|
RTA - Service. 2515 Eglinton West Residency Corp. v. Modeste
In 2515 Eglinton West Residency Corp. v. Modeste (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a landlord's (LL's) motion to extend time to commence an RTA appeal, here on s.210 'question of law' grounds where the appeal issue was the LL's non-participation at the LTB hearing and extensive service efforts of the Notice of Hearing by the tenants:[1] This is a motion to extend the time for appeal by a landlord. The Landlord and Tenant Board held a hearing in the landlord’s absence. On review, the board considered that service on four addresses for the landlord was sufficient and found it highly unlikely that none of the landlord’s employees received the notice.
[2] Mr Duggan submits that it was in evidence that two of those employees were no longer employed at the date of service and a third was not employed at the address of service. The board’s emphasis then, on the likelihood of a notice being received, raises an issue of law he submits, as to whether the board misapprehended the evidence or made an irrational finding. That might be a different way of saying it made a palpable and overriding error, but I don’t think anything turns on the difference.
[3] The point that Mr Duggan does not emphasize is that the fourth notice went to the proper corporate representative at the proper address. The board reviewed the decision of this court in Q Res IV Operating GP Inc. v. Berezovs’ka, 2017 ONSC 5541, and held that service of the landlord at the correct address without a return to sender by the post office was prima facie proof of good service. The tenant only needed to serve the corporation or its proper representative. The other three were gilding the lily.
[4] As discussed by the Divisional Court in the Q Res IV Operating GP Inc. v. Berezovs’ka decision, the issue of the validity of notice and whether the landlord or a party exercised due diligence upon receiving notice is not a question of law and is therefore not a matter that can be appealed under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
[5] With some evidence of service on the corporation without a return to sender, the applicant cannot say that there was no evidence or that the board’s decision was irrational. That is, despite the landlord’s intention to appeal and the slovenly steps that it took, I would not grant an extension of time because there is no error of law on which to base an appeal. Said in a different way, even if the appeal had been brought on time, I would quash the appeal on the basis that it does not raise a question of law.
[6] Accordingly, the motion to extend the time is dismissed. . Zarei v. Afsharian
In Zarei v. Afsharian (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court notes LTB practice regarding service of documents and availability of hearing dates, here where the appellant landlord argued that they did not receive a notice of hearing:[7] We note that this was an “open file” with the LTB and that parties have an obligation to ensure that their email service address is accurate. The Board has a high volume of cases before it and cannot discharge its function to provide timely adjudication of residential tenancy disputes if parties can avoid and delay their hearings by their own failure to maintain their email addresses. Further, the status of Board matters – including hearing dates – may be viewed on the Board’s web site – so, if a party was unable to access their email, they could still follow the progress of their file by checking the web site. In this context, in the circumstances of this case, I see no error in the Board’s conclusion that notice was given to the landlords.
[8] Ms Afsharian [SS: co-landlord] also argued that there is no evidence that Mr Zarei [SS: co-landlord] opened the email on delivery of it, or that notice was given to her of the hearing. These arguments do not avail the appellants. The LTB is entitled to deem that a delivered email is proper service and that service on one residential landlord is service on all landlords. There was no evidence before the LTB that would render these inferences unavailable in the circumstances of this case.
|
