CITATION: Ramllal v. City of Toronto, 2023 ONSC 410
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 671/21 DATE: 20230120
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Edwards R.S.J. and D.L. Corbett and O’Brien JJ.
BETWEEN:
HEMCHAND RAMLLAL Mr Ramllal, self-represented Applicant
– and –
METRO REVIEW BODY, CITY OF TORONTO and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO[^1] Molly Lowson, for the Respondent Respondents
– and –
TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION Doug Letto, for the Intervenor Intervenor
HEARD at Toronto (by videoconference): June 15, 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION
D.L. Corbett J.
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the respondent City of Toronto Review Body’s decision in August 2021 not to reconsider its January 2020 decision revoking the applicant’s eligibility to receive rent-geared-to-income (“RGI”) assistance. For the following reasons the application is dismissed.
(a) Regulatory Context
[2] The Housing Services Act, 2011, S.O. 2011, c. 6, Sched. 1 (“HSA") applies to social housing programs across Ontario. The HSA provides for rent-geared-to-income (“RGI”) subsidies, which make up the difference between what the household pays for their unit and the lower of the indexed or actual market rent for that unit. The respondent City is designated as a service manager under the HSA and can delegate its responsibilities for RGI administration to housing providers, such as the intervenor Toronto Community Housing Corporation (“TCHC”).
[3] Section 52 of the HSA requires the City to determine periodically whether households receiving an RGI subsidy continue to be eligible. The City generally delegates these periodic reviews to housing providers like TCHC. Pursuant to s. 155 of the HSA, the City must have a system for reviews requested by households of TCHC eligibility determinations. The City has established the respondent Review Body for this purpose.
[4] Section 29 of O. Reg. 367/11, under the HSA, provides that a household will cease to be eligible for RGI if the household “fails to provide information requested by the service manager” for the purposes of “determining, under subsection 52(1) of the Act or under a rule under paragraph 6 of subsection 46(1), whether the household continues to be eligible”.
[5] When a household loses its RGI eligibility, housing providers such as TCHC issue a Notice of Decision – Loss of Eligibility for RGI Assistance (“Notice of Decision”). Reviews of TCHC decisions with respect to continuing RGI eligibility are undertaken by the Review Body, which is comprised of a panel of three staff members of the City’s Housing Stability Services unit (“HSS”).
[6] The City uses a two-stage process to consider requests for review. First, staff undertake a preliminary review to determine if the file is eligible for review. Second, if the file is eligible for a review, the Review Body will conduct the review.
Regulatory Background
[7] As of March 2019, the Applicant was receiving RGI assistance and living in a TCHC rental unit. On March 25, 2019, TCHC issued the Applicant a Notice of Decision stating that he was losing his eligibility for RGI because he had failed to provide information required to complete his annual review. The Notice of Decision listed the required documents, which included tax slips for 2017 and 2018, and Notices of Assessment from the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) for 2017 and 2018.
[8] The Notice of Decision stated that, for the Applicant to maintain his subsidy, he had to provide all the required supporting documents before the effective date of the decision on August 1, 2019, at which date the rent would increase to $1,076 per month. It also stated that any request for review must be made by May 1, 2019.
[9] The Applicant submitted a request for review on June 10, 2019, which was initially denied for being out of time, but the Review Body ultimately decided to conduct the review. The effective date for the rent increase was suspended pending the review.
[10] On August 23, 2019, the Review Body issued a conditional decision (the “First Conditional Decision”) finding that TCHC applied the criteria correctly in determining that the Applicant lost his eligibility for the RGI subsidy for failing to provide the requested documentation.
[11] The Conditional Decision listed documents the Applicant was required to submit, including Notices of Assessment and tax slips. It imposed a deadline of September 23, 2019 for the Applicant to submit the listed documents. TCHC was then required to confirm in writing by September 26, 2019 whether this condition was satisfied, after which the Review Body would issue its Final Notice of Decision.
[12] The Applicant submitted the outstanding documents by September 25, 2019. Upon receipt of the documents, TCHC staff contacted the Review Board with concerns that some of the documents appeared to have been altered. Some of the tax documents referenced years that were inconsistent with each other, some numbers appeared to have been cut and pasted to change amounts, and some fonts were inconsistent.
[13] On October 8, 2019, the Review Board sent a letter to the Applicant indicating that certain of the documents contained inconsistent information and were not accepted. A meeting was arranged between the Applicant and the Review Body for November 19, 2019, to which the Applicant was advised to bring original copies of the outstanding documents.
