Court File and Parties
(Brampton)
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Podemeranski v. McKay
COUNSEL: Gabriella Deokaran, for the Applicants
Megan McKay, Respondent in person
No one appearing for the Landlord and Tenant Board
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT
Case Management Endorsement
1This endorsement reflects a case management teleconference held on August 31, 2020.
2This is an application for judicial review of an interlocutory decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.
3There is a limited right of appeal from the LTB, pursuant to s.210 of the Residential Tenancies Act. Ordinarily this court will not entertain applications for judicial review of decisions from the LTB until the entire administrative process has run its course and appeal rights have been exhausted. Applications brought in violation of this principle are usually dismissed for prematurity. However, there are narrow and rare circumstances where the Divisional Court can intervene respecting an interlocutory order of the Board, and the applicants are entitled to seek this remedy if they wish.
Scheduling and Directions
4On consent, the applicants shall serve their application materials by September 9th. The respondents shall serve their responding materials by September 16th. The court confirms (in response to a question raised by the respondent) that the application before this court will concern only the Board’s scheduling order challenged by the applicants – this court will not be deciding the merits of the underlying landlord/tenant dispute in this application.
5Counsel advises that the LTB was served at the email address through which she had been communicating with the Board. The court is concerned that the Board would ordinarily appear and would wish to be heard in an application of this kind. The matter is time-sensitive, and so the court is taking a practical approach to moving forward and also ensuring that the Board is able to participate if its wishes to do so. Court staff shall send a copy of this endorsement to the parties and also to Mr Blumenthal, frequently counsel appearing on behalf of the Board in this court. Mr Blumenthal is asked to advise the court if the Board wishes to participate, and if it does, the parties are directed to try to agree on a revised schedule for exchange of materials that includes time for the Board to provide a Record and to file materials of its own. The parties are to advise the court of any changes to the schedule agreed among them. If the parties are unable to agree on a revised schedule to include participation by the LTB, then a further teleconference may be arranged for directions.
6The court has endorsed its fiat on this endorsement this day; the unsigned version distributed to the parties today has the authority and effect of the signed version, a copy of which will be provided to the parties in due course after the suspension of ordinary court operations is lifted.
D.L. Corbett J.
Date: August 31, 2020