CITATION: Chang, Global Properties v Whissell, 2017 ONSC 3691
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-15-2090 LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD
FILE NO.: EAT-45246-14
DATE: 2017-06-14
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Aston, Swinton and Mitrow, JJ.
BETWEEN:
Nathan Chang Global Properties Limited Appellants (Landlord)
– and –
Nicole Whissell Respondent (Tenant)
Self-represented Self-represented
HEARD at Ottawa: 2017-06-13
Aston, J. (Orally)
[1] The Appellants Nathan Chang and Global Properties Limited seek to set aside two orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board.
[2] The tenant, Ms. Whissell, applied for an order determining that the landlord had failed to meet its maintenance obligations or failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards. In her application Ms. Whissell named Mr. Chang as the landlord. The Board denied Mr. Chang’s request to dismiss the application on the basis that he was not the landlord. Instead the Board amended the application to name Global Properties Limited, instead of Mr. Chang, and then went on to allow the application. It ordered the company to pay Ms. Whissell $5,829.91.
[3] The subsequent request by Mr. Chang to have that decision changed was dismissed on a review under s. 21.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 22.
[4] Mr. Chang and the company appealed the two orders.
[5] The essence of the appeal is that the Board’s Notice of Hearing “did not come to the attention of Global Properties Limited because the registered letter named Nathan Chang, not Global Properties”. See para. 3 of the Notice of Appeal. Mr. Chang admits that in his personal capacity he received the Notice of Hearing and the tenant’s application. However, he asserts that his personal knowledge cannot be imputed to the corporation. He denies that service on him can be considered substitutional service on the corporation. He insists the corporation had no notice of the application or the hearing. Mr. Chang does now concede that s. 201(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 affords the Board the ability to amend the application to change the name of the landlord to Global Properties Limited, but he asserts that it was unfair, and an error of law, to do so without adjourning the hearing to allow Global Properties Limited to attend and present its defence.
[6] Mr. Chang is quite content to treat the corporation as his alter ego when it suits his purposes. For example, this appeal is brought in his own name and in the name of the corporation and he purports to speak for the company. He refers to “the appellant” in the singular even though both are named. However he also insists that he and the corporation are separate legal entities when that better suits his purposes, for example his position that his personal knowledge of the tenant’s application to the Board and of the date of the hearing cannot be imputed to the corporation.
[7] If Mr. Chang and Global Properties Limited are recognized as interchangeable legal entities there would be no merit to this appeal.
[8] The alternative of recognizing the two of them as separate legal entities raises another issue on the hearing of the appeal, a threshold issue.
[9] The appeal is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. See Banyasz v Galbraith, [1996] O.J. No. 3860. Rule 15.01(2) provides that “a party to a proceeding that is a corporation shall be represented by a lawyer, except with leave of the court”. There has been no motion for such leave. Moreover, no special circumstances seem to apply in this case. There is nothing that would point to a departure from the requirement that a corporation can only participate in a proceeding by legal representation. Mr. Chang has no standing to speak on behalf of the corporation.
[10] It is not just that Mr. Chang wishes to make oral submissions on this appeal on behalf of the corporation. None of the documents filed by the appellants give any indication of a lawyer’s engagement in their drafting, serving or filing.
[11] As a consequence there is no appeal properly before this court.
[12] Mr. Chang requests an adjournment in order to bring a motion to permit him to represent the corporation as an exception to the provision in Rule 15.01(2). The adjournment request is refused. It is clear from his oral submissions earlier today that Mr. Chang was well aware of Rule 15.01(2) before bringing or prosecuting this appeal. He consciously chose not to bring such a motion. The next sitting of the Divisional Court is many months away and further delay is unfair to the Respondent tenant, especially considering that the Order of the Board in her favour was rendered in January 2015, 2 ½ years ago, and is for the sum of $5,829.91, a relatively modest sum for some people but probably a significant sum for her.
[13] The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Aston J.
I agree _______________________________
Swinton J.
I agree _______________________________
Mitrow J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 13, 2017
Date of Release: June 14, 2017
CITATION: Chang, Global Properties v Whissell, 2017 ONSC 3691
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-15-2090 LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD
FILE NO.: EAT-45246-14
DATE: 2017-06-14
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Aston, Swinton and Mitrow, JJ.
BETWEEN:
Nathan Chang Global Properties Limited Applicants
– and –
Nicole Whissell Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Aston, J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 13, 2017
Date of Release: June 14, 2017