Blog

Why you should hire an Ontario Paralegal?

Paralegals are more affordable than lawyers 

 

In most cases paralegals charge less then lawyers for the same work. In some cases senior paralegals – who been doing this work for more than twenty years, have rates competitive with a junior lawyer who is still learning.

 

Paralegals are qualified and licensed

 

In 2008 licensing of paralegals began. Paralegals were licensed by what was then called the Law Society of Upper Canada. It is now called the Law Society of Ontario. This is the same organization that has regulated lawyers since 1797.

 

In 2008 those of us paralegals who were practicing for at least 3 years, and who met all the licensing requirements including being of good character were grandfathered in. We had to write a licensing exam based on legal ethics, professionalism, and practice management.

 

In the years since over 30 Ontario college campuses have been accredited by the Law Society of Ontario to be able to teach the approved paralegal course. Passing an accredited college course is now a pre-requisite to writing the paralegal licensing exam. Students must also complete a mandatory  unpaid internship.

 

In 2015, the paralegal licensing exam become more rigorous. It is now a seven hour exam. The exam now covers virtually every course and every area of permitted paralegal scope of practice, plus it still tests students on legal ethics, professionalism, and practice management.

 

Most paralegals specialize in representing in only certain courts or tribunals

The law is complex and ever changing. There is too much law for any one person to know everything. Most paralegals only represent people in a few courts or tribunals. Those of us with years of experience become experts in the court or tribunals we appear in.

 

Many paralegals belong to a professional association whose work is vital to the profession

 

Many paralegals belong to the Ontario Paralegal Association. I belong to the Ontario Paralegal Association. This paralegal association is focused on advancing the profession, lobbying the government and the Law Society, and providing continuing legal education course to its paralegal members. Before hiring a paralegal to represent you, I suggest you ask whether they are a member of any professional associations.

 

Paralegals carry errors and omissions insurance to protect you

 

If the paralegal you hire is negligent, and as a result you lose money, you can sue the paralegal knowing they are required to carry insurance to protect you – the client. Every practicing paralegal is required to carry insurance with a million coverage per claim, two million dollars total.

 

If you represent yourself and you make an error, you must bear the cost of that error.

 

Paralegals pay into a compensation fund

 

The Law Society of Ontario administers a compensation fund to protect the public against a potential dishonest paralegal; one who steals the money you have provided them in advance for fees or money received in their trust account as a settlement. To my knowledge, in the over ten years since paralegals have been regulated; I am unaware of a single claim made to the paralegal compensation fund.

 

Paralegals are required to abide by rules and by-laws intended to protect the public

 

The Law Society of Ontario will investigate every complaint made against a paralegal– at no charge to you. There are a range of possible outcomes. In the most serious cases where a paralegal has been found to have violated the rules they could be fined, suspended from practicing, or have their license to practice as a paralegal revoked. Contact the Law Society of Ontario for more information.

 

If you are in Toronto or the GTA and you need to hire a paralegal for Small Claims Court representation or Landlord and Tenant Board representation, contact Marshall Yarmus of Civil Litigations at 416-229-1479 or visit www.civilparalegal.com

 

Common Landlord and Tenant Myths Part 3

 

The Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) only applies if you have a written lease

Myth: A tenancy agreement in Ontario Canada can be written, oral, or implied. Landlord and Tenant statutory rights and obligations under the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act are the same regardless of the form of the agreement.

 

 Landlords can include a “not pet” provision in the lease

Myth: A no pet provision in a lease is void. Section 14 of the Residential Tenancies Act states:

No pet” provisions void                       

14 A provision in a tenancy agreement prohibiting the presence of animals in or about the residential complex is void.  2006, c. 17, s. 14.”

However, case law dealing with condominiums have found otherwise. If the tenant lives in a condominium, the landlord must provide the tenant a copy of the condominium corporation’s declarations and by-laws. If the condominium corporation has made a declaration or by-law that there are no pets allowed in the entire building that may be enforceable against a tenant as it is against ever unit owner in the building.

 

 A landlord can arbitrarily refuse the subletting or assignment of a tenancy

 

Myth: The RTA permits a tenant to sublet or assign their lease. The tenant must request permission from the landlord to do so; however the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse the sublet or assignment request.

