Court File and Parties

Citation: Kaura v. Wasdani, 2026 ONSC 1625 Divisional Court File No.: DC-25-00000407-0000 Date: 2026-03-17 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Mamta Kaura, Appellant And: Kishinchand Poornimawasdani, Michael Stoton, Respondents

Before: L. Brownstone J.

Counsel: Harleen Kaur Juneja, for the Appellant Seema Kawar, for the Respondents

Heard at Toronto: March 17, 2026

Endorsement

[1] The landlord appeals an April 3, 2025, order of the Landlord Tenant Board that found she unlawfully charged the tenants a commission, contrary to s. 134 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17. The LTB ordered the landlord to repay the commissions to the tenants. The LTB dismissed the landlord’s request to review the April 3 order on April 8, 2025.

[2] Under s. 210 of the Act, an appeal lies to the Divisional Court from the LTB on questions of law alone. The standard of review on a question of law is correctness.

[3] The appellant, in its four-page factum and oral argument, raises issues that boil down to its essential objection that the LTB preferred the live evidence of the tenant over an unsworn written statement provided on the landlord’s behalf by Mr. Kumeria, a witness who was not made available to testify.

[4] The appellant submitted that the LTB improperly drew an adverse inference against her for not producing Mr. Kumeria in person. It is unclear why the LTB would not have been entitled to do so. However, I disagree that the LTB proceeded in this way. Rather, the LTB weighed the evidence before it in the form that it was provided by the parties. It made findings of fact based on that evidence. No question of law is raised by the LTB”s weighing of the evidence before it.

[5] The landlord next submitted that the LTB’s reasons are inadequate. Again, I disagree. The LTB explained its reasons adequately. Reasons are not required to be perfect. The reasons explain the bases for the LTB’s findings, which were all rooted in the evidence before it. They explain to the litigants what has been decided and why. They permit meaningful appellate review. There is no legal error.

[6] Third, the landlord submits that the board erred in its treatment of s. 134 of the Act. Specifically, she submits that the LTB erred in finding that Mr. Kumeria, who the LTB found collected the commission on behalf of the landlord, was the landlord’s agent. Because Mr. Kumeria was a licensed real estate agent, there would have been documentary evidence of the agency relationship, had such a relationship existed.

[7] Once more, I disagree. The LTB found, as a matter of fact based on the tenant’s evidence before it, that Mr. Kumeria collected the commission on behalf of the landlord, and that the landlord refused to sign the lease unless the commission was paid. Section 134 prohibits a landlord from collecting additional charges directly or indirectly. The LTB was entitled to accept the tenant’s evidence and find that Mr. Kumeria collected the money on behalf of the landlord, in breach of s. 134. The LTB had supporting evidence for its finding. It made no irrational inferences in coming to its factual conclusion. There is no error of law.

[8] In sum, the LTB considered the evidence and found the tenants had met their burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the landlord had, through Mr. Kumeria, collected a commission in violation of s. 134. In so doing, the LTB did what it was required to do: weigh the evidence and apply the appropriate standard of proof to make findings of fact.

[9] The LTB made no legal error.

[10] The appeal is dismissed.

[11] The tenants seek costs of $1,000. They provided a comprehensive factum in response to the appeal and included materials missing from the landlord’s appeal book. The costs appear to represent a fraction of the work that went into their materials. I find the amount sought to be fair, reasonable, and proportionate.

[12] The landlord shall pay costs of $1,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements to the tenants within 30 days.

L. Brownstone J.

Released: March 17, 2026