LTB Order LTB-T-076012-22

Order under Section 21.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act A. the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 2023 ONLTB 32444 (CanLII) Citation: S. v W., 2023 ONLTB 32444 Date: 2023-04-17 File Number: LTB-T-076012-22-RV (TET-20732-21) In the matter of: 30 Silver Street Bowmanville Ontario L1C3C5 Between: C. S. T. A. J. W. Landlord Review Order C. S. (the 'T.') applied for an order determining that J. W. (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 heard on May 31, 2022 A. resolved by order LTB-T-076012-22 issued on March 6, 2023. On April 5, 2023, the T. requested a review of the order. A preliminary review of the review request was completed without a hearing. Determinations: 1. The T.’s request for review alleges that the March 6, 2023 order contains a number of serious errors, that serious errors occurred in the proceeding A. that the presiding Member was biased towards the T.. Order Page 1 of 3  File Number: LTB-T-076012-22 2. I have listened to the May 31, 2022 hearing recording A. have reviewed the Board’s record. On the basis of the submissions made in the request, I am not satisfied that there is a serious error in the hearing order, or that a serious error occurred in the proceedings or in the presiding Member’s exercise of discretion. 3. The T.’s T2 application alleged that the Landlord harassed A. substantially interfered with the T. to the point that the T. had to vacate the rental unit. The March 6, 2023 ONLTB 32444 (CanLII) 2023 order dismissed the T.’s application as the Member was not satisfied that the conduct of the Landlord triggered a breach of sections 22 A. 23 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the Act). At the hearing, the Landlord consented to return to the T. the last month’s rent deposit ($1,500.00) A. additional security deposit collected ($1,500.00). The Landlord was ordered to return those amounts to the T.. 4. The request frequently alleges that the Member did not consider A./or disregarded the T.’s evidence throughout the proceedings. I disagree with this allegation. The order A. hearing recording clearly show that the Member allowed the T. A. her legal representative to provide evidence A. submissions at the hearing. Although the Member was not satisfied with the T.’s evidence, this does not form a serious error in the order or suggest that the Member was biased towards the T.. 5. The Member was required to consider the evidence of both parties A. make a finding based on the evidence before her. The request to review seeks to revisit the hearing Member’s decision. While the T. clearly disagrees with the decision, the purpose of the review process is not to provide parties with an opportunity of relitigating the issues in hopes of a better outcome. I would not interfere with the assessment of the evidence by the hearing Member, who was in the best position to assess the credibility of the parties A. had the opportunity of hearing the evidence in its totality. 6. The T.’s request alleges that the Member erred in not considering evidence or conduct that occurred at the beginning of or after the tenancy had terminated. I find that the Member was correct in not considering this evidence as it is outside the Board’s jurisdiction. Section 29(2) of the Act explicitly states that “No application may be made under subsection (1) more than one year after the day the alleged conduct giving rise to the application occurred”. As the T.’s application was filed on November 15, 2021, the Board only had jurisdiction to award a remedy for conduct going back to November 15, 2020. Further, section 22 of the Act is clear that a claim for substantial interference is only properly before the Board if the conduct occurred during the T.’s occupancy. Any conduct that occurred after the tenancy had terminated on November 30, 2020 is not properly before the Board, but may be subject to a claim before a court of competent jurisdiction. 7. The request also alleges a serious error as the Landlord was not ordered to pay to the T. interest on their last month’s rent deposit. This sum was not claimed on the T.’s application, A. I further note that the T2 application is not the appropriate form for this remedy. The T. did not file T1 application to properly address this issue or request this remedy. Order Page 2 of 3  File Number: LTB-T-076012-22 8. The T.’s request also mentions concerns with her legal representative at the hearing A. states that the Landlord has not yet paid the amount ordered to be paid pursuant to the March 6, 2023 order. I find that neither of these claims are serious errors in the order or the Board’s proceeding. 9. If the T. has concerns about her representative’s actions or services, the T. may seek a remedy from the Law Society of Ontario. The Board does not exercise jurisdiction 2023 ONLTB 32444 (CanLII) over a Licensee’s legal practise. 10. The T.’s claim that the Landlord has not paid her the amount ordered in the March 6, 2023 order is also not a serious error in the order or the proceedings, but rather a ground for a claim before a court of competent jurisdiction. 11. In the absence of a demonstrable error in the March 6, 2023 order, or that a serious error occurred in the proceedings, the request to review the order must be denied. It is ordered that: 1. The request to review order LTB-T-076012-22 issued on March 6, 2023 is denied. The order is confirmed A. remains unchanged. April 14, 2023 ____________________________ Date Issued Fabio Quattrociocchi 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