 

These terms subtenant and subletting are often misused by landlords and tenants in Ontario. Section 2(2) of the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) defines subletting as:

 

2(2) For the purposes of this Act, a reference to subletting a rental unit refers to the situation in which,

(a) the tenant vacates the rental unit;

(b) the tenant gives one or more other persons the right to occupy the rental unit for a term ending on a specified date before the end of the tenant’s term or period; and

(c) the tenant has the right to resume occupancy of the rental unit after that specified date.  2006, c. 17, s. 2 (2).

 

Section 97(4) and (5) of the RTA state:

 

Consequences of subletting

(4) If a tenant has sublet a rental unit to another person,

(a) the tenant remains entitled to the benefits, and is liable to the landlord for the breaches, of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement or this Act during the subtenancy; and

(b) the subtenant is entitled to the benefits, and is liable to the tenant for the breaches, of the subtenant’s obligations under the subletting agreement or this Act during the subtenancy.  2006, c. 17, s. 97 (4).

Overholding subtenant

(5) A subtenant has no right to occupy the rental unit after the end of the subtenancy.  2006, c. 17, s. 97 (5).

 

 

If the landlord rented the apartment with an “As is” clause in the lease the tenant cannot complain about maintenance issues which existed before they moved in.

 

Myth: Section 3 of the RTA states the act applies despite any waiver or agreement to the contrary.  Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTA state:

 

“Landlord’s responsibility to repair

20 (1) A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.  2006, c. 17, s. 20 (1).

Same

(2) Subsection (1) applies even if the tenant was aware of a state of non-repair or a contravention of a standard before entering into the tenancy agreement.  2006, c. 17, s. 20 (2).

 

 

The Human Rights Code does not apply to Ontario tenancies covered by the Residential Tenancies Act

 

Myth: Every landlord has a duty to accommodate a tenant’s code related ground, such as a disability, to the point of undue hardship. To do so the tenant must advise the landlord of disability, and seek accommodation from the landlord.

 

Even if the tenant does not tell the landlord about the disability, the landlord cannot be willfully blind. If a disability is obvious, the landlord will be considered to have constructive knowledge of it and therefore should have attempted to address the issue with the tenant prior to taking steps to evict the tenant.

 

Landlord’s obligations to accommodate under the Human Rights Code are complicated. This is just an overview of the law.

 

See Landlord and Tenant Board Interpretation Guideline 17 for more information.

 

Interpretation Guideline 17 states in part:

 

Relief from eviction

In Walmer Developments v. Wolch15 the Divisional Court held that the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (now the Board) must consider and apply the Code when exercising its authority to grant relief from eviction. A Member considers such relief pursuant to section 83 of the RTA. Section 83 states that the Member must have regard to all the circumstances to determine whether it would be unfair to refuse the landlord’s eviction application or postpone the enforcement of the eviction order.

If the Member determines that the landlord has failed to accommodate a tenant covered by one or more of the categories contained in subsection 2(1) of the Code up to the point of undue hardship, the Member must consider relief from eviction in accordance with clause (a) of subsection 83(1) of the RTA. However, even if relief is granted, the Member may still consider whether other types of conditions and requirements should be ordered to address the conduct or problem at issue. The authority to make such orders comes from subsection 204(1) of the RTA.

 

 

My lease has expired. My tenancy is now on a month to month basis. Terms of the expired written lease no longer apply

 

Myth: At the expiry of a written lease the tenancy continues on a month to month basis indefinitely on the same terms and conditions contained in the written lease. Evictions based on behavior of the tenant that are contrary to the written lease can still be the subject of an eviction application to the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

 

Landlord and tenant applications to the LTB can be complicated. Even cases that start out as straight forward can become complicated at a hearing. Whether you are a landlord or a tenant bringing or defending an application at the Landlord and Tenant Board your best weapon to hire an experienced licensed, trained, and insured Paralegal Ontario.

