Oral Reasons for Judgment

SWINTON, J.

[1] The landlord Saeed Toolabi appeals two aspects of an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the Board) dated March 28, 2018: the order to pay the tenant $675.00 for half a month’s rent of a new unit in February 2017, and the order to pay an administrative fine of $2,000.00.

[2] An appeal lies to this Court only on a question of law (Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, s. 210(1)).

[3] In our view, the landlord’s appeal raises no question of law.

[4] The tenant had given notice to leave on February 28, 2017. The Board found that the tenant was forced to vacate her unit early because of harassment by the landlord and interference with the supply of vital services - namely hot water and electricity.

[5] The landlord argues that the Board applied an incorrect definition of harassment, asking whether a reasonable person would know or ought to know that a course of conduct was unwelcome.

[6] However, s. 22 of the Act prohibits a landlord from harassing, coercing, threatening or interfering with a tenant. There was ample evidence to support a finding that the landlord contravened this section. The Board found that the landlord was verbally abusive and aggressive to the tenant and there is evidence to support this finding (see, for example, page 30 of the Transcript). The Board also found that the landlord threatened to sue the tenant and lay criminal charges, all following his unsuccessful attempt to have the tenant agree to an illegal rent increase, followed by an improper notice to terminate the tenancy made in bad faith.

[7] Given these findings by the Board, the remedy of $675.00, the rent for the new unit starting February 18, 2017, was reasonable.

[8] The Board has the discretion to award an administrative fine. The purpose of an administrative fine, as set out in the Board’s Guideline 16, is to encourage future compliance with the Act. The Board awarded a fine here to deter the landlord in the future. The Board found that the landlord was “either ignorant of his responsibilities and obligations as a landlord or shows a blatant disregard for the Act”. The landlord’s conduct is described as “egregious”.

[9] The Board’s exercise of discretion was reasonable, particularly when one considers the overall context, including the landlord’s bad faith in giving notice to terminate the tenancy, his overall treatment of the tenant as well as other tenants, and his denial of vital services.

[10] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

[11] Neither party seeks costs.

Swinton, J.

I agree

MacKinnon, J.

I agree

Doyle, J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 29, 2019

Date of Release:

CITATION: Toolabi v. Simpson, 2019 ONSC 2686

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-2403

LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD FILE NO: EAL-69684-17

DATE: 2019/04/29

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

SWINTON, MACKINNON, DOYLE, JJ.

BETWEEN:

Saeed Toolabi Appellant

– and –

Amy Brown Respondent

ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SWINTON, J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 29, 2019

Date of Release:

Toolabi v. Simpson, 2019 ONSC 2686

Case Summary

Oral Reasons for Judgment

Judges

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Financial Outcomes

Issues