COURT FILE NO.: 169/04

DATE: 20050121

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

CUNNINGHAM A.C.J.S.C., SPEYER AND JARVIS JJ.

B E T W E E N:

JOAN C. MANAFA

Appellant

• and -

JESSICA A. RICKERBY & RAYMOND E. NOEL DE TILLY

Respondent

In Person

Patrick J. Aulis, for the Respondent

HEARD: January 21, 2005

JARVIS J.: (Orally)

1The tenant appeals from a decision of the O.R.H.T., taken March 5, 2004, pursuant to s.196(1) of the Tenant Protection Act. Such applications to this Court may only be brought on by questions of law. The standard of review is correctness. In the course of submission, it became apparent to us that the Tribunal at p.47 of the transcript indicated that it was only concerned with evidence and submissions it heard and that it would not deal with matters contained in the documentary record. The Chairman wished to confine submissions to what had been said before the Tribunal. In our view this ruling amounts to a judicial error and a denial of natural justice. It is apparent from the transcript that there was some reference by the Tribunal to some of the documents such as the lease and the mover’s receipt.

2In our view, a new hearing is necessary and we wish to say that the relevance of documents to the issues before the Tribunal ought to be the guiding principle for admission and/or submissions. A rule to consider only oral submissions runs the risk of excluding relevant documents from the Tribunal’s consideration. In our view the failure to consider possibly relevant evidence that was part of the record constituted an error.

3The appeal is allowed for the reasons given orally and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

CUNNINGHAM A.C.J.S.C.

SPEYER J.

JARVIS J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 21, 2005

Date of Release: December 8, 2005

COURT FILE NO.: 169/04

DATE: 20050121

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT