COURT FILE NO.: 277/05
DATE: 20060317
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
(Divisional Court)
RE: MARJORIE McKENZIE, APPLICANT (appellant)
AND
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN PEEL, LANDLORD (RESPONDENT)
BEFORE: Justices Howden, Epstein and Swinton
COUNSEL: Kenneth Hale, for the Appellant
James Macdonald, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: March 17, 2006
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The tenant appeals from the order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal dated July 13, 2005 in which the Tribunal granted the landlord’s application for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant.
[2] The Tribunal concluded that the tenant had impaired the safety of another person, in contravention of s. 65 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 24 and that she had also caused damage to the intercom system and owed $346.25 to repair this damage. In exercising its discretion under s. 84 of the Act, the Tribunal identified the need to have regard to the landlord’s obligation to accommodate the needs of disabled tenants to the point of undue hardship in accordance with s. 17 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
[3] After summarizing his findings with respect to the landlord’s efforts to accommodate the needs of the tenant, the Tribunal held as follows:
“Therefore, I find that the Landlord has done everything in its power to attempt to accommodate the Tenant to the point of undue hardship to the Landlord, and has thus satisfied its requirements under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Further, permitting the Tenant to continue residing [sic] rental unit would constitute an undue hardship to the building Superintendent, in light of the safety concerns raised by the tenant’s conduct.” (para. 6)
[4] Pursuant to s. 196 of the Act, an appeal from the Tribunal lies to this Court only on a question of law.
[5] Counsel for the tenant argues that the Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting the test for the duty to accommodate.
[6] The Tribunal correctly identified the landlord’s obligations to this tenant. Even if this were a case where the evidence supported a finding that the violent conduct was due to the tenant’s disability, what constitutes reasonable measures to accommodate is a question of fact. See: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, 1992 81 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970 at p. 18 (printed version).
[7] This appeal raises no issue of law and is therefore dismissed.
[8] The stay of the order of the Tribunal is lifted. However, the eviction order will not be executed before May 31, 2006.
[9] In accordance with the parties’ agreement, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s disbursements.
Howden J.
Epstein J.
Swinton J.
DATE: March 17, 2006