CITATION: Lindsay v. Ecuhome Corp., 2025 ONSC 6744
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 434/23 DATE: 20251210
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. Corbett, Varpio and O’Brien JJ.
BETWEEN:
Mark Anthony Lindsay Applicant / Moving Party
- and -
Ecuhome Corporation and City of Toronto Respondents / Responding Party
Counsel: Mark Anthony Lindsay, self-represented Douglas Levitt and Spencer Toole, for the Responding Party Eli Fellman, for Tribunals Ontario
HEARD at Toronto: June 3, 2025
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Court:
[1] Mr Lindsay moves to review the decision of Davies J. (2024 ONSC 6169) dismissing a motion to extend the time to review the order of Matheson J. (2023 ONSC 5801). Prior history is set out in detail in these two decisions.
Background
[2] This case arises from decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”). Mr Lindsay leased residential premises at 415 Shaw Street, Toronto, from the respondent Ecuhome. Mr Lindsay received rent subsidies through the rent-geared-to-income (“RGI”) program administered by the City of Toronto.
[3] Apparently, Toronto has delegated to Ecuhome administrative responsibility for addressing eligibility for RGI subsidies for tenants in Ecuhome’s premises.
[4] In January 2021, Mr. Lindsay filed an application with the LTB. He claimed that he was denied reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit because (i) Ecuhome required him to remove his belongings from common areas, (ii) Ecuhome failed to address alleged harassment by another tenant, (iii) Ecuhome failed to address requests to repair his bathroom and window; and (iv) Ecuhome increased his rent during a provincial rent freeze period by altering his RGI subsidy.
[5] By decision dated April 7, 2022, the LTB dismissed Mr. Lindsay’s application, noting, among other things, that the LTB had no jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SO 2006, c. 17 (the “Act”), in respect of RGI. The LTB found that Ecuhome acted reasonably in requiring Mr. Lindsay to stop using the common areas to store his belongings and in handling Mr. Lindsay’s repair requests and harassment allegations.
[6] Mr Lindsay sought reconsideration of the LTB decision on the basis that the LTB’s factual findings were not supported by the evidence. The LTB denied the reconsideration request on May 18, 2022.
[7] On May 18, 2023, the LTB ordered that Mr. Lindsay’s tenancy was terminated and that he be evicted.
[8] Mr Lindsay sought to appeal and to seek judicial review. However, he did not commence these proceedings within the statutory deadlines and so was required to bring a motion for an extension of time. That motion was heard by Matheson J. of this court. By decision dated October 20, 2023, Matheson J. granted an extension to appeal but dismissed the request for an extension of time to seek judicial review.
[9] A panel of the Divisional Court dismissed Mr Lindsay’s appeal on July 2, 2024.
[10] Mr Lindsay sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from the panel’s dismissal of his appeal and from the decision of Matheson J. Again, he missed his deadline and was required to bring a motion for an extension. Sossin J.A. denied the motion, finding (a) that the proposed appeal of the panel decision was devoid of merit and (b) there was no jurisdiction for the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal from the decision of Matheson J.: Mr Lindsay’s recourse from the decision of Matheson J. was by way of a review motion to a panel of the Divisional Court pursuant to Courts of Justice Act, s. 25(1).
[11] Mr Lindsay then sought to bring a review motion from the decision of Matheson J. before a panel of the Divisional Court. He was about ten months out of time to bring that motion and so was required to bring a motion for an extension. By decision dated November 18, 2024, Davies J. denied Mr Lindsay’s request for an extension to review the order of Matheson J. It is this decision of Davies J. that is the subject of the review motion now before this court. Mr Lindsay also seeks to re-open the final decision in the appeal, and to set aside the decision of Sossin J.A.
Net Result of Previous Decisions
[12] Mr Lindsay’s appeal from the LTB’s termination order has been disposed of on a final basis and may not be reconsidered by this court. That decision is binding on the parties. The decision of Sossin J.A. is a final order of a judge of the Court of Appeal and may not be challenged in this court.
[13] All of Mr Lindsay’s other proceedings related to the LTB proceedings were terminated as a result of the decision of Matheson J. refusing to grant an extension to bring them.
Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
[14] A panel of the Divisional Court has jurisdiction to set aside or vary a motion decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court: Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c. C.43, s. 21(5).
[15] On a review motion under s. 21(5), appellate standards of review apply: Rosen v. Reid, 2024 ONSC 5224, para. 6 (Div. Ct).
[16] Questions of law are reviewed on a standard of correctness, while questions of fact and mixed fact and law are reviewed for palpable and overriding error: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33. Regarding matters of discretion, the Divisional Court will only interfere if the “judge has clearly misdirected… herself on the facts or the law, proceeded arbitrarily, or if the decision is so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice”: Canada (Attorney General) v. Fontaine, 2017 SCC 47, para. 36.
RGI Decisions
[17] The LTB has no jurisdiction to determine or to review a determination of whether a tenant is entitled to an RGI subsidy or the amount of subsidy to which they are entitled.
[18] On an appeal or review from a decision of the LTB, this court has no more jurisdiction over RGI subsidies than did the LTB.
[19] Mr Lindsay has been told by the LTB, and by a panel of this court, that the LTB did not have jurisdiction over his entitlement to an RGI subsidy. There is no merit to Mr Lindsay’s argument to the contrary, that issue has been finally disposed of by this court’s appeal decision, and Mr Lindsay may not relitigate that issue in this court. Davies J. made no error in finding that this aspect of Mr Lindsay’s proposed appeals and applications for judicial review lack merit.
