Quezada v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2026 ONSC 1650

CITATION: Quezada v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2026 ONSC 1650

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-00000587-0000

DATE: 20260318

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: CHRISTIAN QUEZADA Moving Party

AND: TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION Responding Party

BEFORE: L. Brownstone J.

COUNSEL: Christian Quezada, Self represented Katie Douglas, for the Responding party

HEARD in writing: March 18, 2026

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Christian Quezada lives in a unit in a building owned and operated by the responding party, Toronto Community Housing Corporation. The TCHC is a rent-geared-to-income housing provider and is bound by the Housing Services Act, 2011, S.O. 2011, c. 6, Sched 1. The City of Toronto is the service manager of TCHC and creates administrative rules by which TCHC operates.

[2] On March 21, 2025, TCHC delivered a decision to Mr. Quezada advising that he was no longer eligible for a subsidy because he failed to submit his income verification information as required.

[3] On May 13, 2025, Mr. Quezada served TCHC with a notice of motion seeking a rent abatement, financial compensation, and requesting an extension of time to file an application for judicial review. On October 10, 2025, Mr. Quezada filed another notice of motion seeking monetary damages and an order that his rent is $139 monthly.

[4] In addition to the TCHC decision, it appears that Mr. Quezada seeks to extend time to bring an application for judicial review of a September 2024 order of the Landlord Tenant Board. Mr. Quezada had brought an application to the LTB for compensation for interference with his use and enjoyment of his unit. On September 18, 2024, the LTB dismissed his application as abandoned, as he did not appear. In December 2025, the LTB dismissed his review application, which was 42 days late. He seeks an order setting aside the September 18, 2024, decision, and an order that the rent be kept “low for many years ahead” and compensation of $10,000 for pain and suffering. In other materials, Mr. Quezada seeks $50,000 for pain and suffering, and $100,000 for punitive damages.

[5] This court held case conferences in September and October 2025 and directed that these matters proceed by way of motion for extension of time to file Mr. Quezada’s intended proceedings. Mr. Quezada was advised of the test for an extension of time for judicial review, and it was suggested to him that he address the test in his materials.

[6] It has been difficult to determine throughout the proceedings whether Mr. Quezada seeks to judicially review both the September 2024 LTB decision and the TCHC decision. The grounds set out in Mr. Quezada’s notice of motion refer to the relief he sought before both bodies. I will therefore consider that he is seeking an extension of time for both proceedings.

[7] The TCHC opposes the motion, submitting that Mr. Quezada has not identified any reviewable errors and his applications have no merit.

[8] The Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1 requires an application for judicial review to be started within 30 days of the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. Subsection 5(2) permits the court to extend the time to apply for judicial review if it is in the interests of justice to do so considering the merits of the application, the intention to request the review within the time allowed, the length and explanation for delay, and the degree of prejudice to the responding party. The factors are not considered as isolated requirements; they are to be weighed and balanced in their totality: Green v. Patel, 2025 ONSC 6867 at paras. 6 and 7.

[9] TCHC concedes that the delay was not lengthy, that it was likely caused by Mr. Quezada’s unfamiliarity with the statutory rules, and that TCHC has not suffered significant prejudice. It submits that the motion should be dismissed because the applications have no merit.

[10] I agree that the materials do not provide any basis for concluding there is any merit to either application.

[11] The TCHC decision explained that under the regulations and its administration manual, TCHC is required to determine whether residents are eligible for rent geared to income, and if so, in what amount. The decision detailed efforts that had been made to get the required information from Mr. Quezada in 2023 and 2025. The TCHC loss of eligibility decision advised that if Mr. Quezada submitted the required documentation before September 1, 2025, TCHC may reconsider its decision that he was no longer eligible for rent geared to income. A request for review form was enclosed.

[12] Mr. Quezada’s materials do not include any information that puts the TCHC’s decision in question. He advises that the unadjusted rent is too high, and he cannot afford it. Yet he has provided neither the TCHC nor the court with income verification documents, which are a requirement for eligibility for rent geared to income. Mr. Quezada does not contest the findings made by the TCHC.

[13] With respect to the complaints he wished to raise at the LTB, Mr. Quezada makes some very general assertions in his materials before this court about disturbances at TCHC. He states the LTB should not have dismissed his proceeding and should have understood that, as a disabled person, he would have difficulty appearing. He was also busy volunteering with very ill patients at St. Michael’s Hospital. He seeks damages for mental anguish and punitive damages, in some places stating that he is suing the tortfeasor. These causes of action and relief are not available on an application for judicial review.

[14] Mr. Quezada has had a significant period of time to gather his materials for this motion and these applications. He was advised of the test he had to meet to be granted an extension of time for his applications. I do not say this to be critical of Mr. Quezada, a self-represented litigant. I say it simply to note that I do not expect that more information would be available to a panel hearing the judicial review application than is available to the court today.

[15] On the basis of the material provided, I conclude there is no merit to either application for judicial review. This factor outweighs the other factors. I see nothing to be gained by extending the time for these applications.

[16] The motion for the extension of time for the applications for judicial review is dismissed.

[17] The TCHC sought no costs, and none are ordered.

L. Brownstone J.

Released: March 18, 2026