Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 110/14
TNL-47231-13-RV
DATE: 20150212
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
LEDERMAN, J. WILSON AND SACHS JJ.
BETWEEN:
CHARMAINE KERRIDGE Plaintiff (Appellant)
– and –
TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION and LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD MEMBER, ELKE HOMSI Defendants (Respondents)
Counsel: In Person Orna Raubfogel, for the Respondent, Toronto Community Housing Corporation
HEARD at Toronto: February 12, 2015
Oral Reasons for Judgment
J. WILSON J. (ORALLY)
Oral Reasons for Judgment
1This appeal from a Review Order dated January 27, 2014 by Member Elke Homsi (“the Member”) of the Landlord and Tenant Board (“the Board”) pursuant to s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act is dismissed.
2An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from a final order of the Board on a question of law. The issue that we must determine is whether the Board made an error in law.
3In our view, the Member correctly concluded that the Board does not have jurisdiction to consider whether the tenant was appropriately charged for utilities as a part of her rent geared-to- income. Her rent is determined based upon eligibility for the rent geared-to-income statutory provisions in the Housing Services Act, 2011. Section 203 of the Residential Tenancies Act stipulates that:
The Board shall not make determinations or review decisions concerning:
(a) eligibility for rent-geared-to-income assistance as defined in section 38 of the Housing Services Act, 2011 or the amount of geared-to-income rent payable under that Act.
4The Member explained to the tenant in the reasons that the Board did not have jurisdiction to consider whether she was required to pay utilities in addition to her rent and that the tenant’s remedy was to seek a review process pursuant to the Housing Services Act.
5In our view, the Member also correctly concluded that while the landlord is exempt from a number of provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, as a result of administering social housing, in accordance with the Housing Services Act, the landlord is not exempt from the requirements to apply to the Board to terminate a tenancy.
6The Member’s order did not grant termination of the tenancy but ordered a payment schedule, any breach of which would allow the landlord to reapply to the Board without notice to the tenant for termination of the tenancy. In making this order, she made no error in law.
7Any issue of non-compliance is appropriately brought before the Board.
8While we recognize our jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the Board has erred in law, by way of obiter only, this panel does have concerns whether the tenant has properly understood her rights for review of the question of arrears in using the internal review process pursuant to the Housing Services Act, 2011.
9In light of our concerns, we ask that this issue be brought to the attention of the Toronto Community and Housing Corporation with a view to determining whether the tenant should be allowed a further opportunity for a review of the arrears before seeking enforcement of the order of the Board.
LEDERMAN J.
Endorsement
10I have endorsed the Record, “This appeal is dismissed for reasons delivered by J. Wilson J. In view of the circumstances of this case, we decline to make any order as to costs. The approval of the appellant as to the form and content of the Order is dispensed with.”
J. WILSON J.
LEDERMAN J.
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 12, 2015
Date of Release: February 18, 2015
CITATION: Kerridge v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2015 ONSC 1000
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 110/14
TNL-47231-13-RV
DATE: 20150212
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
LEDERMAN, J. WILSON AND SACHS JJ.
BETWEEN:
CHARMAINE KERRIDGE Plaintiff (Appellant)
– and –
TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION and LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD MEMBER, ELKE HOMSI Defendants (Respondents)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
J. WILSON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 12, 2015
Date of Release: February 18, 2015