|
Evidence - Documents. Equity Builders Ltd. et al. v. Landlord and Tenant Board et al. [proof of expenses]
In Equity Builders Ltd. et al. v. Landlord and Tenant Board et al. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court (mostly) dismissed a multiple-proceeding combination of both LL-initiated JRs and RTA s.210 appeals, here respecting multiple units in a Sarnia apartment building. After a fire "the Chief Building Official for the City of Sarnia issued an order to the Landlord directing that the premises be vacated", followed by a second order several days later restricting access to a lesser number of units. The LL subsequently refused re-entry to tenants not covered by the later less restrictive order, eventually resulting in RTA orders of illegal lock-out for numerous units - and that "the Landlords had substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment by the Tenants of their units; and found that the Landlords obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the Tenants".
The court considered the LTB ordering remedies against the LL "without supporting documentation", here 'out-of-pocket expenses' that were "particularized in will say statements, which were adopted by the Tenants under oath". This argument reflects a common and erroneous perspective that only third-party documentation (eg. invoices and sales slips) are 'legitimate' evidence of expenses, and that testimony or statements of a witness or party carry no weight:Did the Board err or act unreasonably in granting relief to the tenants that was not specifically pleaded?
[83] The Landlords submit that the Board erred or acted unreasonably the following ways: (i) awarding damages in excess of amounts pleaded; (ii) awarding damages in the absence of supporting documentation; and (iii) awarding amounts for disbursements which are essentially legal costs, when counsel for the tenants stated no legal costs were being sought and without the opportunity to respond.
....
(ii) Award of damages without supporting documentation
[90] In certain instances, the Board allowed claims for out-of-pocket expenses in the absence of receipts. The Landlords dispute those awards.
[91] Some examples of the Board making awards for out-of-pocket expenses without documentary support include:a. Unit 110B: The family of four that lived in this unit was not permitted to attend to pick up personal belongings following the fire. While they were locked out by the Landlord, the unit was flooded. All their furniture, clothing and personal items were destroyed. The unit was deemed unfit for habitation. The family was unable to attend to make a complete list of the items that were destroyed. After hearing evidence of the tenant, the Board accepted that $3,000 was a reasonable amount to award for out-of-pocket expenses in the circumstances given most of the family’s belongings had to be replaced.
b. Unit 303B: The tenant provided a summary of the out-of-pocket expenses being claimed, totalling $1,800, with no receipts. The Board was satisfied that a nominal award of $1,200 was reasonable in the circumstances. The Board specifically rejected the submission of the Landlords that corroborating receipts were required. The Board reduced the amount sought by the Tenant on the basis that amounts claimed for food and transportation would have been incurred regardless of the Landlords’ actions.
c. Unit 302B: The tenant claimed out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $100 without receipts. The Board allowed the claim and held that: “Tenants should not be expected to have receipts for every little thing, and the amounts are minor, and would likely not have been reimbursed under a tenant insurance policy as there would most likely be a deductible.” [92] Out-of-pocket expenses were particularized in will say statements, which were adopted by the Tenants under oath. The Landlords had the ability to cross-examine the Tenants on their claims. The Board considered the evidence of the Tenants and, in some cases, ordered reasonable out-of-pocket expenses to be paid. When the Board found that the out-of-pocket expenses claimed were unreasonable, they were not included in the awards.
[93] There is nothing that prohibits the Board from making awards for out-of-pocket expenses in the absence of supporting documentation. The RTA provides that the Board has the authority to award “reasonable” out-of-pocket expenses: RTA, s. 31(1). Here, the Board considered the will say statements and evidence of the Tenants at the hearing and awarded amounts for out-of-pocket expenses that were deemed to be reasonable. The Landlords have failed to demonstrate how this is a legal error or unreasonable.
|
