|
Administrative - Consolidation. Espenes v. Vadhvana
In Espenes v. Vadhvana (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court dismissed the tenant's RTA appeal, this brought against an LTB "decision denying consolidation" and landlord-successful L2 [SS: 'personal possession' (N12)] and L1 [SS: 'non-payment of rent'] orders (the tenant sought consolidation of these and a tenant's right application as well). At the LTB, the tenant moved to consolidate all three of these LTB matters but was refused, because (as quoted in the court's reasons) the ruling LTB member felt that "the issues on the applications were distinct and not sufficiently connected to raise a risk of inconsistent findings" and because "the time allotted for each application was not sufficient to allow a full hearing of all three matters". Both of the landlord's applications were granted before the tenant's application was heard, and the tenant appealed both.
When supporting the denial of the consolidation request the court reasoned:[6] With respect to the consolidation issue, deciding whether applications should be heard together is a procedural matter within the LTB’s jurisdiction and not reviewable absent an error of law: Sterling v. Guillaume, 2021 ONSC 1160 (Div. Ct.), at para. 35.
[7] The fact that the tenant’s application alleging harassment and other misconduct by the landlord would not be heard at the same time as the L2 and L1 applications did not preclude the appellant from raising these issues if they were relevant on the other applications. During the L2 application, the tenant did in fact take the position that the landlord had no good faith intention to occupy the premises and that he was only bringing the application because of the dispute respecting the third parties occupying the basement. She gave the following evidence during the hearing:Just that it’s in bad faith, and then when I told him that under no condition would I allow him to re-rent out the basement until he fixes, remedies the issue to make it a legal unit, he then threatened to sue me, and that he had a lawyer that was going to come after me, and at this time I have never met his lawyer, and I filed my harassment with the LTB, and it was after that time that he started this retaliatory campaign to have me evicted, because he’s not, because I disagreed, because I wouldn’t allow him to do it again. The appellant could also have raised issues of alleged retaliation at the L1 hearing, provided that they were relevant, but did not attend that hearing.
[8] The decision not to consolidate the three applications does not reflect any error, nor was it procedurally unfair. The appeal against the consolidation decision is accordingly dismissed.
....
[12] .... The LTB hears a large number of cases and is entitled to make decisions that have the effect of streamlining proceedings and ensuring that tribunal time is not wasted: MacMillan v. Martin, 2025 ONSC 561 (Div. Ct.), at para. 46; Solomon v. Levy, 2015 ONSC 2556 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 39-40. ....
|
