CITATION: Grey v. Parkdale Activity Recreation Centre (Parc) 2026 ONSC 2780
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-26-00000039-0000
DATE: 20260511
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: DELORES REBEKAH GREY, AKA ISHAH X, Appellant
AND:
PARKDALE ACTIVITY RECREATION CENTRE (PARC), Respondent
BEFORE: Justice Shore
COUNSEL: Self-Represented, for the Appellant
Spencer Toole, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 10, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The appellant, Delores Grey, was the tenant of Unit 8 at 28 Beaty Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, until January 16, 2026, when she was evicted pursuant to a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB). The respondent, Parkdale Activity Recreation Centre (PARC) is the landlord, a provider of supportive housing.
[2] The landlord brought an application before the LTB to terminate the tenancy because of the tenant’s conduct. It was alleged that the tenant had assaulted and stolen from housing support workers employed by the landlord.
[3] The tenant failed to attend the hearing on July 23, 2025, and did not have anyone attend on her behalf. There was no request for an adjournment. The hearing proceeded with testimony from the landlord’s witnesses.
[4] On September 8, 2025, the LTB released its decision, in which it found that the tenant had committed “illegal acts for which the charges of assault and theft were laid” and terminated the tenancy (Termination Order).
[5] On September 9, 2025, the tenant requested a review of the Termination Order, submitting that they were incarcerated from July 22-23, 2025, and therefore could not attend the hearing on July 23, 2025. On September 10, 2025, an interim stay of the Termination Order was granted.
[6] The tenant failed to attend the review hearing on October 16, 2025, and failed to send anyone on their behalf. The hearing again proceeded in their absence. In a decision dated October 27, 2025, the LTB dismissed the requests for review as abandoned (Review Order) and the interim stay was lifted.
[7] On October 27, 2025, the tenant requested a review of the Review Order, alleging they could not participate in the first review because of health-related issues.
[8] On October 28, 2025, an interim order was issued, staying the Review Order, pending hearing of the second review.
[9] The review of the Review Order proceeded on November 24, 2025. The tenant was present and was given an opportunity to participate, give evidence and make submissions. The tenant also spoke to duty counsel.
[10] On January 5, 2026, the LTB dismissed the review of the Review Order (Second Review Order). The LTB was not satisfied that the tenant could not participate in the review hearing on October 16, 2025, or that a serious error occurred in the proceedings. The LTB found that the tenant’s explanation as to why they could not attend was vague. The doctor’s note did not support the tenant’s submissions that they were incapacitated. Starting at paragraph 3 of the decision the LTB found that:
…The Tenant was given an opportunity to submit evidence, including the doctor's note, and the Tenant refused to submit it, allow the contents to be shared or speak to it at the hearing.
When questioned about the doctor's note, the Tenant gave vague answers and refused to answer questions in cross examination about her absence repeatedly stating, "I don't know" and "not sure". Additionally, the Tenant submits, that although the review order states that a representative from the legal clinic attended after the review hearing had taken place in her absence at 9:53am, the Tenant states that she did not give them authorization or consent to speak or act on her behalf and they did so without her permission.
[11] The LTB found that:
On the basis of the submissions made in the request and based on the evidence at the hearing, I am not satisfied that the Tenant was not reasonably able to participate in the proceeding or that a serious error occurred in the proceedings.
[12] The appellant appeals the Termination Order, the Review Order and the Second Review Order.
Grounds of appeal:
[13] With respect to the Termination Order, the appellant submits that she was incarcerated from July 22, 2025 to July 24, 2025 and could not attend the hearing on July 23, 2025, and that the LTB failed to consider this fact and therefore made an error in law.
[14] With respect to the Review Order, the appellant submits that the LTB failed to mention that she could not attend because:
The codes given failed to give her access to the hearing that proceeded by videoconferencing; and
She had taken painkillers the night before and brought a doctor’s note that she was in no position to attend the hearing.
[15] With respect to the Second Review Order, the appellant submits that the LTB erred in:
not accepting that the tenant had mental health issues that prevented her from participating in the October review; and
not reconsidering the Termination Order, only the review order.
[16] For the reasons below, the appeal is dismissed.
Standard of Review:
[17] Pursuant to section 210 of the Act, an appeal from an order of the Board lies to this court only on a question of law. Where a tenant seeks to appeal an order of the Board on a question of fact or of mixed fact and law, this court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal: Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17.