 

If you are in Toronto or the GTA and you need to hire a paralegal, contact Marshall Yarmus of Civil Litigations at 416-229-1479 or visit https://civilparalegal.com/home_services/landlord-and-tenant-board/ 

Landlord and Tenant Board

Eviction For Persistent Late Payment of Rent

The Landlord and Tenant Board sees lots of N8 Persistent Late Payment of Rent applications. Most self-represented landlords think they will get an eviction order as a result of this L2 application based on an N8. Chances are they will not.

An N8 notice can be served with at least 60 days notice at the end of a lease term or served on a month to month term. The notice must be properly completed so that the tenant knows the case she has to meet.

The board may dismiss the application if the N8 notice fails to give enough details. See Ball v. Metro Capital Property, [2002] O.J. No. 5931 (Div Ct.)
An application is filled with board under section 58(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act. The RTA states:

58 (1) A landlord may give a tenant notice of termination of their tenancy on any of the following grounds:

  1. The tenant has persistently failed to pay rent on the date it becomes due and payable.

How many times is the tenant required to pay rent late to bring this application? As you can see there is no definition in the RTA of how many late payments constitute persistent late payment of rent.

Landlords are encouraged to serve an N4 every time the rent is late. These N4s can be used as evidence in a Persistent Late Payment of Rent application.

In TEL-80574-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 94082 (ON LTB) the board found that rent paid late nine of the last 11 months constitutes Persistent Late Payment of Rent.

In TEL-78434-17-RV (Re), 2017 CanLII 60063 (ON LTB) the board found:

5.     The Tenant has also been persistently late paying the rent. Since July of 2016 the Tenant has never paid rent on time and in full. Between September of 2016 and March of 2017 she was continuously in arrears. The Rent Bank cleared the arrears then owing on March 28, 2017. Since then new arrears have accumulated.

  1. 17.  An order shall issue terminating the tenancy on May 31, 2017 pursuant to the notice of termination for persistent late payment of rent.”

 

Eviction is supposed to be the last resort to deal with applications. Board adjudicators are reluctant to evict a tenant on a first Persistent Late Payment of Rent application.

The typical order the LTB will make on a persistent Late Payment application is to order the tenant to pay rent on the first business day of the month for the next 12 months. If the tenant makes all the payments, then no problem and the tenancy will continue. However, if the tenant fails to pay the rent in full and on time, the landlord can come back to the board without notice to the tenant to seek an eviction based on a single default of the order.
The Landlord and Tenant Board Interpretation Guideline 7 gives some information of discretionary refusal of an eviction due to an N8 Persistent Late Payment of Rent. Guideline 7 reads in part:

“Circumstances Justifying Discretionary Refusal

“ In a case of persistent late payment of rent, the tenant had financial problems when he became unemployed, but for months since he found another job, payment has been right on time. The eviction may be refused despite the earlier months of late payments, due to the tenant’s good conduct. In such circumstances, the Member may order that on-time rent payments are to be made, by the tenant to the landlord, for a specified number of months following the hearing.

A tenant is not excused from paying rent even if the landlord has greater financial resources (e.g., a public agency or large corporate landlord). Other relevant factors may include whether the current reason for eviction has been repeated, the impact this tenant is having on the landlord or other tenants, whether the tenant has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate the reason for the eviction, and other indications of good faith on the part of either the landlord or the tenant.”

 

A non-payment of rent notice is voidable by the tenant paying all the rent that is owed. A persistent late payment of rent notice N8 is not voidable. Once served, the tenant cannot fix their behaviour to avoid an L2 eviction application and a Notice of Hearing.

Hearings at the Landlord and Tenant Board can be complicated. This is especially true if you are not familiar with the forms, applications, rules of the Landlord and Tenant Board, the board’s Interpretation Guidelines, case law, and evidence necessary to win your case.

If you need representation at the Landlord and Tenant Board I encourage you to hire an experienced licensed paralegal Ontario.

If you are in Toronto or the GTA and require the services of an experienced licensed paralegal, please contact Marshall Yarmus of Civil Litigations at 416-229-1479 or visit   https://civilparalegal.com/home_services/landlord-and-tenant-board/

 

How do you evict your tenant for seriously interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of other tenants or seriously interfering with the landlord’s lawful rights?

