|
Administrative - Orders. Gloczi et al v. Dupont/Lansdowne Holdings Inc.
In Gloczi et al v. Dupont/Lansdowne Holdings Inc. (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court considered an issue of order compliance and administrative fine procedure, here where a tribunal proceeded to dismiss an appeal against the tenant without addressing a breach of LTB order by the LL:Did the Board err by failing to address the landlord’s breach of the interim order before denying the request to review?
[21] The tenants submit the Board erred by failing to address the landlord’s breach of the interim order, which they raised as a preliminary issue. They submit the decision failed to account for a matter of central concern to the tenants. They also submit it was an error for the Board to fail to take the facts surrounding the re-rental into account when weighing the landlord’s credibility.
[22] The Board’s decision does not address landlord’s alleged breach of the interim order and the court was advised that the Board recording from the review hearing was not available. Counsel for the tenants also advised there was no dispute the landlord re-rented the unit. The landlord did not appear at the appeal. In all these circumstances, I accept the information from counsel that there was no dispute the interim order was breached.
[23] This conduct on the landlord’s part was deplorable and should not be condoned. I understand why the tenants wanted the Board to address it in some fashion. That said, I do not see a basis for this court to intervene at this stage. As set out above, the Board has control of its own process and is required to proceed in an expeditious manner. It was not unreasonable for the Board to decide to hear the request for review before determining the alleged breach of the interim order. If the request for review was dismissed, the breach of the interim order would arguably be moot since the landlord was entitled to evict the tenants before the re-rental of the unit.
[24] To the extent the tenants submit the LTB should have ordered an administrative fine to deter the landlord’s bad behaviour, this was a discretionary remedy. There was also a dispute about whether it was requested at the hearing. The failure to order a fine does not amount to an error of law.
[25] Contrary to the tenants’ submission, it also was not a legal error for the Board to fail to address the breach of the order in assessing the landlord’s credibility. The Board is not required, in its reasons, to address every argument raised by the parties. Here, the breach of the interim order took place months after the eviction order. It was open to the tenants to argue the breach reflected bad faith on the landlord’s part, but the tenants did not dispute they owed arrears at the time of the eviction. Although the breach was important to the tenants, it was not sufficiently probative to the facts surrounding the initial eviction that the Board erred in deciding not to address it. . Rowe v. College of Nurses of Ontario and al.
In Rowe v. College of Nurses of Ontario and al. (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court stated that administrative interlocutory procedures are not subject to JR under the doctrine of prematurity, and here extends it to decisions by a Registrar of a professional regulatory body:[5] This court has long taken the position that it should not fragment proceedings before administrative tribunals. Fragmentation causes both delay and distracting interruptions in administrative proceedings. It is preferable, therefore, to allow such matters to run their full course before the tribunal and then consider all legal issues arising from the proceedings at their conclusion: Ontario College of Art v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) (1993), 1993 CanLII 3430 (ON SCDC), 11 O.R. (3d) 798 (Div. Ct.), at paragraph 17. The same principle should apply to a decision-maker such as the Registrar. A court has the discretion to hear an application for judicial review while administrative proceedings are still ongoing. For example, judicial intervention may be warranted in situations where the tribunal clearly lacks jurisdiction to proceed, where the decision, although interlocutory in most respects, determines a particular issue, in which a subpoena would be dispositive of the witnesses' privacy rights; or, where proceeding with the hearing would result in an unfair hearing or a breach of natural justice. Even in those extreme situations, the remedy is discretionary and will be exercised sparingly: Ontario College of Art, paragraph 18. No such circumstance obtains here, except perhaps the determination of an issue, but the record is insufficient for us to decide this question. The Applicant should submit documentation to the Registrar to support his request under subsection 23(6) or (7) of the Code. In the event of a refusal, a full record will exist.
|
