Court File and Parties
CITATION: Li v. Yuen Ming Ma, 2025 ONSC 6433
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-00000544-0000
DATE: 2025-11-14
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
ZHONGHAO LI Appellant
– and –
JONATHAN YUEN MING MA Respondent
Self-represented Self-represented Elli Fellman, Linda Naidoo, counsel for the Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD via videoconference: October 27, 2025
O’Brien J.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Overview
[1] The landlord appeals an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated May 21, 2024 and the subsequent denial of the landlord’s request to review the order. The question before the Board was whether the landlord had retained the tenant’s money illegally. The Board found that he did because he failed to return the payment for last month’s rent the tenant had provided at the outset of the tenancy.
[2] The landlord and tenant had entered into a one-year lease for the period July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023. The tenant paid a last month’s rent deposit in the amount of $2,600. The tenant’s plans changed and on March 18, 2023, he gave notice of this intention to terminate the tenancy by April 30, 2023. The unit was put on the market effective April 1, 2023 and was rented to a new tenant on May 1, 2023.
[3] The question before the Board was whether the landlord was entitled to keep the rent deposit provided by the tenant. The landlord submitted the tenant was not entitled to the last month’s rent since he had breached the lease agreement and was bound by common law expectation damages.
[4] The Board disagreed. Applying the relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (RTA), it found that the landlord was required to return the last month’s rent since he had re-rented the unit effective May 1, 2023. There was also a question as to whether the tenant could amend his application to reduce the amount claimed since he paid only half of the rent for April 2023. In its initial order, the Board said that he could not, but then amended the order on April 30, 2025. The amended order states that the tenant is entitled to a return of half of the last month’s rent since he only paid half of the April 2023 rent.
[5] In this court, the landlord submits the Board was functus officio and therefore erred in issuing the amended order. He also submits the Board erred by not applying the doctrine of equitable set-off and by failing to recognize his entitlement to expectation damages since the tenant breached the lease before its termination date. The landlord also submits the Board misinterpreted the relevant provisions of the RTA in concluding the full last month’s rent was owed to the tenant.
[6] An appeal to this court from a decision of the Board is limited to questions of law: RTA, s. 210.
[7] For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.
Was the Board entitled to amend its order?
[8] The landlord submits the Board was functus officio and not entitled to amend its order. I do not find any error of law in the Board amending its order in this case.
[9] The principle of functus officio permits a tribunal to amend an issued order where (1) there has been a clerical mistake arising from an accidental slip or omission; or (2) the order fails to reflect the tribunal’s manifest intent: Paper Machinery Ltd. et al. v. J.O. Ross Engineering Corp. et al..
[10] The principle must be applied in a flexible and less formulistic manner to the decisions of administrative tribunals, such as the Board, that are subject to appeal only on a point of law. The Supreme Court of Canada stated in Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848: “Justice may require the reopening of administrative proceedings in order to provide relief which would otherwise be unavailable on appeal.”
[11] There is another important reason to apply the principle flexibly in this case. The Board’s amendment favoured the landlord and provided the very relief the landlord seeks in his appeal arguments addressing this issue. At the hearing before the Board, the tenant had asked whether he could amend his application to reduce his claim for last month’s rent, since he acknowledged that he had only paid half of the April 2023 rent. The Board member initially said he could amend the claim but in the written order wrote that the landlord owed the full last month’s rent to the tenant. The landlord seeks to make various statutory interpretation arguments on appeal that would lead to the conclusion he only owed the tenant half of the last month’s rent, which is the same outcome as the Board ultimately reached in the amended decision.
[12] Applying the principle of functus officio flexibly, looking elsewhere at the Board’s initial decision, the Board’s intent was to compensate the tenant for his liability to pay rent to the end of April 2023. Requiring the landlord to return the full last month of rent would cause a windfall to the tenant that the landlord disputed and the tenant was not seeking. This error could also be considered clerical because the Board miscalculated the amount of rent owed to compensate the tenant, then recognized this error. It appears the Board was confused about the impact of the tenant having paid only half the April 2023 rent in the initial version of the decision, then realized the error.
[13] I also disagree that the amended order caused the landlord procedural unfairness, as argued by the landlord. Although the Board amended the order after the landlord had filed his appeal in this court, the court gave him the opportunity to file a supplemental factum to address the amended order. Again, the amended order favoured the landlord’s position.
[14] Even if I am wrong and the error in this case does not fall into the categories covered by the principle of functus officio, the result is the same. The landlord seeks to have the amended order quashed so that he can make arguments that lead to the same result. Given that the landlord is seeking the very outcome the Board reached in the amended order, it not in the interests of justice to quash the Board’s decision. It would be a wasteful use of resources to remit the matter to the Board or to unnecessarily address the landlord’s arguments on an issue that is not in dispute. Because of my conclusion, it is unnecessary to address the landlord’s arguments as to why he says the original Board decision erred on this point.
Did the Board err in refusing to consider equitable set-off and expectation damages?
[15] The landlord submits the Board erred by refusing to consider his own damages caused by the tenant’s breach, both as equitable set-off and expectation damages. During the hearing, the Board member refused to allow the landlord to submit evidence of damages caused by the tenant’s early termination of the lease.
[16] I do not find any error in the Board’s approach. The landlord relies on s. 17 of the RTA to argue the Board was able and required to apply common law damages principles. Section 17 allows the Board to apply common law rules in certain circumstances. It provides:
s.17 Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the common law rules respecting the effect of a serious, substantial or fundamental breach of a material covenant by one party to a contract on the obligation to perform of the other party apply with respect to tenancy agreements. (emphasis added)
[17] Section 17 does not capture the circumstances before the Board. Leaving aside whether the Board can apply equitable principles, s.17 only applies “except as otherwise provided” in the RTA. But the RTA has specific provisions that deal with the circumstances here. Section 88 addresses the payment owed by a tenant who vacates without giving sufficient notice. The Board properly applied s.88 in this case to conclude the tenant was owed the return of $1,300. Section 88.1 permits a landlord to apply to the Board for an order requiring a tenant or former tenant to pay costs, including where the tenant interfered with a “lawful right, privilege or interest of the landlord.” However, the landlord did not apply to the Board under s.81.1, so the Board was not required to consider the landlord’s claims for other losses. This ground of appeal is dismissed.
Did the Board err in failing to assess the credibility of the parties?
[18] The landlord submits the Board erred by relying on viva voce evidence but failing to assess the parties’ credibility. However, the landlord did not point to any part of the Board’s order that was affected by an alleged error with respect to credibility. This submission is therefore without merit.
Disposition
[19] The appeal is dismissed. Mr. Ma did not file any materials. Although he appeared at the hearing in this court, he relied almost entirely on the Board’s submissions. The Board does not seek any costs and none are awarded.
O’Brien, J.
Released: November 14, 2025
CITATION: Li v. Yuen Ming Ma, 2025 ONSC 6433
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-00000544-0000
DATE: 2025-11-14
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
ZHONGHAO LI Appellant(s)/Applicant(s)
– and –
JONATHAN YUEN MING MA Respondent(s)
REASONS FOR DECISION
O’Brien, J.
Released: November 14, 2025