actus reus but also the mens rea: R. v. McGraw, 1991 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72. Also, her long tenancy was terminated without any opportunity to present evidence or make submissions: see s. 83(1)(a) of the RTA.
[8] The review hearing that was conducted focused solely on whether Ms. Ali was not reasonably able to participate in the January 9, 2024, hearing. Not on whether Ms. Ali committed a crime. This was due to the fact the interim stay order of April 2, 2024, ordered that the review hearing would only consider this issue.[1]
[9] Section 209(2) of the RTA expressly permits the LTB to review orders on the grounds that a requester was not reasonably able to participate in the proceedings.
[10] The member who conducted the review hearing decided that she was not satisfied that Ms. Ali was not reasonably able to participate in the proceeding. In part, the member found that Ms. Ali had notice of the hearing and chose not to attend. Had this been the sole basis to deny the request for a rehearing, this would have been a factual finding that could not be impeached on appeal.
[11] However, Ms. Ali testified that she believed that paying the landlord the filing fee would resolve the matter without a hearing. The member did not disbelieve Ms. Ali on this and observed Ms. Ali indeed had a discussion prior to the January 9, 2024, hearing about the filing fee with the landlord’s legal representative. The member merely found her belief to be unreasonable and could not anchor a legitimate request to be heard on the merits. On this alternative basis as well, she found that Ms. Ali had not discharged her onus.
[12] I am mindful that the LTB has enacted Interpretation Guideline 8 which directs that the LTB will refuse requests for a review where the requestor’s absence was the result of negligence or it finds no reasonable explanation for the failure to attend: Gusain v. Arnold, 2023 ONSC 3765 (Div. Ct) at para. 48. I further recognize that a lack of diligence can constitute a reason not to grant a rehearing to avoid a waste of resources: Q Res IV Operating GP Inc. v. Berezovs’ka, 2017 ONSC 5541 (Div. Ct.) at para. 8.
[13] That acknowledged, on the member’s alternate finding, Ms. Ali did not have an opportunity to be heard though she desired so. This is unlike the case of Gusain v. Arnold relied upon by the respondent where at para. 53 of the decision, the court relied on the finding the member conducting the review made that the requester landlord had an adequate opportunity to participate in the original proceedings.
[14] In King-Winton v. Doverhold Investments Ltd., 2008 CanLII 60708 (ONSC Div. Ct.) though the tenant received proper notice of a hearing, the tenant made a mistake about when the hearing was to be held. A new hearing was ordered. At para. 3, the court said “[b]eing reasonably able to participate in the proceeding must be interpreted broadly, natural justice requires no less.” This holding has been followed in other cases where a tenant is the party adversely affected by an inability to participate in a LTB hearing: Zaltzman v. Kim, 2022 ONSC 1842 (Div. Ct.) at para. 3; Wright v. Lallion, 2024 ONSC 4132 [2] at para. 12. Given the inherent vulnerability of residential tenants and the purpose of the RTA (see s. 1), this generous interpretation makes sense.
[15] In principle, I see little to distinguish a sincere confusion about the resolution of a hearing after speaking with the landlord’s lawyer from a sincere confusion about the date of a hearing. Moreover, Ms. Ali has been diligent in pursuing a rehearing once she was notified of the initial decision: Zaltzman v. Kim, at para. 2. . McLeod v. Wigwamen Incorporated
In McLeod v. Wigwamen Incorporated (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered an RTA s.210 appeal of an 'illegal acts' termination, here where a criminal charge had since been dismissed:[16] Section 75 of the Act expressly states that the Board may make an order terminating a tenancy for committing an illegal act “whether or not the tenant…has been convicted of an offence.” The absence of a conviction therefore does not demonstrate an error of law on the part of the Board.
[17] Further, in this case, the evidence before the Ontario Court of Justice differed from the evidence before the Board. Nathanson J. was influenced significantly by an event that occurred the day before the alleged offence. The event affected his assessment of the property manager’s credibility. However, this evidence was not before the Board. Also, while Nathanson J. was not persuaded the Crown had established the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, he also did not find they did not occur. He stated: “To be clear, I am not in a position to make a finding that the thefts or the assault factually did not occur. …I have significant problems with both versions of events.” Overall, Mr. McLeod has not demonstrated the criminal ruling reveals an error of law in the Board’s reasons.
[18] Mr. McLeod’s further submission that the illegal act finding is not supported by the evidence does not raise an error of law. It is not the role of the court to reweigh the evidence or, absent an error of law, determine whether the evidence supports the Board’s conclusion. The property manager testified before the Board about the details of the assault he alleged occurred. Mr. McLeod disagrees with that evidence, but this is not a situation in which there was no evidence that could, if accepted, support the Board’s findings. This ground of appeal is dismissed.
|
