RTA - Special and Exempt - Superintendent's Premises
. Sterling v. Upper Lansdowne Management
In Sterling v. Upper Lansdowne Management (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court held that the LTB had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of the employment termination of a resident-superintendent who resided as tenant in the premises:
[16] Providing allowance for the fact that Mr. Sterling is self-represented, I have considered whether there might be an error of law in the Board’s refusal to consider the circumstances of Mr. Sterling’s termination. The Board refused to do so in part due to Mr. Sterling’s failure to serve his material in advance of the hearing. But it also found it did not have jurisdiction to make rulings on the validity of his employment or the termination of his employment. To that end, I have considered whether, given the Board’s authority to apply the Code, it was an error to refuse to consider whether Mr. Sterling’s termination occurred in violation of the Code.
[17] I conclude that there is no merit to the argument that the Board should have considered allegations under the Code in this case. This Court has consistently held that the Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the legality of the termination of an employee: see, for example, Rio Algom Ltd. and Turcotte (1978), 1978 CanLII 1727 (ON SC), 20 O.R. (2d) 769 (Div. Ct.) and Onucki v. Fudge, [1990] O.J. No. 2175 (Div. Ct.).
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
