Court File and Parties

CITATION: Yeo v. Yu, 2025 ONSC 8975

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO. 188/25

DATE: 2025-10-22

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: DESMOND YEO, Appellant AND: HONG YU, Respondent

BEFORE: Nakatsuru J.

COUNSEL: Self-Represented, Appellant Soumya Roop Sanyal, for the Respondent Sabrina Fiacco, for the Landlord Tenant Board

HEARD at: Toronto, October 15, 2025

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Desmond Yeo did not get a fair hearing when the Landlord Tenant Board (LTB) evicted him for failing to pay his rent to his landlord, Hong Yu, in a timely way. As I will explain, his appeal is allowed, and his case sent back to the LTB for a rehearing.

[2] An important context on this appeal is that both the tenant and the landlord were self-represented at the LTB hearing.

A. BACKGROUND

[3] Mr. Yeo leased a unit in an apartment building from Ms. Yu. He consistently paid his rent later than the first of the month, the date of the payment the lease required. Ms. Yu has also claimed other concerns about his tenancy such as Mr. Yeo illegally using it for short-term rentals, noise and damage, and failing to permit Enbridge Gas entry to check on a safety issue with venting in his apartment.

[4] On January 23, 2024, Ms. Yu served eviction notices on the unit for late payment of rent (N8) and substantial interference (N5) (collectively the “Notices”). When the Notices were served, Mr. Yeo was travelling out of the country and had someone staying at the unit who received the Notices. While residing there, this “friend” stole Mr. Yeo’s identity and credit cards much to Mr. Yeo’s financial detriment. He never told Mr. Yeo about the Notices.

B. THE LTB HEARING DECISION: DECEMBER 27, 2024

[5] As a preliminary matter, the LTB Member found that despite Mr. Yeo not being in the unit when the Notices were served, they were still properly served under s. 191(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (“RTA”). Clause 191(1)(c) allows service by giving a document to an “apparently adult person in the rental unit”.

[6] The Member then found that Mr. Yeo had consistently paid his rent late, including after the N8 was served, and Ms. Yu had reminded him to pay rent on the first of the month at least five times. The Member also found there was no supporting evidence that the landlord was willing to accept late or piecemeal payments. Therefore, the tenancy could be terminated for late payment of rent.

[7] Because the tenancy was terminated for late payment of rent, the Member found it unnecessary to consider the N5 issues.

B. THE REVIEW DECISION: FEBRUARY 13, 2025

[8] Mr. Yeo applied for a review of the LTB hearing decision. The review decision found the LTB hearing Member’s decision’s finding with respect to service of the Notices to be reasonable and entitled to deference.

[9] It also found that the Member in the initial hearing afforded Mr. Yeo a full opportunity to participate in the hearing and did not unreasonably prevent him from admitting evidence, contrary to Mr. Yeo’s submissions.

A. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] The Divisional Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal, but only on a question of law: s. 210(1) of the RTA. This Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an LTB order on a question of fact or mixed fact and law: Ieraci v. Parsons, 2024 ONSC 2013 (Div. Ct.), at para. 45.

[2] Appellate standards apply. The standard of review on questions of law is correctness: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235. The standard of review on questions of procedural fairness in the context of a statutory appeal is also correctness: Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29, 470 D.L.R. (4th) 328, at paras. 27, 30.

B. ANALYSIS

[3] While Mr. Yeo raised other grounds of appeal, only the denial of procedural fairness need be addressed. It arises in a set of rather unique factual circumstances.

[4] At the hearing, when the issue of notice was raised, the Member, contrary to her later released written decision, determined in an oral ruling that the N5 application would not proceed as she found the notice deficient since the initial N5 notice did not come to Mr. Yeo’s attention. The Member’s reasoning for this conclusion does not matter. What matters is, as noted above, she changed her mind before releasing her written decision. As she wrote in her written decision, “upon further reflection upon the law and the parties’ evidence and submissions,” the Member determined that service of the N5 to an adult person in the unit sufficed.

[5] Mr. Yeo rightfully complains that this determination was procedurally unfair as he was given no opportunity to address this before the Member came to a polar opposite view.

[6] Nonetheless, if that was Mr. Yeo’s sole complaint, it would be of little moment on the appeal. The Member ordered eviction on the N8 and did not consider the N5 issue in her decision.

[7] According to s. 134(6) of the Courts of Justice Act, 1990, c. C.43, a "court to which an appeal is taken shall not direct a new trial unless some substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred." This error viewed in isolation would be inconsequential. It did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice sufficient to justify a rehearing.

[8] But that was not the end of it. What matters more is the effect of the Member’s erroneous initial ruling on the N5 notice. Mr. Yeo had provided extensive written submissions to the LTB which incorporated various items of or references to evidence such as communications with the landlord, that he wanted to rely upon in answer to the N5 and N8 issues. Included in that was the incident related to the Enbridge Gas matter.

