Court File and Parties
Court File No.: DC-07-0040-00 Released: 20090122
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Re: TREVOR ELLIS, Appellant - and - PEEL HOUSING CORP OP AS PEEL LIVING, Respondent
Before: Cunningham A.C.J S.C.J., Swinton and Karakatsanis JJ.
Counsel: Trevor Ellis self-represented Martin P. Zarnett, for the Respondent
Heard at Brampton: January 22, 2009
ENDORSEMENT
Introduction
1The tenant, Trevor Ellis, appeals the Review Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the Board) dated May 31, 2007, which denied the tenant's request to review the Order issued on May 3, 2007.
2The tenant asks that the Review Order be set aside and that this Court dismiss the landlord's application for an order evicting the tenant for rent arrears. In the alternative, the tenant asks that the matter be remitted to the Board for a new hearing.
Analysis
3The landlord, Peel Housing Corp Op as Peel Living, is a non-profit housing corporation owned by the Region of Peel. The landlord is a housing provider operating a housing project within the meaning of the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 27 (SHRA) and therefore exempt from certain provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, S.O. 2006 (RTA). The housing provider must comply with the decisions of the Service Manager.
4Pursuant to s. 203 of the Residential Tenancies Act, S.O. 2006 (RTA), the Board shall not make determinations or review decisions concerning eligibility for rent geared to income assistance or the amount of geared to income rent payable under the SHRA. The Board was correct in its determination that the decision of a Service Manager related to eligibility for a housing subsidy and rent-geared to income assistance under the SHRA s.84 is final. The SHRA provides for an internal review process. The appellant did not provide the documentation required by the Service Manager.
5As well, given that the request for an adjournment was based upon the appellant’s request to dispute the loss of the subsidy and increase in his rent, the Board’s exercise of its discretion to refuse the request for adjournment was reasonable.
6The appellant has not demonstrated that the Board made an error of law in granting the respondent’s application. The Board properly denied his request for review.
Disposition
7The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent are fixed in the amount of $1,000 all inclusive.
Cunningham A.C. J.S.C.J.
Swinton J.
Karakatsanis J.
Released: January , 2009