CITATION: D’Angelo v. Dahmer, 2026 ONSC 1428
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-1532
(Oshawa) DATE: 20260311
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. Corbett, Shore and M. McArthur J.
BETWEEN:
Annette D’Angelo
Ms D’Angelo, self-represented
Appellant
– and –
Bryan Dahmer
Mr Dahmer, self-represented
Respondent
Anna Solomon and Jonelle van Delft, for the
Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD at Oshawa (by ZOOM):
June 24, 2025
AMENDED REASONS FOR DECISION
The Court
[1] The Appellant landlord, Ms D’Angelo, appeals and seeks judicial review from the order dated December 22, 2023, and the amended order dated February 23, 2024, of Member Harslief of the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) (2023 ONLTB 76473) (the “Hearing Decision”) and the review order of Member Lang dated March 8, 2024 (2024 ONLTB 16424) (the “Review Decision”).
[2] In the Hearing Decision, the LTB dismissed multiple claims made by Ms D’Angelo, and granted an order that (i) Ms D’Angelo pay the respondent tenant, Mr Dahmer, $8,570.80, by January 10, 2024, plus 7% interest thereafter, (ii) Ms D’Angelo permit Mr Dahmer to do various things associated with his tenancy (in respect to parking and use of an outdoor barbecue area), (iii) Ms D’Angelo do certain things in respect to mail and package deliveries to Mr Dahmer, (iv) Ms D’Angelo not do certain things (enter the rental unit in contravention of the Residential Tenancies Act, s. 25, not harass Mr Dahmer verbally or in writing, and not substantially interfere with Mr Dahmer’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit by yelling at Mr Dahmer, calling Mr Dahmer names or personally insulting Mr Dahmer). The LTB also ordered Ms D’Angelo to pay an administrative fine of $1,000 to the LTB by January 10, 2024 (Hearing Decision, pp. 20-21).
[3] In the Review Decision, the LTB was not satisfied that (i) there was a serious error in the Hearing Decision order, (ii) a serious error occurred in the proceedings or (iii) the appellant was not reasonably able to participate in the proceedings. In the result, the LTB confirmed the Hearing Decision (Review Decision, p. 7).
[4] We appreciate that Ms D’Angelo feels very strongly about these issues, but she has not been behaving reasonably about them. With respect, her emotional response to this conflict has clouded her good sense and judgment, both in the adjudication process, and in respect to the underlying conflict.
[5] The LTB found that Ms D’Angelo breached her duties as a landlord by failing to respect the terms of her lease with Mr Dahmer and by interfering with Mr Dahmer’s quiet enjoyment of the leased premises. The LTB also found that the proceedings brought by Ms D’Angelo against Mr Dahmer were part of a pattern of retaliation because Mr Dahmer insisted on his rights under the RTA. These findings were all well supported by the record.
[6] The leased premises are a separate dwelling unit located within Ms D’Angelo’s home. The landlord/tenant relationship endured without material incident from 2017-2021. Once conflict arose, Ms D’Angelo conducted herself much as if Mr Dahmer was an invitee in her home with whom she was displeased. She did things like entering the leased premises 33 times, in violation of the Residential Tenancies Act, purporting to curtail Mr Dahmer’s use of leased outdoor premises, interfering with Mr Dahmer’s parking, and being disruptive about Mr Dahmer’s access to his mail. As the LTB found (amended decision, para. 28):
The Landlord’s comments throughout her testimony also lead me to conclude that her behaviour was retaliatory. The Landlord appeared to have no understanding of her responsibilities under the Act and repeatedly said that the complex is “my house and my property”. The Landlord repeatedly insisted at the hearing that the Tenant should simply leave because she wanted him to leave.
The LTB found that Ms D’Angelo sought to impose an illegal rent increase and then sought to terminate the tenancy under the “own use” provisions of the RTA, without following the process mandated by the RTA for asserting that basis for an eviction. Then, when Mr Dahmer insisted on his rights under the RTA, Ms D’Angelo embarked on a course of harassment, including bringing multiple proceedings against Mr Dahmer under the RTA. The LTB found, as a fact, that these proceedings were retaliatory and dismissed them for that reason. There was a substantial record supporting these findings: certainly there is no basis for this court to interfere with it.
[7] It is understandable that a landlord may feel particularly stressed having a tenant with whom they have conflict, living in such close proximity, and sharing certain spaces such as parking and outdoor areas. For landlords inexperienced with their rights and obligations, the process before the Board may be partly educative. It was clear to the Board, as it was to us during the hearing, that Ms D’Angelo sincerely does not understand what she has done wrong. It has been spelled out for her clearly by the LTB, but the realization – of her obligations and the extent to which she has breached them – has eluded her and eludes her still.