[18] The applicable standard of review on questions of law raised in an appeal from the Board is correctness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, at paras. 36-37; citing Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at para. 8; see also Zhou v. Cherishome Living, 2020 ONSC 500 (Div. Ct.), 443 D.L.R. (4th) 485, at paras. 36-37.
[19] Administrative tribunals have the authority to control their own processes and courts ought to accord deference to a tribunal's procedural choices. As stated by the Divisional Court:
In hearing the appeal, the court must consider that the Board is a specialized tribunal, and the legislature has deliberately limited appeals from its decisions to, inter alia, ensure a process that is streamlined, timely and cost-efficient.
The Board is entitled to control its own process and its procedural choices are entitled to deference. This is because administrative tribunals, including the Board, have experience and expertise balancing the need to ensure fair participation by all parties with the need to ensure that the issues are dealt with in a timely and efficient way (citation omitted).
Jedadiah Drummond v. Ridgeford Charitable Foundation, 2024 ONSC 4658, at paras. 16-17
Analysis
No error in law:
[20] With respect to the Second Review Order, the issue under appeal amounts to a finding of fact, not an error of law, and therefore the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter, under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
[21] As set out above, the LTB found that the tenant had not satisfied it that she could not participate in the first review hearing on October 16, 2025, and therefore denied the second review. The LTB considered the evidence before it and found that the appellant failed to prove that she was incapacitated and unable to participate or send someone to attend the hearing on her behalf. This is a finding of fact. The tenant fails to point to an error of law in either review decision.
No error in proceeding:
[22] The tenant submits that an error occurred in the proceedings. The tenant submits that there was an error in the Court not finding that she was incarcerated during the July 23^rd^ hearing and therefore unable to attend. However, there was no evidence before the Court at the July 23^rd^ hearing that the tenant was incarcerated. The tenant failed to attend, failed to request an adjournment and failed to send anyone on her behalf. There was no explanation before the LTB, who properly proceeded with the hearing that day, having found that the tenant was aware of the hearing date. The tenant took no steps until served with the decision on September 8, 2025.
[23] The LTB then scheduled a review hearing. The tenant submitted there was an error in the proceedings because the LTB failed to set aside the Termination Order because she was incarcerated during the hearing and unable to participate. However, the tenant failed to attend the review hearing, failed to request an adjournment and failed to send anyone on her behalf. Given the evidence before the LTB, it properly proceeded with the review hearing and dismissed the review as abandoned.
[24] When the tenant requested a second review, the LTB permitted a review of the review decision, although not their regular practice to review a review decision. There is no allegation that an error in proceedings occurred at the second review hearing. The tenant attended and participated in the second review hearing.
[25] In the second review hearing, the LTB found that the tenant failed to prove that a serious error occurred in the prior proceedings. Whether the tenant could have attended the review hearing in October amounts to a finding of fact. By the time the matter proceeded at the second review hearing, the tenant dropped the allegation that she could not access the videoconference and proceeded solely on the grounds that her health prevented her from attending. The LTB decision that she failed to prove that she was incapacitated and could not attend the review hearing is a finding of fact, not of law and therefore not subject to appeal.
[26] The tenant also submits that the LTB erred in not considering the Termination Order but only the Review Order. Without setting aside the Review Order, the LTB cannot go back to review the Termination Order. I find no error in law in the LTB procedure in this respect.
[27] For the reasons above, I find no error in law in the Second Review Order, not setting aside the Review Order, which dismissed the initial review as abandoned. The appeal is dismissed.
Costs:
[28] As the successful party, the respondent is entitled to their costs. The respondent is seeking costs on a partial indemnity basis, in the sum of $4,122.24. The hourly rate charged, and the time spent are reasonable.
[29] I have also considered that the respondent is a not-for-profit supportive housing organization, where every dollar is accounted for and when resources are used on legal fees, they are not available to help the community they serve. I have also considered that the appellant has her own financial constraints and was recently evicted from her home. She struggles with mental health issues. She too will need the use of her limited resources to secure alternate housing.
[30] I find costs payable by the appellant to the respondent in the sum of $3,000 in these circumstances to be reasonable.
Disposition:
[31] The appeal is dismissed.
[32] The appellant tenant shall pay the respondent landlord costs in the sum of $3,000, inclusive.
Sharon Shore, J.
Released: May 11, 2026