[14] At the meeting, the Applicant did not provide original Notices of Assessment for 2017 and 2018 as requested. The Review Body made a second conditional decision on November 28, 2019 (the “Second Conditional Decision”) giving the Applicant until January 3, 2020 to provide the outstanding Notices of Assessment.
[15] On January 9, 2020, TCHC forwarded copies of the outstanding Notices of Assessment from the Applicant to the Review Board. TCHC staff indicated that the newly submitted documents also contained alterations.
[16] In a final decision dated January 17, 2020, the Review Body upheld the Applicant’s loss of eligibility for the RGI subsidy for failure to provide the required documents, effective February 1, 2020. It found that the documents submitted by the Applicant were not original. As the Review Body had specifically requested original documents, it concluded that the criteria of the Conditional Decisions were not met.
[17] On June 17, 2021, the Applicant emailed the City, requesting a reconsideration of the Decision. HSS responded that day advising that unless the Applicant could submit new information or documentation, the Review Body could not reconsider the Decision.
[18] On June 24 and 30, 2021, the Applicant submitted financial documents, including Notices of Assessment for 2017 and 2018.
[19] On July 27, 2021, TCHC confirmed to the Review Body that the Applicant was no longer a tenant in TCHC housing.
[20] In a letter dated August 4, 2021, the Review Body advised the Applicant that because he was no longer a tenant, his request for reconsideration was outside the scope of its jurisdiction and would not be considered.
Issues on this Application
[21] The Applicant argues that the Review Body erred in law when it found that it had no jurisdiction to hear his review request in August 2021. As a former RGI recipient, with a substantial balance of arrears owing to TCHC on the basis of his loss of an RGI subsidy, the Applicant argues that he has a continuing interest in the issue for review, even though he had ceased to be a TCHC tenant.
[22] The Applicant also argues that the decision denying him an RGI subsidy, finalized in January 2020, is unreasonable, and ought to be set aside by this court.
Analysis
(a) the 2020 Decision Was Reasonable
[23] I start with the 2020 decision, which finally determined that the Applicant was not entitled to an RGI subsidy. I conclude that this decision was reasonable. The Applicant submitted falsified documents in support of his claim for an RGI subsidy. When the issue was raised with him and he was directed to provide original documents to support his claim, he did not do so. On this basis, the Review Body concluded that the Applicant failed “to provide information requested by the service manager” for the purposes of “determining, under subsection 52(1) of the Act or under a rule under paragraph 6 of subsection 46(1), whether the household continues to be eligible”.
[24] Before this court, the Applicant argued that alteration of his documents was done by a third party, that he was unaware of it, and that he should not suffer consequences for the conduct of this third party. This allegation was made before us baldly, with no supporting documentation, and no notice to the third party. No conceivable motive was provided for the third party doing such a thing. No explanation was provided as to why, on this version of the facts, the Applicant had not taken steps to obtain replacement documents from CRA to satisfy the Review Body’s requirement for original documents.
[25] In any event, it was the Applicant’s responsibility to provide the required information to the Review Body. From the Review Body’s perspective, falsified documents had been provided, and the Applicant was given more than a reasonable opportunity to provide accurate and original documents. He did not do so. The Review Body’s decision to revoke the RGI subsidy for the subject years was reasonable. I note that in disposing of this issue on a final basis for the subject years – 2017 and 2018 – the Applicant is not foreclosed from seeking an RGI subsidy in future years.
(b) The Review Body Had Jurisdiction to Consider the Request for Reconsideration
[26] The Review Body found that it did not have jurisdiction to reconsider its January 2020 decision in August 2021 because the Applicant was no longer a tenant of TCHC. Before this court, counsel argues that this decision – to decline jurisdiction – is reasonable, on the following basis:
The Review Body made a reasonable determination that since the Applicant was no longer living in TCHC housing nor was he receiving RGI, the request for reconsideration was essentially moot….
Given the extraordinarily high number of people waiting to receive RGI, the Review Body cannot permit former recipients to jump to the front of the line for RGI assistance by reconsidering prior decisions of the Review Body without an adequate basis for reconsideration. This would be unfair to other vulnerable people who are waiting to receive RGI and create uncertainty and backlog in the system. (Review Body Factum, paras. 57-58)
[27] This is not an argument about jurisdiction. It is an argument that the decision not to conduct a reconsideration was a reasonable exercise of the Review Body’s discretion – a discretion which only exists if the Review Body has jurisdiction to conduct a reconsideration. Conflating an exercise of discretion with a question of jurisdiction was not reasonable.