Typically, an N5 form is served on the tenant for certain types of bad conduct issues. In the notice the landlord alleges the tenant is seriously and substantially interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of another tenant or seriously and substantially interfering with the landlord’s lawful rights, privileges and interests.

Conduct issues that may disturb other tenants include but are not limited to: making too much noise, smoking cigarettes or marijuana, odours emanating from the apartment, etc.

There is also conduct that substantially violates a landlord’s lawful rights, interest or privileges. These include, but are not limited to breaching a lease term that significantly affects the landlord’s rights. The lease term violated must be an enforceable lease term; one that is not contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). Many leases contain illegal terms that the Landlord and Tenant Board will not enforce.

An N5 notice can be served on the tenant(s) in accordance with section 64(1(2)(3)) of the Residential Tenancies Act. The RTA states:

 

64 (1) A landlord may give a tenant notice of termination of the tenancy if the conduct of the tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted in the residential complex by the tenant is such that it substantially interferes with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex for all usual purposes by the landlord or another tenant or substantially interferes with another lawful right, privilege or interest of the landlord or another tenant.

Notice

(2) A notice of termination under subsection (1) shall,

(a) provide a termination date not earlier than the 20th day after the notice is given;

(b) set out the grounds for termination; and

(c) require the tenant, within seven days, to stop the conduct or activity or correct the omission set out in the notice.  2006, c. 17, s. 64 (2).

Notice void if tenant complies

(3) The notice of termination under subsection (1) is void if the tenant, within seven days after receiving the notice, stops the conduct or activity or corrects the omission.”

 

 

A first N5 notice is served on the tenant. They then have seven days to stop the bad behavior. If the notice is served on the tenant by mail, then they have twelve days to stop the activity. If they stop the bad activity during the seven or twelve day period that is the basis for the N5, then there cannot be an eviction application to the Landlord Tenant Board Ontario.

If the tenant does not stop the bad behavior within seven days, then the landlord can apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for an eviction order.

However, if the tenant did stop the activity within seven days, but starts up doing the same bad behavior within six months, the landlord may serve a second N5 notice to the tenant. Once served, the landlord can immediately apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for an eviction order.

Common Errors made by self represented landlords in preparing the N5 notice include: not serving the notice(s) correctly in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act and its rules, not proving enough details in the N5 in violation of the principals set out in the important Divisional Court case of Ball v. Metro Capital, failing to count the days properly, failing to fully and properly identify the rental unit. These errors can be fatal to the landlord’s case. If the board determines the notice was prepared improperly, the board will not issue an eviction order. See the Landlord and Tenant Board’s Interpretation Guideline #10 for more information.

It is important to obtain the legal representation of a paralegal Ontario early.

The majority of people who come in to see me for a consultation have an N5s that was prepared incorrectly.  When representing a tenant, I seek to have the application dismissed on that basis alone. When I represent a landlord, I urge them to have me re-do and re-serve the N5 properly, or face the likely outcome of their application being dismissed.

At the hearing of an L2 application based on an N5 notice, the landlord must prove the contents of their notice(s).  This often means calling another tenant, property manager, superintendent or other person to testify at the hearing. When in doubt whether the witness will testify voluntarily, a Summons should be issued and served on that person.

I started the article by stating typically an N5 notice is given to the tenant for bad behavior. However, if the building contains three units or less the landlord may choose to use an N7 form instead.

Section 65(1)(2)(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act states:

 

65 (1) Despite section 64, a landlord who resides in a building containing not more than three residential units may give a tenant of a rental unit in the building notice of termination of the tenancy that provides a termination date not earlier than the 10th day after the notice is given if the conduct of the tenant, another occupant of the rental unit or a person permitted in the building by the tenant is such that it substantially interferes with the reasonable enjoyment of the building for all usual purposes by the landlord or substantially interferes with another lawful right, privilege or interest of the landlord.  2006, c. 17, s. 65 (1).

(2) A notice of termination under this section shall set out the grounds for termination.  2006, c. 17, s. 65 (2).

Non-application of s. 64 (2) and (3)

(3) Subsections 64 (2) and (3) do not apply to a notice given under this section.  2006, c. 17, s. 65 (3).

