Court File and Parties

CITATION: Blair v. Robert Cooke Co-operative Homes Inc., 2025 ONSC 4271

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 036/25

DATE: 20250728

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: DESMOND PATRICK BLAIR, Appellant

AND:

ROBERT COOKE CO-OPERATIVE HOMES INC., Respondent

BEFORE: Matheson J.

COUNSEL: Self-represented Appellant

Amanda Montgomery, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: July 24, 2025, by video-conference

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant has brought this appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision dated December 16, 2024, and the LTB review decision dated December 30, 2024, ending the occupancy of the appellant in a co-op unit at the respondent co-operative (the Co-op) for failure to pay the regular monthly housing charges.

[2] The LTB found that the appellant had been paying a lower monthly housing charge than was due and there were arrears of more than $17,000. Before the LTB, the appellant disputed those amounts and raised some other issues about the way the Co-op, its manager and its Board were taking certain steps in managing the Co-op and its use of funds.

[3] In the above LTB decisions, the LTB noted the restrictions on its jurisdiction regarding co-operatives under the Co-operative Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.35 (the “Co-op Act”) and the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (the “RTA”). , and focused on the limited issues that were properly before the LTB. The LTB made an order that gave the appellant an opportunity to void ending his occupancy by payment of amounts that totaled over $21,000, failing which the occupancy would be terminated. The appellant did not void the termination. The LTB review was dismissed because the appellant did not show a serious error in the LTB decision and continued to raise issues that had to be resolved with the Co-op, not the LTB.

[4] The Divisional Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the LTB decisions, but only on a question of law: s. 210(1) of the RTA. The standard of review is correctness.

[5] Many of the issues raised by the appellant in this Court relate to matters under the Co-op Act that are not within the permitted scope of the LTB’s limited jurisdiction. The exception is the appellant’s submissions that the Member at the LTB hearing did not act fairly or, as put by the appellant, did not act with proper decorum. That fairness issue is addressed separately below, after the other issues.

[6] The appellant’s issues on this appeal were summarized in his factum as follows:

(a) whether the property manager of the Co-op failed to comply with the rules and bylaws of the Co-op as required under the Co-op Act;

(b) whether the property manager of the Co-op contravened principles of fairness, transparency and accountability owed to members of the Co-op; and,

(c) whether the remedies sought by the appellant should be granted, including but not limited to compliance orders, damages, or other relief. Elsewhere in the court material, the appellant also requests an order removing the Co-op manager and an investigation.

[7] Unfortunately, it appears that the appellant has not accepted the limited jurisdiction of the LTB under the RTA, as compared to issues that may be raised with the Co-op and addressed through other available regimes. The above three issues and related remedies are not properly raised before the LTB at all. As set out in s. 1(2) of the RTA, Part V.1 sets out what the LTB can do in relation to non-profit housing co-operatives, which is limited and does not include the above. Those issues and remedies are not the proper subject of the LTB application and do not give rise to an error of law on this appeal.

[8] Part V.1 of the RTA does include the statutory framework for the adjudication of disputes about the termination of occupancy by a co-operative. Section 94.3(2) permits a co-operative to apply to the LTB for an order terminating a member’s occupancy and evicting a member after the member is given notice of termination, as set out in that section.

[9] As noted in the above LTB decisions under appeal, s. 94.9 of Part V.1 restricts the LTB’s inquiry into the steps already taken by the Co-op leading up to the LTB proceeding. Further, s. 203.1 precludes the LTB from making any determinations or reviewing decisions of the Co-op, a non-profit housing co-operative, regarding housing charges or subsidies. The LTB was therefore obliged to accept that the appellant’s monthly housing charge was $1,045, when the appellant said it should be $460 due to a subsidy, and that proper notice was given. Even if it had not been obliged to do so, the findings of fact of the LTB cannot be challenged on this appeal.

[10] The Co-op’s application to the LTB under Part V.1 was on the grounds of a failure to pay the regular housing charges as set out in s. 94.2(1)(1) and (3) of the RTA. The LTB made findings of fact regarding his payments, the timeliness of his payments, and the arrears. These findings of fact cannot be challenged on this appeal. There was no error in law on these issues.

[11] The other grounds of appeal relate to the fairness of (or decorum) at the LTB hearing. Those issues are properly raised on this appeal.

[12] At the LTB hearing, the respondent had counsel. The appellant objected then and now to the respondent being permitted to have counsel because the appellant had not received prior notice that the Co-op would have legal representation. The Member found no procedural error and noted that there was no basis presented that required prior notice. The appellant has not shown a basis to find that, either when the ruling was made or as the LTB hearing proceeded, this was procedurally unfair.

[13] The appellant also submits that he was not permitted to raise all his issues. The appellant was permitted to raise some issues but not others. It was not unfair to decline issues that were outside the scope of the LTB application, such as whether his membership and occupancy rights had been properly terminated by the Co-op. The Member properly cited s. 94.9 of the RTA in that regard.

[14] The appellant has raised additional issues that the respondent notes should have first been raised at the hearing.

[15] The appellant submits that at the LTB hearing the Member wrongly required the muting of microphones. This is not necessarily unfair in a Zoom hearing, where background noise can be distracting. The Member said, at the beginning of the hearing, that all parties should keep their microphones muted until it was their turn to speak. The appellant has not shown that the appellant was prevented from speaking when appropriate as a result of muting. The appellant also noted the Member getting water and mentioning construction noise, which were not inappropriate.

[16] The appellant further submits that it was unfair for the Member to direct that the appellant answer yes or no to a question, which the Member did on one occasion when prior answers had been unresponsive. Again, the appellant has not shown that this was unfair in this hearing. The Member was permitted to direct the hearing so as to obtain responsive answers to questions.

[17] The appellant also submits that in one instance, the Member spoke privately to the respondent. This has not been shown on the transcripts. The Member did permit the respondent and its counsel to speak privately in a breakout room without anyone else present. This is a routine way of permitting a privileged conversation in a Zoom hearing.

[18] The appellant has not shown that the hearing was procedurally unfair (or conducted without proper decorum).

[19] This appeal is dismissed, without costs and with an extension of the original eviction date. The original eviction date imposed by the LTB was December 31, 2024. The appellant asks for six months from today before the eviction order is enforced if his appeal is unsuccessful, as it is. The Co-op submitted that another six weeks, to up to three months, is reasonable. I will give the appellant four months if the appellant begins to pay the full monthly housing charge of $1,045 promptly each month (to November 30, 2025). If the appellant fails to make those payments, this extension is terminated without further court order. Further, the appellant is reminded that the prior interim terms in the Divisional Court, and this order, do not reduce the obligation to pay any arrears still owing after taking into account those payments.

Matheson J.

Date: July 28, 2025