|
Disability - RTA. Linton v. Daley
In Linton v. Daley (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an RTA s.210 appeal, here from "an Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) dated September 16, 2024, that evicted him from his basement apartment on the grounds that the rental unit is required by the Landlords for their daughter and her husband".
The court considers an RTA s.83(3) ['Circumstances where refusal required'] tenant defence issue, here where the appellant had mental health problems:Did the Board Member Err in Failing to Find that the Landlords Breached their Duty under Section 23 of the RTA and in Failing to Refuse to Grant the Eviction under Section 83 of the RTA?
[19] Section 23 of the RTA states:A landlord shall not harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a tenant. [20] Section 83 of the RTA states in part:83 (1) Upon an application for an order evicting a tenant, the Board may, despite any other provision of this Act or the tenancy agreement,
(a) refuse to grant the application unless satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be unfair to refuse; or
(b) order that the enforcement of the eviction order be postponed for a period of time.
(2) If a hearing is held, the Board shall not grant the application unless it has reviewed the circumstances and considered whether or not it should exercise its powers under subsection (1).
(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Board shall refuse to grant the application where satisfied that,
(a) the landlord is in serious breach of the landlord’s responsibilities under this Act or of any material covenant in the tenancy agreement; ... [21] At paragraphs 37-42 of the Order, the Board member considered whether relief from eviction under s. 83 of the RTA should be granted. The Board Member noted that the Tenant has been dealing with mental health issues since he was 11 years old and that he has limited income. She found that this was not a case in which the decision to evict the Tenant was due to conduct attributable to his disability or medical condition.
[22] The Tenant submits that the Board Member should have refused to grant the eviction on the basis that the Landlords had been harassing and coercing him for a number of years. The Board Member considered the Tenant’s evidence and was unable to come to the conclusion that he had been coerced to vacate the rental unit. The Order, at paragraphs 28-31, states:28 Four months after he obtained affordable housing in Windsor, “the torture began”. He indicated that he has been hunted down for the past 10 years by the RCMP and their torture agents with “energy” weapons (EMP – electromagnetic pulse devices).
29 This has included being targeted for the past seven years that he has resided in the rental unit. He described the rental unit as a “torture chamber”. That is because the Landlords have given approval to the RCMP “to install a team of several torture agents” in the Landlords’ unit to torture him “24 hrs a day”. It is the RCMP’s intent to have him evicted by the LTB, leaving him homeless and subject to more torture.
30 While I accept the Tenant’s concerns are truthfully given and serious in nature, without adequate proof I am unable to reach the same conclusions as the Tenant. He led no evidence, other than his statements, that would establish the claim that he was being compelled to move out of the rental unit by either the RCMP or the Landlords’ cover or overt actions.
31 The Tenant did not present any witnesses, such as a mental health caseworker, to supplement his evidence. It is clear he does not have access to such supports and resources.[23] The alleged errors do not raise a question of law.
[24] The Tenant brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence to, amongst other things, “... contradict the landlords’ claims that there are no RCMP proxy-agents living with the landlord and harassing me day and night with Energy Weapons”. I dismiss this motion because it would serve no useful purpose given that this appeal is limited to questions of law and because the motion record had not been uploaded to Case Center by August 26, 2025, in accordance with Justice Matheson’s directions.
|
