Court File and Parties

CITATION: Nissan v. Jaglal, 2025 ONSC 5713

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 239/25

DATE: 20251009

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Ola Nissan, Cameron Williams, and Decillma Williams, Appellants

AND:

Malini Jaglal, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice O’Brien

COUNSEL: Cameron Williams, Self-Represented

Robert Grad, Counsel for the Respondent

Valerie Crystal, Counsel for the Landlord and Tenant Board

HEARD: By videoconference on October 8, 2025

Endorsement

[1] The dispute between the landlord and tenants in this appeal centres on whether the basement was included in the tenants’ lease of the rental unit. The tenants initially intended to rent the entirety of a single-family home including the basement. The Landlord and Tenant Board found that before the tenants accepted occupancy of the unit, they were aware the basement was not included in the rental agreement.

[2] The tenant, Cameron Williams submits the Board erred by failing to apply the contra proferentem principle in interpreting the lease. He says the lease was ambiguous, in that it did not say the basement was excluded and should have been interpreted in his favour. Although the tenant put forward other arguments in his factum, he advised at the hearing of the appeal that he was abandoning the remaining arguments.

[3] The court’s jurisdiction on appeal is limited to questions of law: Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (RTA), s. 210.

[4] I do not find an error of law in the Board’s decision. The tenant is attempting to apply strict principles of contractual interpretation to the agreement with the landlord. The task of the Board is to apply the provisions of the RTA.

[5] The tenants’ application to the Board was brought under s. 29 of the RTA. Under that provision, the tenants alleged that the landlord entered the unit illegally, substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit, or harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the tenants.

[6] The Board found that the tenants initially understood the tenancy would include the basement but that the landlord intended the basement not to be included. However, the Board found that the tenants became aware the basement was not part of the rental unit before moving in. The Board stated the tenants took no steps to find alternative housing, despite being offered the return of their deposit without penalty. The Board found as a fact that the tenants at that point “chose to accept the unit with no basement.”

[7] On these findings, it was open to the Board to conclude the landlord did not enter the unit illegally, substantially interfere with the tenants’ enjoyment to the unit, or harass, coerce, threaten or interfere with the tenants.

[8] The tenant acknowledges that the contra proferentum principle was not raised at the hearing before the Board. Typically, issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because the responding party has not had the opportunity to present evidence and arguments on the issue. The tribunal also has not made any findings or provided any analysis of the issue. In this case, the Board had no opportunity to consider the contra proferentum principle or make findings with respect to it.

[9] In any event, I conclude that the contra proferentum principle does not apply to the circumstances of this case. Subsection 2(1) of the RTA defines a tenancy agreement as meaning “a written, oral or implied agreement between a tenant and a landlord for occupancy of a rental unit…” Subsection 202(1) requires the Board to “ascertain the real substance of all transactions and activities relating to …a rental unit…”. Given these provisions, the Board was not limited to interpreting the written lease in determining the agreement between the parties. It was open to the Board to consider the subsequent communications between the parties as relevant to determining whether the basement was considered part of the unit, even without a new or amended written lease. The Board found that, after discussions, the tenant moved into the rental unit knowing the basement was not included. To the extent the tenant disputes this finding, it is a factual finding that is outside the scope of this court’s jurisdiction.

[10] The tenants have not demonstrated an error of law. There is therefore no basis for the court to interfere in the Board’s decision.

[11] I explained to the tenant that the successful party is usually entitled to their costs of the appeal. The landlord’s costs are reasonable, and I do not see a basis not to order costs. The tenant therefore shall pay costs to the landlord in the amount of $1500 all-inclusive.

O’Brien J.

Released: October 9, 2025