[CITATION](http://intra.judicialsecurity.jus.gov.on.ca/NeutralCitation/): Mohammad v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2026 ONSC 809

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 829/25

DATE: 20260210

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: IBRAHIM MOHAMMAD

AND:

LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD and CANADIAN APARTMENT PROPERTIES

BEFORE: Justice O’Brien

COUNSEL: I. Mohammad, Self-Represented

K.A. Ley, counsel for Canadian Apartment Properties

S. Fiacco, counsel for the Landlord and Tenant Board

HEARD: In-writing

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This endorsement provides the court’s response to the notice issued in this matter pursuant to r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.

[2] Mr. Mohammad has brought an application seeking to judicially review an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated October 10, 2025. The Board’s order denied Mr. Mohammad’s request to reschedule a hearing that had been scheduled for October 17, 2025. The Board member stated that a request to reschedule must be on consent. Since it was not on consent, the request was denied. The Board member also considered Mr. Mohammad’s medical documentation but concluded it did not indicate he was unable to attend on the day of the hearing. However, the member stated that Mr. Mohammad could send a representative to the hearing to request an adjournment.

[3] On October 20, 2025, the Board issued another order responding to a request that the hearing be changed from electronic to written to address accommodation needs. The Board was not satisfied that holding an electronic hearing would cause Mr. Mohammad significant prejudice or that he had established accommodation needs that could not be met by an electronic hearing.

[4] Despite the October 10, 2025 order, the Board subsequently sent the parties a “notice of rescheduled video hearing,” which rescheduled the hearing for November 4, 2025. The reasons for this are not clear, but the court has been provided with an e-mail in which a representative of the respondent Canadian Apartment Properties consented to rescheduling the hearing.

[5] On November 10, 2025, the Board issued an order finding Mr. Mohammad’s application was abandoned.

[6] In his notice of application, Mr. Mohammad seeks an order quashing or setting aside the Board’s October 10, 2025 order “for error of law and breach of procedural fairness, including failure to apply the Human Rights Code duty to accommodate and the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 fairness mandate.”

[7] During the case management process, the court issued directions raising the concern that the application may be premature and moot. The court’s November 24, 2025 directions stated:

This is an application for judicial review of the LTB’s interim decision dated October 10, 2025, which denied the applicant’s request to reschedule an October 17, 2025 hearing. Because this is an interim decision, it appears the application is premature. In addition, a letter from counsel for the LTB advises that the LTB revisited the issue and granted the request to reschedule the hearing to a new hearing date of November 4, 2025. The LTB takes the position therefore that the application is moot.

The applicant has provided a copy of the LTB’s November 10, 2025 decision finding his application was abandoned.

The applicant has also written to the court advising the LTB has not respect the court’s stay. However, there is no automatic stay pending an application for judicial review and none has been ordered by the court.

Within 7 days, the applicant is asked to provide his position on whether the application is moot. His response should not be more than two paragraphs. The court will then determine next steps.

[8] The court released further case management directions, together with a notice under r. 2.1, on December 3, 2025 stating:

The applicant has written to the court raising a number of matters. These are not preliminary issues and can be addressed if the applicant brings an application for judicial review or appeal from the LTB’s final decision in his matter. He has also asked for legal advice on how to address a wide range of issues against numerous bodies. Although the court can provide information to assist self-represented litigants, the applicant’s requests fall well outside the scope of appropriate assistance from the court. The applicant is encouraged to seek legal assistance and can review resources available on the following website: https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/guides-and-service-resources/guide-to-representing-yourself/resources-self-rep-div-court/finding-legal-help-and-representation/.

The applicant has not directly addressed the court’s request that he provide his position on whether the application is moot. It appears to be both premature and moot because it is an application seeking judicial review of an interim decision of the LTB that was later revisited. Because of the court’s concern that the application is premature and moot, the registrar is asked to issue a notice pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The applicant will have 15 days to respond to the notice and is asked to address the court’s concern that the application is premature and moot.

It remains open to the applicant to challenge the LTB’s final decision in his matter, which may be the November 10 2025 decision finding that his application was abandoned. The usual way to challenge a decision of the LTB is by way of an appeal, although an application for judicial review is also an available option. Again, the applicant is encouraged to seek legal assistance to determine his next steps. The documents on the following website also may assist with guidance on appeals and applications for judicial review: https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/areas-of-law/divisional-court/help-self-represented/.

[9] Mr. Mohammad filed responding submissions in which he raised concerns about the fairness of the Board as an institution. He also states in his submissions that his concerns are not only with the rescheduled hearing but with “the failure to provide accommodation more broadly.”

[10] It appears to me that although Mr. Mohammad has not followed the correct procedure, and despite the information provided in the court’s directions, he may be seeking to challenge more than the October 10, 2025 Board order. I say this in part because of his submissions in response to the r. 2.1 notice but also because he filed other orders showing how his application was ultimately disposed of by the Board.

[11] I will give Mr. Mohammad a final opportunity to challenge the entirety of the Board’s treatment of his application. He can do this by filing an amended notice of application seeking to challenge additional Board orders addressing the same application before the Board, which could include the October 20, 2025 order and the November 10, 2025 order. If Mr. Mohammad wants to proceed in this manner, he shall file his amended notice of application referencing the additional orders he seeks to challenge with the court within 14 days of receiving this endorsement.

[12] If Mr. Mohammad does not file an amended notice of application within 14 days, counsel for the Board is asked to advise the court of this. The court will then consider whether to dismiss the application as currently drafted under r. 2.1.

O’Brien J

Date: February 10, 2026