 

There are two main benefits of a landlord using an N7 LTB notice, if applicable, over the N5 form. First, the tenant is not given a period of time to stop the bad behavior.

Secondly, a landlord can apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board immediately after serving the N7 notice on the tenant. There is no required waiting period as there is with an N5 form.

With so much on the line for both landlords and tenants in these types of notices and applications, it would be wise to obtain the representation of an experienced Ontario licensed paralegal to represent you.

If you are in Toronto or the GTA and you require representation, please contact Marshall Yarmus of Civil Litigations at 416-229-1479 or visit our website at https://www.civilparalegal.com/home_services/landlord-and-tenant-board/

 

 

 

Common Landlord and Tenant Ontario Myths Part 2

A landlord can demand post-dates cheques from a tenant if it is a term in the lease.

Myth: Section 108 of the Residential Tenancies Act prevents a landlord from demanding post-dated cheques or having such a clause in a lease. A tenant may voluntarily provide post-dated cheques to the landlord if it is for the tenant’s convenience.

Section 3 of the RTA makes a clause in a lease which is contrary to the RTA void and unenforceable.

A landlord does not need a reason to evict a tenant.

Myth: A landlord may only evict a tenant where the Residential Tenancies Act applies for one of the reasons set out in the Residential Tenancies Act. The Landlord and Tenant Board has a brochure titled “How a Landlord can Evict a Tenant.” This sets out the various types of eviction applications. Here is the link:

http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/documents/ltb/Brochures/How%20a%20Landlord%20Can%20End%20a%20Tenancy%20(EN).pdf 

The tenant is properly given 24 hours written notice by the landlord to enter the apartment for one of the reasons permitted under the act. Despite this, the tenant refuses to allow the landlord to enter the apartment. There is nothing the landlord can do.

Myth: First and foremost, the landlord should contact the Rental Enforcement Unit. This is part of the Ministry of Housing. There is no cost to file a complaint with them. The Rental Enforcement Unit will take steps to try to resolve the issue. If that fails, the Rental Enforcement Unit can investigate and prosecute. If convicted of an offence under the Act, the penalty is a fine of up to $25,000 for an individual and up to $100,000 for a corporation.

Contact the Rental Enforcement Unit at:
Telephone: 416-585-7214
Toll-free telephone: 1-888-772-9277
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/page142.aspx

A lease can require that a tenant cut the grass or shovel snow.

Myth: Section 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act requires the landlord to keep the building and the residential unit in a good state of repair, and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.
Cutting grass and shoveling snow are maintenance obligations that are solely that of the landlord.

Section 3 of the Residential Tenancies Act states the act applies despite any agreement to the contrary.

A tenant can demand that a landlord use the last month’s rent deposit at any time to cover arrears of rent.

Myth: Section 105(10) of the Residential Tenancies Act makes it mandatory that a last month’s rent deposit can only be applied to the last month the tenant lives there.

Do you need help determining myth from fact? If you are a landlord or a tenant that needs representation at a Landlord and Tenant Board hearing in Toronto and the GTA contact Marshall Yarmus of Civil Litigations at 416-229-1479 or  https://www.civilparalegal.com/home_services/landlord-and-tenant-board/ 

COMMON LANDLORD AND TENANT MYTHS IN ONTARIO PART 1

A landlord cannot evict a tenant in the winter

Myth: Tenants can be evicted at any time if the year. If the Residential Tenancies Act applies only the sheriff  can evict and force a tenant out. The sheriff will not act until the landlord has obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

All residential tenancies in Ontario are covered by the Residential Tenancies Act.

Myth: Section 5 of the RTA lists many situations where the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply.

A tenant is permitted to withhold rent if the landlord has not done repairs.

Myth: Tenants are never permitted to withhold rent.

A tenant can be required to pay all or part of the cost of repairs if the lease contains that clause.

Myth: Section 20 of the RTA makes the landlord solely responsible for repairs to the apartment and residential unit due to normal wear and tear. A landlord is further required to meet all health and safety laws. Section 3 of the RTA states that a provision of a tenancy agreement that contradicts the RTA is void.

