Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-CV-22-0068-6094 Date: 2023-03-20 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Rebstock, Plaintiff And: Landlord and Tenant Board, et al., Defendants

Before: Justice Papageorgiou

Counsel: Brian Blumenthal, for the Defendant

Read: March 20, 2023

Endorsement

[1] This motion was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[2] In this action the plaintiff sues the Landlord and Tenant Board, an adjudicator with the Board, Harry Cho and Raymond Honey, and his former landlord.

[3] The plaintiff sues these parties in respect of the Board’s decision made in her absence when she says she advised the Board that she needed more time to respond to the landlord’s application as she has a disability. The decision resulted in the eviction from her rented premises.

[4] On February 27, 2023 I directed the registrar to give notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01(2). The plaintiff did not provide any response within 15 days of this notice.

[5] Rule 2.1.01(1) provides as follows:

The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

[6] As set out in Myers, J.’s decision in Tieguang Gao v. Ontario WSIB and Ontario Ombudsman, 2014 ONSC 6100, motions pursuant to r. 2.1.01(3) are not meant for close calls and decisions pursuant to this rule must be based upon whether the Statement of Claim, on its face is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

[7] On reviewing the Statement of Claim forwarded by the Registrar, I am dismissing the plaintiff’s action is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process for the following reasons.

[8] The Landlord and Tenant Board is not a suable entity. The Landlord and Tenant Board is a statutory body exercising quasi-judicial functions. As such, it lacks the legal status and capacity to be sued for actions taken in carrying out those function: Raba v. Landlord and Tenant Board, 2014 ONSC 2599 at paras 5-11, aff’d 2014 ONCA 864; Raba v. Wronecki, 2015 ONSC 20 at paras 32-34.

[9] The defendant Harry Cho is an adjudicator, and the principles of adjudicative immunity are applicable.

[10] Further, the Landlord and Tenant Board had jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s dispute with the landlord. Having made a finding in favour of the landlord, there is no possible cause of action in respect of the same matter as against the landlord. The plaintiff’s remedy was to pursue an appeal or reconsideration request with the Landlord and Tenant Board if she did not agree, or bring an application for judicial review, not bring a civil action in respect of the same issue.

Justice Papageorgiou Date: March 20, 2023