COURT FILE NO.: 408/04
DATE: 20050606
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
meehan, molloy and swinton jj.
B E T W E E N:
KNIGHTS VILLAGE NON-PROFIT HOMES Landlord (Applicant) (Respondent in Appeal)
- and -
GARY CHARTIER and TANIA STEFANIS Tenants (Respondents) (Appellants in Appeal)
Stephen P. Fleury, for the Landlord
Ian S. Hennessey, for the Tenants
HEARD: June 6, 2005
SWINTON J.: (Orally)
[1] The tenants appeal from the decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, dated July 19, 2004, which dismissed the tenants’ request for an extension of time to allow them to file a Request for Review of an order issued May 4, 2004.
[2] The Request to Extend Time form stated, in the box for an explanation as to why the request should be granted, “see attached”. There is no attachment to the request at Tab 2 of the Appeal Book. The appellants submit that the Request to Review the May 4, 2004 order was attached. At page 15 of the Appeal Book, the opening part of the Request to Review states:
“The Order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal of Member Donald MacVicar, issued May 4, 2004, is sought to be reviewed on the following grounds, with an extension of the time in which to have same reviewed together with a stay sought”.
The content of the Request to Review the order is directed to both the extension of time and the merits.
[3] Member Taylor denied the request to extend, saying: “No valid reasons given for request”.
[4] The Tribunal has a duty to give reasons that explain its decision (see Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at paragraph 43). Failure to give reasons is a denial of procedural fairness and an error of law.
[5] The statement by the Tribunal here does not explain the decision reached. The tenants did put forth reasons for the extension of time. There is evidence in the record that they had a settled intention to appeal, as shown by the motion to set aside an ex parte order, dated May 29, 2004. In that request, they made a reference to the file number of the original application and referred to the merits of the original order as the reason that the order should be set aside. Paragraphs 10, 16 and 17 of the Request to Review the May 4, 2004, order state that they were confused because the enforcement proceeding had a different file number from the original application. They attempted to have a hearing on the merits respecting the motion detector and costs payment, but were unsuccessful. There may also have been medical explanations for the delay as explained in the Request to Review and attached medical reports.
[6] Given the failure to give reasons that show the Tribunal has considered this evidence, there has been a denial of procedural fairness. The appeal is allowed. The order of July 19, 2004 is set aside and the request for an extension of time is remitted to the Tribunal to be heard by a different Member.
MEEHAN J.
[7] Costs are $2,500.00, including disbursements.
MEEHAN J.
MOLLOY J.
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 6, 2005
Date of Release: June 10, 2005
COURT FILE NO.: 408/04
DATE: 20050606
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
meehan, molloy and swinton jj.
B E T W E E N:
KNIGHTS VILLAGE NON-PROFIT HOMES Landlord (Applicant) (Respondent in Appeal)
- and -
GARY CHARTIER and TANIA STEFANIS Tenants (Respondents) (Appellants in Appeal)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 6, 2005
Date of Release: June 10, 2005