LTB Order LTB-T-070694-22

Order under Section 21.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act A. the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 Citation: N. v P., 2023 ONLTB 62617 2023 ONLTB 62617 (CanLII) Date: 2023-09-12 File Number: LTB- T-070694-22-RV In the matter of: Basement #2, 83 Longevity Road Brampton Ontario L6X5P7 Between: M. B. N. T. A. M. P. Landlord Review Order M. B. N. (the 'T.') applied for an order determining that M. P. (the 'Landlord') : . • substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex by the T. or by a member of the T.'s household; • harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the T.. This application was resolved by order LTB-T-070694-22 issued on January 25, 2023. On February 24, 2023, the Landlord requested a review of the order A. that the order be stayed until the request to review the order is resolved. On March 10, 2023, interim order LTB-T-070694-22-RV-IN was issued, staying the order issued on January 25, 2023. This application was heard in by videoconference on March 29, 2023. The Landlord A. the Landlord’s Representative, U. Iltaf A. the T. A. the T.’s Legal Representative, N. Adjei-Poku attended the hearing. Determinations: 1. The Landlord requested a review of order LTB-T-070694-22 issued on January 25, 2023 because they submit that the order contains a number of serious errors. Each alleged error is discussed below. Order Page 1 of 3  Did the Member seriously err by giving insufficient or inconsistent reasons to support the determination that the Landlord substantially interfered with the T.’s reasonable enjoyment of the premises by failing to provide A. exclusive mailbox? 2023 ONLTB 62617 (CanLII) 2. The Landlord’s representative submits that the Member’s determinations regarding the mailbox are inconsistent with her finding that not providing one amounted to substantial interference. The representative specifically points to paragraph 41 of the order where the member states that there is no express requirement in the Act for a Landlord to provide a T. with a mailbox. 3. The T.’s representative submits that the Member’s reasons for making this determination are reasoned A. adequate. 4. The Landlord’s submission represents a misunderstanding of the presiding Member’s reasons. A careful reading of the order shows the Member determined that landlords are responsible for providing tenants with functioning mailboxes, despite there being no express requirements in the Act. The Member’s interpretation considers the entire Act, including how a person may give a document. The Member’s interpretation is consistent with the Act’s provisions, reasonable, A. is accordingly entitled to deference. Did the Member err by finding that the Landlord substantially interfered with the T.’s reasonable enjoyment by showing the unit to a perspective T.? 5. The Landlord’s representative submits that the member erred in her determination at paragraph 67 A. 76 of the order when she found that the Landlord interfered with the T.’s reasonable enjoyment by showing the unit to a prospective T., when at the hearing, the Landlord testified that he showed the unit to a prospective buyer. The representative submits that there is noting in the Act that would prevent the Landlord from showing the unit to a prospective buyer when no notice of termination has been given. 6. The T.’s representative submits that the evidence at the hearing was that the notice was given to show the unit to a prospective T. A. therefore, there is no serious error in the Member’s determination. 7. The purpose of a review is not to provide parties with an opportunity to relitigate the issues in hopes of a better outcome. I will not interfere with the assessment of the evidence by the hearing member, who had the opportunity of hearing the evidence in its totality, therefore, I find there is no serious error on this point. While it is possible for people to interpret evidence differently, the Member’s order A. hearing recording do not reveal a procedural error. The recording confirms the parties knew the issues to be determined at the Board hearing A. exercised the right to introduce evidence A. respond to the other’s evidence. The Landlord’s direct evidence starts at approximately 2:39:24 of the hearing recording A. finishes at approximately 3:50:39, no where in that time did the Landlord testify that the unit was shown to a prospective buyer as the representative submits. Did the Member err when she determined that the Landlord failed to allocate a parking spot resulting in a finding that the Landlord substantially interfered with the T.’s reasonable enjoyment? Order Page 2 of 3  8. The Landlord’s representative submits that the issue with allocating a parking spot was dealt with in HOL-09507-21. 9. I find that the Member provided fulsome reasons to substantiate her finding with regard to the 2023 ONLTB 62617 (CanLII) parking issues. She specifically points out in her order that the order the Landlord refers to above was cancelled on review, after which the Landlord withdrew the application. This left the member open to making this particular determination, therefore, I do not find that this constitutes a serious error. Did the Member err by failing to consider the T.’s behaviour when making a finding of harassment against the Landlord? 10. The Landlord’s representative submits at point 4 A. 5 of the request to review that the member did not consider the T.’s actions against the Landlord when making a finding that the Landlord harassed the T.. 11. The Member’s determination that the Landlord harassed the T. is detailed A. reasoned. The Landlord’s representative’s submission that the member didn’t consider the T.’s behaviour towards the Landlord when making that determination is flawed. The application before the Board is a T2 Application brought by the T. against the Landlord. The Member correctly considered the behaviour of the Landlord when making her determinations about harassment. The member did consider the T.’s behaviour appropriately when assessing a remedy A. lowered the abatement in consideration of that. 12. On the basis of the submissions made in the request, I am not satisfied that there is a serious error in the order, therefore the request to review is denied. It is ordered that: 1. The request to review order LTB-T-070694-22 issued on January 25, 2023 is denied. The order is confirmed A. remains unchanged. 2. The interim order issued on March 10, 2023 is cancelled. The stay of order LTB-T-07069422 is lifted immediately. September 19, 2023 ____________________________ Date Issued Emily Robb Member, Landlord A. T. 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 of 3