LTB Order LTB-T-044569-22

Order under Section 21.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act A. the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 Citation: S. A. S. v F., 2023 ONLTB 29547 2023 ONLTB 29547 (CanLII) Date: 2023-03-29 File Number: LTB-T-044569-22-RV In the matter of: 246 PARKVALE DR KITCHENER ON N2R1Y8 Between: M. S. T. S. S. A. M. F. Landlord Review Order M. S. (‘MS’) A. S. S. (‘SS’, the 'T.') applied for an order determining that M. F. (the 'Landlord'): • entered the rental unit illegally; • altered the locking system on a door giving entry to the rental unit or residential complex without giving the Tenant replacement keys; • substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the Tenant or by a member of the Tenant's household; • harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the Tenant; • withheld or interfered with the Tenant's vital services or care services A. meals in the care home; • did not give the Tenant 72 hours to remove the Tenant's property from the rental unit or from some place close to the rental unit. The T. also applied for a rent reduction A. for an order determining that the Landlord collected or retained money illegally. This application was heard by video conference on February 2, 2023. The application was resolved by order LTB-T-044569-22, issued on February 16, 2023. The order determined that the T. abandoned the application, because the T. did not attend the hearing when it was called at 1:31PM. The T. did not join the proceedings for the remainder of the hearing block. On March 18, 2023, the T. requested a review of the order. A preliminary review of the review request was completed without a hearing. Determinations: Order Page 1 out of 3 1. On the basis of the submissions made in the request, I am not satisfied that there is a serious error in the order or that a serious error occurred in the proceedings, or that the T. were not reasonably able to participate in the proceeding. 2. The T. submit that the presiding adjudicator erred when she determined that there 2023 ONLTB 29547 (CanLII) was no record of a request to reschedule or adjourn the hearing. The T. write in the review request that they submitted a request to reschedule the hearing on January 24, 2023. 3. Even if the adjudicator erred in finding that the T. did not submit a request to reschedule the February 2, 2023 hearing, I find that the error is not a serious error, because it does not affect the outcome of the February 16, 2023 order. 4. Parties to an application are required to attend the scheduled Board hearing. Although the Board has a process that allows a party to ask to have a hearing rescheduled, submitting the Board-approved form does not guarantee that the request will be approved. Indeed, the Board’s Rules of Procedure require parties to consent to reschedule a hearing. Where a request to reschedule a hearing is not approved, parties are required to attend the scheduled hearing. 5. In this case, the T. did not receive a response to their request to reschedule the February 2, 2023 hearing. The T. did not attend the hearing, A. did not have an agent or representative attend in their place to request an adjournment. 6. It is evident from the February 16, 2023 order that the presiding adjudicator considered relevant factors when she determined that it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing in the T.’ absence. The order, for example, cites evidence that the T. were attending a funeral in Texas, on or about the hearing day. The order finds that, even if the T. were in Texas, they could have participated in the hearing by telephone, or could have had someone attend on their behalf to request an adjournment. 7. The order also notes the Landlord’s evidence, that the T.’ explanation for their absence from the hearing was not credible. After considering the evidence, A. the history of Board proceedings involving the parties, the presiding adjudicator found that the T. were aware of the Board’s process A. concluded that it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing. 8. The hearing order shows that the presiding adjudicator was mindful of the T.’ absence from the hearing A. whether to adjourn the matter. The order also shows that the adjudicator considered relevant factors when she concluded that it was appropriate to hear the T.’ application as scheduled. That the application had previously been adjourned on a peremptory basis against the T. lends further support to the reasonableness of the adjudicator’s decision. 9. I accordingly find that the presiding adjudicator did not err when she proceeded with the hearing, in the T.’ absence. 10. I also find that the T. did not demonstrate that they were not reasonably able to participate in the February 2, 2023 hearing. The T. were required to attend the hearing either by telephone or computer, or through an agent or representative. Although the T. did not receive a reply to their January 24, 2023 request to reschedule the hearing, this is not an adequate explanation for their absence from the hearing. In the Order Page 2 out of 3  circumstances, a reasonable person would have attended the hearing by electronic means, or would have had an agent or representative appear on their behalf. 11. I therefore conclude that the T. have not established good cause to review the February 16, 2023 order. The request must accordingly be denied. 2023 ONLTB 29547 (CanLII) It is ordered that: 1. The request to review order LTB-T-044569-22, issued on February 16, 2023, is denied. The order is confirmed A. remains unchanged. March 29, 2023 Date Issued Harry Cho Vice Chair, Landlord A. Tenant Board 15 Grosvenor Street, Ground Floor Toronto ON M7A 2G6 If you have any questions about this order, call 416-645-8080 or toll free at 1-888-332-3234. Order Page 3 out of 3