[28] The HSA does not provide for reconsideration of decisions of the Review Body. Neither does the HSA prohibit reconsideration or review of such decisions. There is common law authority to review or reconsider decisions for limited purposes, which needs to be applied flexibly with a firm eye on the policy reasons favouring finality of decisions: Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, 1989 41 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 848, para. 76, 82; Paper Machinery Ltd. v. J.O. Ross Engineering Corp., 1934 1 (SCC), [1934] SCR 186.
[29] It is clear from the history of this matter that the Review Body conducts its proceedings in a flexible manner, with a view to giving applicants a fair opportunity to put their information before the Review Body for an assessment of their eligibility. This flexible process includes affording an opportunity to seek reconsideration if a tenant is still in RGI-supported housing. The basis on which the Review Body argues it had no continuing jurisdiction is that the decision had become “moot”. It was not “moot” for the Applicant: a favourable decision would have the effect of reducing substantially the arrears he owes to TCHC and could impact his timing in seeking fresh RGI-subsidized housing.
[30] It would behoove the Review Body to develop rules respecting any process to review or reconsider its decisions – including deadlines to take such steps and the limited bases on which such reviews may be conducted. In the absence of such rules, it can exercise its discretion to entertain a review or reconsideration request on the basis of the common law principles referenced above: the jurisdiction is limited substantively and should be exercised “flexibly” with a firm eye to the principle of finality of decisions.
(c) Declining to Reconsider the January 2020 Decision was Reasonable
[31] The Review Body unreasonably concluded it had no jurisdiction to reconsider its prior decision. However, the reasons to decline reconsideration were overwhelming:
(a) The impugned decision was nearly eighteen months old. This excessive delay, with no reasonable explanation for the delay, could be a sufficient basis, by itself, to refuse reconsideration.
(b) The Review Body is a high-volume tribunal that needs to make timely decisions so that eligible applicants may obtain RGI subsidies. Delay in disposing of an applicant’s claim has the potential effect of delaying an award of an RGI subsidy to another eligible claimant.
(c) The documentation required to support an RGI subsidy is not complicated. It is required periodically. This applicant, in particular, had extensive experience in the RGI process and has provided no reasonable explanation as to why he found it difficult to provide proper, accurate and timely documentation.
(d) The request for reconsideration was really a request for a de novo consideration of RGI eligibility based on fresh documentation. In an initial written response to the Applicant’s request for reconsideration, staff at the Review Body wrote that “without new information, the review body cannot reconsider the decision.” The Applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay in obtaining fresh documentation, and he identified no error in principle or “slip” in connection with the January 2020 decision.
[32] Before this court, the Applicant made serious allegations of bias, harassment and discrimination against TCHC staff and City staff. There is no substance to any of these allegations.
Summary and Disposition
[33] The Review Body erred in finding it had no jurisdiction over the request for reconsideration. Had it exercised its discretion whether to conduct a reconsideration, in all the circumstances of this case, it surely would have declined to do so: what was being sought was a fresh hearing, on fresh documents, long past the time by which such documents had to be provided in support of the continued RGI subsidy.
[34] The decision made in January 2020 was reasonable. The Applicant submitted falsified documents in support of his RGI subsidy. When this was pointed out to him, he was given further opportunities to provide original documents in support of his application. He did not do so. His response, in this court, is to blame a stranger to the litigation, without supporting documentation and without notice to that person, and to make serious unfounded allegations against TCHC and City staff. The Applicant was treated with sensitivity and patience in the process below and has no one but himself to blame for his failure to provide accurate documentation. The application is dismissed.
[35] The Applicant shall pay Toronto costs of the application fixed at $1,000, as requested by the City, payable within thirty days. There shall be no costs for or against TCHC.
“D.L. Corbett J.”
I agree
“Edwards R.S.J.”
I agree
“O’Brien J.”
Date of Release: January 20, 2023
CITATION: Ramllal v. City of Toronto, 2023 ONSC 410
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 671/21 DATE: 20230120
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Edwards R.S.J., D.L. Corbett and O’Brien JJ.
BETWEEN:
Hemchand Ramllal Applicant
– and –
METRO REVIEW BODY, CITY OF TORONTO and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Respondent
– and –
TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION Intervenor
REASONS FOR DECISION
D.L. Corbett J.
Date of Release: January 20, 2023
[^1]: The Attorney General of Ontario did not take part in this application.