Section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act makes a tenant liable for repairs only if the landlord can prove the tenant or someone the tenant allowed in the apartment willfully or negligently caused damage to the apartment.

The tenant must vacate the apartment at the end of a lease term.

Myth: Section 37 of the RTA states that at the end of a lease term the tenancy automatically renews on the same terms. If rent is paid monthly, the tenancy becomes month to month. A tenant is permitted to stay in the apartment as long as they want. A tenancy can only be terminated if the tenant gives the landlord notice to vacate, the landlord and tenant agree to terminate the tenancy, or the Landlord and Tenant Board makes an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant.

The landlord can prevent the tenant from having overnight guests if that is a term of the lease

Myth: A landlord is not permitted to stop a tenant from having overnight guests.

The landlord can restrict the people living in the apartment to the people named in the lease.

A landlord is not able to restrict the number of people living in an apartment or state that only people named in the lease may live there. However, there are a couple exceptions.

The tenant cannot have more people living in the apartment then the municipal by-law permits. This is considered overcrowding.
The tenant cannot sublease or assign the tenancy without seeking the consent of the landlord.

Do you need help with a case before the Landlord and Tenant Board? If you are in Toronto or the GTA contact Marshall Yarmus of Civil Litigations at 416-229-1479 or  https://civilparalegal.com/home_services/landlord-and-tenant-board/ 

Eviction at the LTB for Landlord’s or Purchaser’s Own Use

There seems to be more of these applications being filed with the Landlord and Tenant Board lately.

At a minimum a contributing factor is the Wynne Government’s Rental Fairness Act which eliminated the landlord’s right to substantially increase the rent at the end of a lease on condos and other properties built after 1991.  The Renal Fairness Act also eliminated above guideline rent increases for higher electricity bills. The act failed to permit above guideline rent increases when condo maintenance fees increase substantially.

The real question is are these landlords and purchaser bringing applications to evict as they genuinely in good faith plan to move in or have an immediate family member move in and live there for at least a year, or is it a just a no fault eviction method so the landlord can increase the rent to market rate for a new tenant moving in?

Perhaps landlords and purchasers are unaware or willing to take the risk that a tenant will bring a T5 application later claiming the landlord or purchaser served them an N12 notice in bad faith and evicted then.

The law was changed to make it easier for a tenant to prove bad faith. The onus shifts to the landlord to prove the notice was not given in bad faith if the former tenant can prove the landlord did any of the following:

(a) advertises the rental unit for rent;

(b) enters into a tenancy agreement in respect of the rental unit with someone other than the former tenant;

(c) advertises the rental unit, or the building that contains the rental unit, for sale;

(d) demolishes the rental unit or the building containing the rental unit; or

(e) takes any step to convert the rental unit, or the building containing the rental unit, to use for a purpose other than residential premises.

 

Evictions for landlord’s own use or purchaser’s own use are governed by the Residential Tenancies Act, applicable case law, and Landlord and Tenant Board Interpretation Guideline #12.

A landlord’s own use application starts with serving an N12 notice correctly and giving the proper amount of notice. If a notice is served by mail it is deemed served five days after mailing.

An L2 application can be filed with the LTB starting the day after service of the N12. It makes sense to issue the application immediately. The person who plans to move in must swear out an affidavit that they in good faith require the property for their own use and plan to live there for at least a year.

Tenants often dispute the landlord or purchaser’s good faith intention. Therefore, I request from
my clients the person who plans to move in attend the hearing and testify.
The test of good faith is whether the Landlord has a genuine intention to occupy the rental unit for his own use (Salter v Beljinac 2001 CanLII 40231 (ON SCDC), [2001] O.J. No. 2792 Div Ct)
A landlord who is bringing this type of application is required to pay the tenant the equivalent of one month’s rent as compensation for bringing this application. The compensation must be paid before the termination date set out in the N12, and before the hearing, or the board will not grant an eviction order.

A purchaser bringing an own use application is not required to pay compensation.

A purchaser must at a minimum produce a valid Agreement of Purchase and Sale at the hearing.

In file TNL-03124-18, http://canlii.ca/t/hsp9n the board refused to grant an eviction when the compensation was paid after the termination date.  This decision was upheld on review.
Another change that came into effect in 2017, is that no longer can a corporation – even with a single shareholder – bring a landlord’s own use application.

