Court File and Parties

CITATION: Newman v. Dakota Property Management Inc., 2010 ONSC 5350

COURT FILE NO.: DC-08-092308-00

DATE: 2010/10/20

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: CHRISTOPHER NEWMAN and DONNA WEEKS Tenant/Appellant in Appeal

AND:

DAKOTA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. Landlord/Respondent in Appeal

BEFORE: JENNINGS, HERMAN and HARVISON-YOUNG JJ.

COUNSEL: Christopher Newman, self-represented Patrick M. Ley, for the Landlord/Respondent in Appeal

HEARD: SEPTEMBER 20, 2010, in Newmarket

ENDORSEMENT

BY THE COURT:

[1] Mr. Newman and Ms. Weeks (the Appellants) live in rented premises in a property managed by the respondent and owned by the Ontario Aboriginal Housing Support Services Corporation. Their rent is geared to their income and is renewable annually.

[2] A dispute arose between the appellants and the respondent as to the amount of monthly rent they should be paying. As a result of that dispute the appellants have paid no rent since October 2007. We were told by the appellants that they did tender cheques for rent until February 2008, but that the cheques were not cashed by the respondent. The appellants submitted that they owed, by their calculations, about $7,500 in arrears of rent which they would pay immediately if the dispute could be resolved.

[3] On November 18, 2008, the Landlord and Tenant Board (the Board) made an order which terminated the appellants’ tenancy and required them to vacate the premises by November 29, 2008, unless by that date they paid to the landlords $6,357. The appellants appeal to this court from that order.

[4] The principal ground of appeal was that the Board did not have jurisdiction to grant relief because the housing unit was subject to the provisions of Social Housing Reform Act and not the Residential Tenancies Act. During the hearing of this appeal, the appellants conceded that the Board had jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of s.168(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

[5] The appellants further conceded at the hearing that the Board had no jurisdiction to determine eligibility for or the amount of rent geared to income assistance under the Social Housing Reform Act. They agreed that the Board could not adjudicate their claim that the amount of rent being levied was excessive and that in taking that position, the Board was correct. In arriving at that conclusion, we find the Board properly considered under s.82 the appellants’ claim that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply.

[6] During argument, the appellants submitted that they were denied natural justice because once the Board determined that it had jurisdiction it then granted the relief sought by the respondent without giving the appellants the opportunity to make submissions on other issues that they wanted to put before the Board.

[7] The transcript shows that the Board invited the appellants to make submissions and lead evidence on the jurisdiction issue which they raised. The real complaint of the appellants before the Board and before us, and the only matter referred to by them on the hearing before the Board, was the amount of rent being charged. The record, and the transcript, are both silent as to any other issue that the appellants wished to raise. The quantum of rent could not be considered by the Board and during the hearing before us we were not told of any other issue that the tenants wished to raise and which the Board could properly consider. We are, accordingly, unable to find any denial of natural justice.

[8] The respondent concedes that in calculating the amount due by the appellants to the respondent by November 29, 2008, the Board neglected to take into account payments totalling $476, so that the amount found due was overstated by that amount. The order of the Board is accordingly varied to reduce the amount due by $476. Otherwise, the appeal is dismissed.

[9] The respondent advised that it would be content with the nominal costs of $1,000 inclusive and costs are ordered to it in that amount.

JENNINGS J.

HERMAN J.

HARVISON-YOUNG J.

DATE: October 20, 2010