[9] The facts of the Enbridge Gas matter were the following. On January 18, 2024, while Mr. Yeo was out of the country, his attention was brought to a notice from Enbridge Gas of the same date indicating Mr. Yeo’s gas service had been turned off due to a safety issue regarding the venting of a water heater. The next day, Mr. Yeo notified the landlord by email of the Enbridge Gas notice and demanded immediate attention to the problem and repairs. It was then four days later, on January 23, 2025, that the landlord served the N5 Notice to end the tenancy alleging amongst other things, substantial interference by Mr. Yeo due his “denial of entry for essential safety checks by Enbridge resulting in a safety violation.” The landlord was aware that he was out of the country.

[10] According to Mr. Yeo on this appeal, this close timeline and admission by the landlord of the factual nexus between his complaint to her and the N5 notice raised a foundation for a finding that the eviction proceeding was done in retaliation. On the appeal, the appellant relies upon s. 83(3)(c) of RTA which requires that the LTB refuse to grant eviction orders where the reason for issuing a notice was the tenant was attempting to secure their legal rights: Yundt v. Parker, 2014 ONSC 1805 (Div. Ct.), at para. 22.

[11] In my opinion, the effect of the initial ruling that the Member made during the course of the hearing worked prejudice to Mr. Yeo and rendered his hearing procedurally unfair. Although unintended, the Member by directing the appellant away from the N5 evidence and arguments, did not provide a fair opportunity to Mr Yeo to flesh out this issue.

[12] On more than one occasion, Mr. Yeo was prevented from raising or pursuing this further. At one point, when Mr. Yeo raised before the Member the improper conduct of the landlord including illegal rent increases sought, the Member declared she was not hearing that. At another point, Mr. Yeo responded to the Member that he knew it was not about the N5 but asked that his evidence be looked at to counter the landlord’s references to his improper conduct as a tenant. The Member stated she was not going to do that and that Mr. Yeo should bring his own application.

[13] In her decision, while the Member referred to Mr. Yeo’s personal circumstances under her s. 83 analysis, nowhere is there any reference to this evidence being relevant to s. 83(3)(c). Nor was there any assessment of any arguments underlying this. At least some of the evidence Mr. Yeo had gathered and perhaps wished to testify about with respect to the N5 notice, was relevant and germane to the s. 83(3)(c) issue: Yundt, at paras. 23-25.

[14] I appreciate that Mr. Yeo in his materials and during the LTB hearing made no submissions or references to “retaliation” or s. 83(3)(c). However, that is no answer to the procedural fairness issue. Mr. Yeo was self-represented. Recognition must be given to this circumstance. Moreover, once advised N5 was no longer an issue and he was advised by the Member that she was not entertaining some of the factual matters he attempted to raise, he would understandably be reluctant to press them. Finally, s. 83(3)(c) does not refer to “retaliation” but rather “the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce his or her legal right.” The chronology and the email he sent to the landlord provided a reasonable basis for this.

[15] Even if the evidence did not amount to circumstances warranting mandatory relief under s. 83(3)(c), s. 83(1)(a) requires the LTB to consider “all the circumstances” in determining whether to order eviction. This could capture the evidence he had bundled together under his N5 submissions that Mr. Yeo wanted raised.

[16] Lastly, after taking a big picture view of the actual conduct of the entire hearing that took place before the Member, I take little comfort from that in assessing this ground of appeal. It is clear to me that there was considerable time pressure to get this hearing completed that day. The hearing was only commenced very late in the day. Hearing staff had to leave. Although perhaps to her credit, the Member felt it incumbent to finish the case, I infer that this likely contributed to the perfunctory nature of the treatment of Mr. Yeo’s concerns.

[17] Moreover, there was a terrible internet connection on the LTB end; there is much “indecipherable” in the transcript and the proceedings were regularly interrupted by the technical problems. Frustration with this problem is evident even from the written transcript.

[18] As well, the way the “evidence” and the “submissions” was heard from Mr. Yeo and the landlord was conflated; there was no demarcation between questioning and argument. Parties were giving evidence or submissions or both at the same time during this brief hearing. It is hard to tell.

[19] Finally, there was no actual opportunity to make submissions or arguments given to either party.

[20] Giving full credence to the reality that these hearings must be conducted efficiently and are inherently far less formal than court proceedings, the manner in which this hearing proceeded does not alleviate my concern that Mr. Yeo’s hearing was procedurally unfair.

D. DISPOSITION

[21] The appeal is allowed, and the matter is remitted to the LTB for a rehearing before a different panel member.

[22] To be clear, the Member found that issues raised in the N5 and the N8 were properly before her to be considered. In other words, that the Notices were valid. This finding was never appealed. Thus, the rehearing should include both.

[23] Given all the circumstances including the fact that the appellant provided no bill of costs, this is not an appropriate case for any costs to be awarded.

Nakatsuru J.

Released: October 22, 2025.