[8] We note Ms D’Angelo’s argument that the entire experience of conflict with Mr Dahmer has had a deleterious effect on her health and aggravated her mental health issues. The drawn-out processes at the LTB were the result of (a) the LTB affording both sides a fair opportunity to prepare and present their cases, (b) regular scheduling constraints faced by the Board, and (c) the parties pursuing multiple and successive complaints against each other, through multiple separate LTB applications, and then quarrelling over a myriad of procedural issues. From the history of this case before the LTB, it is clear that the Board struggled to maintain a balance between a fair process, being responsive to issues and concerns raised by the parties, and getting the case completed in a reasonable period of time. Ms D’Angelo herself bears substantial (though not sole) responsibility for this case getting out of hand before the Board. The fact that the hearing in this case took place over the course of five days bespeaks a lack of proportionality and reasonableness in the way these issues were approached by the parties.
[9] Further, the LTB found as follows in respect to Ms D’Angelo’s mental health issues:
Although the Landlord called her therapist ‘KS’, as a witness at the hearing, KS admitted that the Landlord likely had some form of pre-existing trauma or pre-existing PTSD which may have been triggered by the Tenant’s conduct. In my view, based on the numerous videos I watched of the Landlord, the hundreds of pages of documentary evidence showing the Landlord’s correspondence and the Landlord’s overall demeanour at the hearing, I would take KS’s observations and conclude that the Landlord’s psychological state was more likely than not negatively affected by her perception of the Tenant’s conduct and not the conduct itself.
[10] During oral argument Ms D’Angelo spoke of her past experience with a tenant in the rental premises in her home, and the generally peaceful and successful landlord/tenant arrangement she had with Mr Dahmer until conflict arose in 2021. As the LTB tried to make clear, and as this court put it to Ms D’Angelo in oral argument, even if she is aggrieved by conduct of Mr Dahmer, her recourse may not include breaching her obligations as a landlord. We see no error in law in the LTB’s decision: the LTB cited and applied the correct provisions of the RTA. We likewise see no procedural unfairness: Ms D’Angelo had a reasonable opportunity to present her case. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.
[11] The application for judicial review challenges factual findings of the LTB. The standard of deference applied to those findings is high: an application for judicial review is not a fresh hearing before this court. It is not for this court to conduct its own independent review of the record to decide what findings it would make and then to compare those findings to the findings made by the LTB. Rather, on an application for judicial review, an applicant must show that material factual findings by the LTB were not reasonably available on the record below. This application does not come close to meeting that test: Ms D’Angelo did breach her obligations as a landlord, repeatedly, and before this court she still did not accept what her obligations were.
[12] We also note the pattern of litigation conduct by Ms D’Angelo, which has included multiple applications to the LTB, a claim to the Small Claims Court, and a claim to the Human Rights Tribunal, all arising out of the same events. Pursuing so many proceedings in respect to the same, or overlapping issues, is a sign of vexatiousness. So too was her conduct at the hearing itself:
The hearing lasted 5 days and, although the Tenant routinely exercised his right to object to various issues or pieces of evidence raised by the Landlord, he did not exercise his right unreasonably or contrary to any instructions I had given him. Instead, the Tenant listened to my instructions throughout the hearing and behaved in a calm, patient and respectful and professional manner throughout the hearing. This was despite the fact that the Landlord routinely yelled at him, yelled at me, called the Tenant names and personally insulted the Tenant throughout the hearing.
[13] So too is the Appellant’s claim for costs in this proceeding – a case in which this court would ordinarily award between $2,500 and $10,000 to a successful party represented by counsel. The Appellant asserted a claim for partial indemnity costs of nearly $32,000, including claims for costs for her own time spent on the matter calculated on the basis that she should be considered a law clerk.
[14] We note the administrative penalty of $1,000 imposed by the LTB. We see no error in principle in the award: it meets the goals of specific and general deterrence, and the LTB, faced with a landlord who clearly did not understand or accept the constraints placed on her behaviour by the RTA, reasonably concluded that an administrative penalty ought to be levied. We would not interfere with it.
[15] Finally, we note Ms D’Angelo’s motion for leave to file supplementary materials. We have considered these materials. They do not affect the result. The Board did not rule that Ms D’Angelo’s complaints about Mr Dhamer’s conduct were entirely without merit, but rather, that they were brought as part of a retaliatory campaign. The supplementary materials do not affect our assessment of the merits of the appeal and the application. We would dismiss the appeal and the application for judicial review, with costs fixed at $400, inclusive, payable by Ms D’Angelo to Mr Dahmer within thirty days, with no costs for or against the LTB.
“D.L. Corbett J.”
“Shore J.”
“M. McArthur J.”
Date of Release: March 11, 2026
CITATION: D’Angelo v. Dahmer, 2026 ONSC 1428
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-1532
(Oshawa) DATE: 20260311
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. Corbett J., M. McCarthy and Shore JJ.
BETWEEN:
Annette D’Angleo
Appellant / Applicant
– and –
Bryan Dahmer
Respondent / Respondent
AMENDED REASONS FOR DECISION
D.L. Corbett J.
Date of Release: March 11, 2026