Citation: Kanoni v. IHM Pool VII LP, 2016 ONSC 1361

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-15-663-00

DATE: 20160224

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Joseph Kanoni, Appellant

AND: IHM Pool VII, Respondent

BEFORE: Gordon, Kent and Thorburn JJ.

COUNSEL: Mr. Kanoni for the Appellant Noone appearing for the Respondent

HEARD at Hamilton: February 23, 2016

ENDORSEMENT

BY THE COURT:

[1] The Appellant-tenant, Joseph Kanoni, has been living in one of the Respondent’s apartment units at 1007-57 Concession Street, Hamilton, pursuant to a tenancy agreement.

[2] Mr. Kanoni filed a Notice of Appeal in which he appeals three Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) decisions made in favour of the Respondent-landlord, IHM Pool VII to uphold orders:

• terminating the tenancy agreement and evicting him (SWL-72382-15-RV);

• dismissing his allegations the landlord harassed him, interfered with his reasonable enjoyment, and deliberately interfered with the supply of vital services (SWT-71674-15-RV); and

• dismissing his allegations the landlord failed to maintain the residential complex in a good state of repair (SOT-57426-15-RV).

[3] The Divisional Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the LTB on questions of law. (Residential Tenancies Act, s. 210(1).)

[4] The LTB’s governing statute provides for a specialized adjudicative regime for resolving disputes” and LTB decisions are entitled to deference. LTB decisions are subject to review on a reasonableness standard. (First Ontario Realty Corporation v. Deng, 2011 ONCA 54, Karakatsanis J.A. at para. 20.)

[5] Procedural fairness issues before the LTB are not subject to a standard of review. (WMR Hewson John Street Apartments v. Betty Godzwon, 2014 ONSC 6212 (Div. Ct.), at para. 17; Adijess v. Smilovici, 2013 ONSC 6019 (Div. Ct.), at para. 9.)

[6] Mr. Kanoni did not attend the LTB hearings on May 4, 2015. As a result, the LRB dismissed his application as abandoned, accepted the landlord’s evidence and issued an eviction order against Mr. Kanoni.

[7] Mr. Kanoni applied to the LTB to review these decisions. He said he missed the hearings because he was not aware the matter was proceeding on that date. The LTB member who heard the request for review rejected his evidence and found no serious error with the orders or proceedings. Therefore, the member upheld the initial decisions.

[8] The relief sought by Mr. Kanoni includes an Order from the Divisional Court to set aside the decision of the LTB and “allow the Appellant’s submissions”. In the alternative, he seeks to remit the matter to the LTB, pursuant to s. 210(4)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (“RTA”).

[9] The Appellant claims the LTB violated his procedural fairness rights because he was denied the opportunity to provide the Board with supporting evidence in respect of “violations of the Landlord’s obligations and infringements”. He further argues “there was no opportunity for the Appellant to put forth his evidence and reasoning as to why he failed to attend the hearing”

[10] Mr. Kanoni was given a full opportunity to explain why he failed to attend the initial hearings. Those explanations were not accepted by the LTB. No legal issue was engaged by this determination.

[11] In any event, there is no need to decide whether there was a legal error or to address the issue of whether to remit the matter back to the LTB or to set aside the order of the LTB as the parties seem to have resolved their differences regarding Mr. Kanoni’s continued tenancy.

[12] The parties have entered into a new Renewal of Tenancy Agreement dated October 22, 2015. In accordance with the terms of that Agreement, Mr. Kanoni has agreed to renew his tenancy for a one year term ending January 31, 2017. In consideration therefor he provided a money order in the amount of $1,245.46, which represents the prepaid rent. Mr. Kanoni provided a copy of the money order to this court.

[13] The landlord’s renewal of Mr. Kanoni’s tenancy has made the appeal of the eviction order unnecessary.

[14] In view of the disposition of this appeal, there is no order as to costs. The Respondent’s renewal of the Appellant’s tenancy rendered the Appellant’s appeal of the eviction order unnecessary. In these circumstances it is appropriate that Mr. Kanoni be reimbursed for some of his out of pocket expenses for which receipts have been provided, in the amount of $500.00.

Gordon J.

Kent J.

Thorburn J.

Date: February 24, 2016