In Bye Estate v. Adair (Div Ct, 2020) the Divisional Court considered an issue of attornment when the parties entered into a LTB s.194 settlement of a RTA s.9(1) (application) motion, without the motion yet being resolved:
[32] The appellant complains that the Board had no jurisdiction over the matter because Bye’s application to determine whether he was in fact a tenant was never decided. I do not agree. The voluntary attornment by the appellant to the jurisdiction of the Board, and her engagement in mediation in relation to Bye’s application, forecloses any argument that would call into question the Board’s jurisdiction: Wolfe v. Wyeth, 2011 ONCA 347, at paras. 42-44, 53. Once the appellant herself agreed to the jurisdiction of the RTA, she must therefore abide by all its rules, including its one-year limitation period for seeking to reopen Bye’s application.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
