In Wright v. Hardit (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed an RTA s.210 'persistent payment of rent' [RTA 58(1)] appeal, on the basis that it was not a question of law alone:
[15] On the second issue, the LTB found that the tenant had persistently failed to pay the rent when due and had done so for each month for over a year. This is a finding of fact or of mixed fact and law and not the proper subject of an appeal: Lerose v. Princess Apartments, 2022 ONSC 7 (Div. Ct.), at para. 29.
[16] The tenant submits that there was an error in law because the LTB failed to distinguish between rent payments withheld for valid reasons and other failures to pay. The tenant has not shown that this is a legal requirement. The RTA states the grounds to evict, which are as follows: “The tenant has persistently failed to pay rent on the date it becomes due and payable.” The statute does not distinguish based upon the reasons for the non-payment. The Member had the tenant’s explanation and could have considered it in the exercise of discretion regarding whether to evict under s. 83. The Member did so and it did not assist the tenant. There was no error of law.
....
[18] The tenant submits that the Member misapprehended the evidence giving rise to an error in law. She submits that not paying at all is not a pattern of late payments. The tenant submits that her two “bulk payments” in response to the landlord’s arrears applications did not mean that the tenant was persistently late in paying her monthly rent. These submissions do not give rise to an error of law.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
