CITATION: Dali v. Hlail, 2026 ONSC 4863
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-00000062-0000
DATE: 20260824
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: MONIRA DALI, Appellant
AND:
MAHMOUD HLAIL, Respondent
RABAA ALRAHAL, Respondent
LANDLORD TENANT BOARD, Respondent
BEFORE: ten Cate J.
COUNSEL: Arun Kumar for Appellant
Bianca D. Saab for Respondents Hlail and Alrahal
Eli Fellman for Respondent LTB
HEARD at London: August 18, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant landlord appeals from an Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board ("LTB") dated October 7, 2025, and a Review Decision dated November 6, 2025. The Board found that the appellant served an N12 notice of termination in bad faith contrary to s. 57 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 ("RTA") and ordered her to pay the respondents compensation totaling $28,864.15. The Review Member denied the appellant's request for review.
[2] The appellant raises numerous grounds of appeal, including alleged misapplication of the legal test for good faith, procedural unfairness arising from the use of the respondents' son as an interpreter, failure to consider relevant evidence, and insufficiency of reasons.
[3] For reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.
Background
[4] The appellant owned the rental property located at 782 University Avenue East, Windsor, Ontario. The respondents had occupied the property since approximately 2019 under a month-to-month tenancy at a rent of $1,700 per month.
[5] On July 12, 2022, the appellant served the respondents with an N12 notice claiming possession of the rental unit for her own residential use. The termination date specified in the notice was September 30, 2022.
[6] The respondents vacated the premises on September 1, 2022. Shortly thereafter, the appellant re-rented the unit to another tenant effective October 1, 2022. It is undisputed that the appellant did not occupy the rental unit. She subsequently returned to Jordan on October 2, 2022, and remained there until January 2024.
[7] The respondents brought a T5 application alleging that the N12 notice had been given in bad faith. Following hearings conducted on June 20, 2024, and August 28, 2025, the Board granted the application.
Standard of Review
[8] Section 210 of the RTA restricts appeals from LTB decisions to questions of law. Findings of fact and findings of mixed fact and law are generally not reviewable absent an extricable error of law.
[9] Pursuant to Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, questions of law arising on a statutory appeal are reviewed on a correctness standard. However, even on that standard, the court must remain mindful of the Board's specialized role and expertise in adjudicating disputes under the RTA.
Analysis
A. Did the Board Apply the Correct Legal Test?
[10] The appellant submits that the Member improperly focused on events occurring after service of the N12 notice, particularly the appellant's purchase of airline tickets to Jordan three days after service of the notice.
[11] I do not accept that submission.
[12] The Board correctly recognized that the central question was whether the appellant genuinely intended to occupy the rental unit for residential purposes. The Board expressly addressed that issue and made findings regarding the appellant's credibility and intentions.
[13] Contrary to the appellant's argument, the Board was not prohibited from considering post-notice conduct. The Court of Appeal in Elkins v. Van Wissen, 2023 ONCA 789 has expressly directed that the Board must consider all relevant evidence bearing upon a landlord's good faith, including events occurring after service of the notice. To restrict consideration to the date the notice was served would constitute legal error.
[14] The appellant's booking of travel on July 15, 2022, her departure from Canada on October 2, 2022, and her remaining outside the country until January 2024 were all relevant circumstances capable of informing the Board's assessment of whether the professed intention to occupy the unit was genuine.
[15] The Board therefore applied the correct legal framework
B. The Presumption of Bad Faith
[16] Section 57(5) of the RTA establishes a rebuttable presumption of bad faith where a landlord enters into a tenancy agreement with another person within the prescribed period after serving an N12 notice.
[17] The appellant admitted that she re-rented the unit effective October 1, 2022, and never occupied it herself. As a result, the statutory presumption arose.
[18] The Board correctly recognized that the burden shifted to the appellant to rebut the presumption on a balance of probabilities. The Board then considered the appellant's explanation that she experienced a change in circumstances requiring her return to Jordan. The Board rejected that explanation as unpersuasive.
[19] The appellant's challenge is therefore directed not at the legal test applied by the Board but at the Board's assessment of the evidence. Such issues fall within findings of fact and credibility lying at the core of the Board's expertise.
C. Statutory Causation
[20] The appellant further argues that the Board failed to determine whether the respondents vacated the rental unit "as a result of" the N12 notice.
[21] I am unable to agree.
[22] The Board expressly found that after receiving the N12 notice, the respondents began searching for new accommodation and vacated the rental unit on September 1, 2022. The Board accepted the respondents' evidence that they moved because of the notice.
[23] The Board was not required to discuss every piece of contrary evidence or every submission advanced by the appellant. Read as a whole, the reasons make clear that the Board found the statutory causation requirement had been established. Meaningful appellate review is possible.
D. Procedural Fairness
[24] The appellant's strongest submission concerns the use of the respondents' son as interpreter.
[25] The transcript reveals several occasions where the son engaged in discussion with the witness rather than providing a direct translation. The Member intervened repeatedly, reminded the interpreter of his obligation to provide word-for-word translation, and warned that continued difficulties might require adjournment and the use of an independent interpreter.
[26] The interpretation process was undoubtedly imperfect.
[27] However, procedural fairness does not demand a perfect procedure. The question is whether the hearing, viewed as a whole, was fair.
[28] The Member actively supervised the process, repeatedly corrected interpretation problems, and ultimately continued the hearing. The Review Member subsequently listened to the recording and concluded that any deficiencies did not materially affect the fairness of the hearing.
[29] Importantly, the appellant has not identified any specific finding that can be shown to flow from a mistranslation or any material prejudice resulting from the interpreter's participation.
[30] While I share the Member's concerns regarding the quality of interpretation, I am not persuaded that the process fell below the standard of procedural fairness required by the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 22, or the common law.
E. Adequacy of Reasons
[31] The appellant contends that the reasons were insufficient because the Member failed to address all the evidence and failed to explain the maximum compensation award.
[32] The Board's reasons must be read holistically and contextually. They need not refer to every submission, exhibit, or argument. The question is whether they permit meaningful appellate review.
[33] Here, the reasons explain why the Member preferred the respondents' evidence, why the appellant's evidence was rejected, why the statutory presumption was not rebutted, and why compensation was awarded. The reasons allow both the parties and this Court to understand why the appellant was unsuccessful.
[34] I am satisfied that the reasons meet the required standard.
Disposition
[35] The Board correctly identified and applied the governing legal principles.
[36] The appellant's arguments primarily challenge factual findings, credibility determinations, and the weight assigned to competing evidence. Those matters are not open to review on a statutory appeal limited to questions of law.
[37] Although the interpretation process was less than ideal, the appellant has not demonstrated that any procedural deficiency resulted in unfairness or a miscarriage of justice.
[38] The appeal is therefore dismissed, and the Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated October 7, 2025, and the Review Decision dated November 6, 2025, are affirmed.
Costs
[39] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, they may deliver written submissions not exceeding three pages excluding bills of costs within 15 days of the release of these reasons. If I do not receive submissions within that time frame, I will assume that costs are resolved.
__ _”Justice E. ten Cate”_______
Justice ten Cate
Date: August 24, 2026