CITATION: Alhabbal v. Singh, 2022 ONSC 5400
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 661/21
LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD FILE NO.: CEL-95864-20 DATE: 20220921
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Charney and Myers JJ.
BETWEEN:
YNAS ALHABBAL
Stuart D. Reddington, for the Appellant/Tenant
– and –
NAVITA SINGH AND SURINDER VIR SINGH
Navita Singh and Surinder Vir Singh, self-represented Linda Naidoo, for the Landlord and Tenant Board
Respondents/Landlords
HEARD at Toronto (by videoconference): September 21, 2022
Oral Reasons for Judgment
Sachs J. (Orally)
1The appellant appeals the final order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) July 30, 2021. The order requires the appellant to pay $23,054.10 in rent and compensation to the respondent landlords.
2On the date of the hearing that resulted in the order under appeal, the appellant did not appear. Her lawyer did and requested an adjournment of the hearing because the date of the hearing was a religious holiday for the appellant. That request was denied, and the Board proceeded to make the order in question on the basis of the material before it.
3On this appeal, the appellant submits that she was denied procedural fairness and that her constitutional rights were violated. We accept that if there was a denial of procedural fairness, this is an error of law that would justify this court’s intervention. However, we agree with the Board that, in this case, there was no denial of procedural fairness. We come to this conclusion for the following reasons:
a. The request for the adjournment was made on the day of the hearing. The appellant’s lawyer confirmed that he was only advised to the appellant’s need for an adjournment on the date of the hearing. There was no explanation given for the late notice. The appellant was advised of the hearing date at the end of June. As of that date, the appellant was in a position to advise the Board and the landlords that she could not attend the hearing because the date conflicted with a religious holiday. She did not do so, nor did she comply with the Board’s rules that any adjournment request be made five days before a scheduled hearing date.
b. This was the second adjournment request that the appellant had made. When the first adjournment was granted, the Board ordered that the next hearing date was to be peremptory to the appellant and the Board made an interim order requiring the appellant to pay new rent that came due pending the hearing of the application and requiring the appellant to file copies of any supporting documentation that she intended to rely on at the hearing. The appellant failed to comply with either of these conditions.
4These facts are sufficient to justify the Board’s decision to control its own process by denying the adjournment request. While there is a need for most tribunals to accommodate adjournment requests made for religious reasons, it is not an error of law or principle to decline to do so in a situation such this where the party making the request has abused the Board’s processes by failing to comply with the Board’s rules or orders and, as the Board found, such abuse has resulted in prejudice to the opposing party.
5For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. As neither the Respondents nor the Board requested costs, no costs are ordered.
Sachs J.
I agree
Charney J.
I agree
Myers J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: September 21, 2022
Date of Written Release: September 26, 2022
CITATION: Alhabbal v. Singh, 2022 ONSC 5400
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 661/21
LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD FILE NO.: CEL-95864-20 DATE: 20220921
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Charney and Myers JJ.
BETWEEN:
YNAS ALHABBAL
Appellant/Tenant
– and –
NAVITA SINGH AND SURINDER VIR SINGH
Respondents/Landlords
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Sachs J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: September 22, 2022
Date of Written Release: September 26, 2022