Transglobe Property Management Services Inc. v. Supportive Housing in Peel, 2014 ONSC 6211
CITATION: Transglobe Property Management Services Inc. v. Supportive Housing in Peel, 2014 ONSC 6211
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-11-0019
DATE: 20141024
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Hambly, D. Brown and Gilmore JJ.
BETWEEN:
Transglobe Property Management Services Inc.
Respondent
– and –
Supportive Housing in Peel
Respondent
– and –
Louis Salamone
Appellant
COUNSEL:
D. Majid, for the Appellant, Louis Salamone
B. Blumenthal, for the Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD at Brampton: October 24, 2014
D. Brown J. (orally)
Appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board
[1] Mr. Salamone, who occupies a residential unit in a residential complex in Mississauga, appeals from the February 17, 2011 Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating the tenancy for the unit which he occupied, as well as from the October 18, 2011 Decision on Request to Review which confirmed the February Order.
[2] Notwithstanding the elaborate written submissions advanced by Mr. Salamone on this appeal, we are of the view that the appeal can be dealt with on a very narrow basis. It is for the Court to determine whether the requisite level of procedural fairness has been accorded taking into account the factors set out in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817. We conclude that it was not in the proceeding before the Board, in a most fundamental of ways.
[3] The Member, in her February 17, 2011 Order, determined that Mr. Salamone was not a party to the Landlord’s application to terminate a tenancy by reason of the tenant’s failure to meet the conditions of the January 5, 2010 mediation agreement. Although counsel for Mr. Salamone was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses called by the landlord and although the Member was prepared to allow Mr. Salamone to give evidence at the hearing led by his counsel, Mr. Salamone never got his day in court, so to speak. That was because on the fourth day of the hearing on January 26, 2011, the named tenant on the tenancy agreement, Supportive Housing in Peel (“SHIP”), informed the Board that it was prepared to consent to the termination order sought by the landlord, Transglobe.
[4] Although the Board allowed counsel for Mr. Salamone to make extensive submissions on the issue of the sufficiency of SHIP’s consent to termination at the continuation of the hearing on February 4, 2011, the Member concluded that the consent of SHIP was sufficient to grant the termination order, notwithstanding the strong opposition of Mr. Salamone who occupied the unit and who would be materially affected by the termination order. As a result, the Member did not hear any evidence from Mr. Salamone on the issue of whether he had breached the January 5, 2010 Mediation Agreement entered into amongst Transglobe, SHIP and himself.
[5] In accepting the consent of SHIP as sufficient to issue a termination order over the opposition of the unit’s occupant, Mr. Salamone, the member committed a reversible error of law. Section 187(1) of the RTA states that “the parties to an application are the landlord…and any tenants… or other persons directly affected by the application”. Mr. Salamone obviously was a person directly affected by the application. Consequently, the Member erred in finding that he was not a party. Had the Member correctly found that he was a party, the Member could not have accepted the consent from SHIP as sufficient to dispose of the landlord’s application. The Member would be required to hear evidence from Mr. Salamone and then determine whether a breach of the Mediation Agreement had occurred which would justify the termination of the tenancy.
[6] As a result of that significant procedural error, the Board’s Order of February 17, 2011 and its Review Order of October 18, 2011 must be set aside. Pursuant to RTA s. 210(4)(b) we remit back to the Board the Landlord’s June 16, 2010 application to terminate for a new hearing before a different member with Mr. Salamone to be accorded the rights of a party to the landlord’s application in compliance with RTA s. 187(1). In light of that disposition of the matter, it is not necessary for this court to comment on the issue of who is the “tenant” in respect of the unit.
[7] The appellant did not ask for costs of this appeal, so there will be no order as to costs.
D. Brown J.
Hambly J.
Gilmore J.
Released: October 24, 2014
CITATION: Transglobe Property Management Services Inc. v. Supportive Housing in Peel, 2014 ONSC 6211
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-11-0019
DATE: 20141024
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Hambly, D. Brown and Gilmore JJ.
BETWEEN:
Transglobe Property Management Services Inc.
Respondent
– and –
Supportive Housing in Peel
Respondent
– and –
Louis Salamone
Appellant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D. Brown J.
Released: October 24, 2014