Delay
[20] We appreciate that routes of appeal are complicated. Mr Lindsay, as a self-represented litigant, is entitled to assistance from the court in pursuing his rights. If there were no prejudice arising from delay, and if there were arguable merit to the proposed appeals and applications Mr Lindsay wishes to bring, we might be inclined to excuse the delay, even though it has been lengthy (over ten months).
Prejudice
[21] Appeals and applications for judicial review arising from the same decision or related decisions are to be heard and decided together by the same panel of this court: Yatar v. TD Meloche Monnex, 2022 ONCA 446; rev’d on other grounds 2023 17178 (SCC). Mr Lindsay commenced his proceedings in a manner consistent with these principles, and Matheson J. case managed the proceedings with these principles in mind. Mr Lindsay took no steps to appeal or review the decision of Matheson J. and then proceeded to perfect and argue his appeal before a panel of this court. It was only after he had lost his appeal that Mr Lindsay sought to challenge the decision of Matheson J., in his Court of Appeal proceedings. It would be prejudicial to the respondent, and to the orderly administration of justice in this court, to permit Mr Lindsay to, effectively, run a second set of proceedings now, after his appeal was finally disposed of. In these circumstances, we see no error in the finding of Davies J. that the delay weighs against granting an extension.
The Merits
[22] We see no arguable merit to the proposed appeals and applications for judicial review. Appeals from the LTB are only available on questions of law. As noted above, the LTB has no jurisdiction over RGI decisions – there is no merit to Mr Lindsay’s arguments to the contrary. Any issue about whether Mr Lindsay should be granted an extension to challenge the RGI decision would be matters to take up with the administrative decisionmakers for the City of Toronto – and the time to seek to do that is likely long since passed. I appreciate that the accrued arrears bear on Mr Lindsay’s ability to obtain RGI anew, but again, that is a matter to be taken up through the City of Toronto’s processes for RGI. An application for judicial review to this court may be available from a final decision arising from the City’s RGI processes, but that issue is not before this court now.
[23] Mr Lindsay’s other grounds of appeal and judicial review relate to findings of fact made by the LTB. The standard of review of those findings in an application for judicial review is reasonableness. Mr Lindsay’s argument – provided to us in writing in great detail – is that the weight of the evidence does not support the LTB’s conclusions. It is not the function of this court to re-weigh the evidence or make our own fresh determination of the merits. The record below provided a firm factual foundation for the findings made by the LTB and there is no prospect that this court would interfere with them on an application for judicial review.
Delay in Bringing Initial Appeal Proceedings
[24] Matheson J. found that Mr Lindsay’s delay in seeking to appeal or apply for judicial review in respect to LTB decisions from 2022 was excessive and not explained satisfactorily. That delay was over a year; the deadline is thirty days. There is no available argument that Matheson J. made a reviewable error in respect to these findings.
Mootness
[25] Mr Lindsay’s proposed proceedings are now moot except in respect to the calculation of his outstanding rent arrears arising because of his loss of RGI subsidies: that issue is not moot for Mr Lindsay. He advises that, so long as these arrears remain unpaid, he is not eligible for RGI anew.
[26] RGI subsidies are determined in a process administered by the City of Toronto. Appeals and reviews of RGI decisions must be pursued through that process, and not before the LTB. An appeal or review of the RGI decision in this case is not properly before this court, and we have no jurisdiction over that issue. Davies J. made no reviewable error in so concluding, and this finding lies at the heart of the appeal decision. We make no finding as to whether Mr Lindsay may still pursue the City’s RGI process to address the quantum of his outstanding arrears.
The City of Toronto
[27] The City of Toronto was named as a respondent in this review motion. The City was not a party to Mr Lindsay’s appeal or application for judicial review and did not participate in prior steps in this proceeding. In the absence of a court order adding City of Toronto as a party, it is not a proper party to the review motion, and the review motion is dismissed as against the City for that reason.
Disposition
[28] We have some unease about Mr Lindsay’s current situation. Mr Lindsay has been dogmatic in his approach to litigation of his issues, and the net result is that it appears he has not pursued the correct process to correct the quantum of his outstanding arrears. That issue is moot, now, so far as it concerns his eviction. However, Mr Lindsay needs to be able to have the quantum of his arrears addressed on the merits so that he may eliminate those arrears and once again be eligible to seek RGI subsidies. If he wishes to pursue this, his recourse is through the processes established by the City of Toronto, and when the City considers issues of mootness, it should also be taking into account the impact of a quantum of outstanding arrears on future RGI eligibility. So that there is no mistake, these observations are intended as no more than guidance and do not mandate any particular result of a review of Mr Lindsay’s outstanding arrears going forward.
[29] The review motion is dismissed. This is not a case for costs.
“D.L. Corbett J.”
“Varpio J.”
“O’Brien J.”
Released: December 10, 2025
CITATION: Lindsay v. Ecuhome Corp., 2025 ONSC 6744
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 434/23 DATE: 20251210
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT D.L. CORBETT, VARPIO and O’BRIEN JJ.
BETWEEN:
MARK LINDSAY Moving Party
– and –
ECUHOME CORPORATION AND CITY OF TORONTO Responding Party
REASONS FOR DECISION
D.L. Corbett J.
Released: December 10, 2025