Court dismisses appeal from an LTB decision on the grounds that there was no procedural unfairness or injustice in the result

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Landlord and Tenant Board – Eviction – Reconsideration – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Hearings – Adjournment of hearing – Unrepresented complainant

Lacroix v. Central-McKinlay International Ltd., [2022] O.J. No. 2220, 2022 ONSC 2807, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 11, 2022, D.L. Corbett, P.M. Perell and E.C. Sheard JJ.

The appellant appeals a decision from the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) that granted the landlord an eviction order for the purpose of demolition.  The landlord obtained a demolition permit and served an eviction notice on the tenant with a termination approximately four months from the service date.  The tenant failed to comply with the eviction notice so the landlord commenced proceedings before the LTB.

The LTB found that the landlord intended, in good faith, to demolish the building and ordered the tenant to vacate the unit.

The tenant filed a request for review on the basis that their lawyer was not able to attend.  The LTB found that the tenant did not seek an adjournment when his lawyer left the hearing and the tenant continued with the hearing as a self-represented party.  The reconsideration request was dismissed on its merits.  The tenant commenced an appeal before the Superior Court.

On judicial review, the tenant only argued that the LTB erred in proceeding with the hearing in the absence of their counsel.

The Court found that parties before the LTB are entitled to be represented by counsel, but they are not required to be represented by counsel.  The Court observed that the tenant did not request an adjournment of the hearing.  The Court found no evidence of procedural unfairness or any failure of justice in the substantive result.  The Court dismissed the appeal and order costs against the tenant.  The Court also directed the Sherriff to enforce the eviction order.

This case was digested by Jackson C. Doyle, and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please contact Jackson C. Doyle at [email protected].

To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.