CITATION: Rivera v. Eleveld, 2022 ONSC 446
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 181/21
DATE: 20220119
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
LEDERER, MATHESON AND COPELAND JJ.
BETWEEN:
ANDREA RIVERA
Appellant/Tenant
– and –
RICK ELEVELD
Respondent/Landlord
Delaram Jafari, for the Appellant/Tenant
Eric Kerson, for the Respondent/Landlord
Brian Blumenthal and Katia Snukal, for the Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD at Toronto (by video conference): January 19, 2022
Matheson, J. (Orally)
[1] This is a statutory appeal of the review decision of Board Member Randy Aulbrook of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated February 22, 2021 (the “Review Decision”).
[2] The Review Decision confirmed an order of Board Member Dawn Wickett terminating the Appellant’s tenancy and evicting her on the basis of her failure to pay rent. In making this order, Board Member Wickett made a preliminary finding - upheld on review by Board Member Aulbrook - that the Respondent’s Notice of Termination complied with s. 43(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (the “RTA”).
[3] The Appellant submits that there was an error of law regarding the interpretation of s. 43(1) of the RTA. That section permits landlords and tenants to have their notices of termination signed by an agent. The Respondent used a property manager as his agent. The Appellant submits that s. 43(1) should be interpreted as requiring that, for an agent to select, complete and sign the notice of termination form, the agent must be a member of the Law Society of Ontario or otherwise licensed to practice law.
[4] In her preliminary decision, Board Member Wickett noted that the term “agent” is not defined in the RTA and adopted the dictionary definition of “one who is authorized to act for or in the place of another.” She noted that if the Legislature had intended to limit agents to people licensed by the Law Society of Ontario it would have done so, just as was done in another section of the RTA. Section 185 of the RTA expressly provides that an application to the LTB may be filed by the applicant or “a person representing the applicant under the authority of the Law Society Act”. As well, the Board Member noted that the proposed narrow interpretation ignored references to the term “agent” elsewhere in the RTA, which did not support the appellant’s position.
[5] In the Review Decision, Board Member Aulbrook confirmed Board Member Wickett’s order.
[6] The standard of review on this appeal is correctness. As previously found by this Court, respect for the specialized function of the LTB is still important – our interpretative task is assisted by the LTB’s interpretation of the words of the RTA, its general scheme and policy objectives: Planet Energy (Ontario) Corp. v. Ontario Energy Board, 2020 ONSC 598, at para. 31.
[7] We agree with the decision of Board Member Wickett, as confirmed in the Review Decision. The RTA does not define “agent” and uses the term “agent” in many of its provisions that support a broad interpretation of that term. Elsewhere in the RTA, the legislation refers specifically to persons acting under the authority of the Law Society Act. Section 185 of the RTA, which applies to applications filed at the LTB, does so. When a landlord applies for relief to the LTB, the landlord must sign the application or authorize someone licensed under the Law Society Act to do so. The use of an “agent” is not permitted. Here, the property manager did not sign the application to commence proceedings at the LTB.
[8] The LTB has interpreted the term “agent” broadly in other LTB decisions, although the decisions are not all consistent. The LTB’s overall approach is reflected in the LTB Interpretation Guidelines.
[9] Ordinary principles of statutory interpretation support the interpretation confirmed in the Review Decision. Further, the LTB interpretation of “agent” does not give rise to a conflict between the Law Society Act and the RTA. Section 1(6) of the Law Society Act must be read in the context of the general definition of “providing legal services” in section 1(5), which requires that the conduct “involves the application of legal principles and legal judgment with regard to the circumstances or objectives of a person”. In conclusion, for the purposes of s. 43 of the RTA, an agent does not need to be licensed to provide legal services.
[10] This appeal is therefore dismissed.
[11] Costs shall be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent in the agreed upon amount of $5,000 all inclusive.
Matheson J.
I agree _______________________________
Lederer J.
I agree _______________________________
Copeland J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: January 19, 2022
Date of Written Release: January 24, 2022
CITATION: Rivera v. Eleveld, 2022 ONSC 446
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 181/21 DATE: 20220119
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
LEDERER, MATHESON AND COPELAND JJ.
BETWEEN:
ANDREA RIVERA
Appellant/Tenant
– and –
RICK ELEVELD
Respondent/Landlord
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Matheson J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: January 19, 2022
Date of Written Release: January 24, 2022