The tenant may also seek relief from eviction under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Section 83(1) requires the board on every eviction application to decide based on all the circumstances of the parties whether it would be fair to delay or deny an eviction.

Section 83(3) makes it mandatory for the board to refuse an eviction if the tenant proves any of the following:

a)the landlord is in serious breach of the landlord’s responsibilities under this Act or of any material covenant in the tenancy agreement;

(b) the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has complained to a governmental authority of the landlord’s violation of a law dealing with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards;

(c) the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce his or her legal rights;

(d) the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant is a member of a tenants’ association or is attempting to organize such an association; or

(e) the reason for the application being brought is that the rental unit is occupied by children and the occupation by the children does not constitute overcrowding.

Both landlords and tenants risk a lot in asking the board adjudicator also called a member to make a decision.

Mediation services are available at the board if both parties are willing to come to a compromise such as an agreed extension of the time before the tenant has to vacate, or the landlord paying the tenant more money than the landlord is required to pay as compensation to bring this application.

With so much on the line for both landlords and tenants in this process, it would be wise to obtain the representation of an experienced licensed paralegal to represent you.

If you are in Toronto or the GTA and you require representation, please contact Marshall Yarmus of Civil Litigations at 416-229-1479 or visit our website at https://www.civilparalegal.com/home_services/landlord-and-tenant-board/

Crisis at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB)

 

October 11, 2018

Caroline Mulroney
Attorney General
Ministry of the Attorney General
McMurtry-Scott Building
720 Bay Street, 11th Floor
Toronto, ON
M7A 2S9
caroline.mulroney@pc.ola.org

Steve Clark
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Toronto
ON
M5G 2E5
steve.clark@pc.ola.org

Doug Ford
Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Room 281
Legislative Building, Queen’s Park
Premier’s Office
Toronto
ON
M7A 1A1
doug.ford@pc.ola.org

This letter focuses on the crisis currently at the Landlord and Tenant Board with a shortage of staff members to process applications, and a shortage of adjudicators to decide cases.

There are many problems with the Residential Tenancies Act. That will be the subject of another letter on another day.
A new Landlord and Tenant Board procedure effective September 17, 2018 is to have board staff process applications in the order they were received, regardless whether they were delivered in person, by fax, by mail or courier.
This new measure is a direct result of a shortage of board staff.
I have a combined L1/L2 application which cannot be uploaded online. It was faxed to the Toronto North board location on September 28, 2018. I am told by an email from the board that the applications received that day may be processed sometime this week.

There is also and just as important a severe shortage of adjudicators who are also known as board members. It is actually the Ministry of the Attorney General who renews board member appointments and appoints new board members.

Over the last several months many board members have either left the LTB for another position, some have had their appointment expire without being renewed, and one has died. There has not been any board adjudicators appointed as replacements.

Applications are brought to the Landlord and Tenant Board by both landlords and tenants. This is an access to justice issue for both landlords and tenants when one has to wait several months from when the application is processed until the hearing date.
Many small landlords are feeling financial pressures as they are unable to evict tenants who are not paying their rent in a timely manner. The purpose of the Landlord and Tenant Board is to adjudicate landlord and tenant disputes in a timely manner.

An October 6, 2018 North Bay Nugget article https://www.nugget.ca/news/local-news/no-adjudicators-for-landlord-tenant-board-disputes-resolved-over-the-phone advises that there are “no adjudicators from Bracebridge to Hudson Bay.” All in person hearings are being cancelled. All hearings will take place by telephone conference call.”….. “Wilson believes the 5 1/2 month wait time for a hearing will get longer, forcing landlords to take action on their own.”

A CBC article dated September 20, 2018, quotes a board spokesperson on the shortage of adjudicators. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/landlord-tenant-board-adjudicators-1.4830467
“(A) board spokeswoman said via email that the board’s full complement of full-time adjudicators is 45; currently, there are 35 full-time adjudicators working.

Further, there are seven part-time adjudicators available, while the board would normally have eight to 10.

The shortage is affecting all regions of Ontario, and is due to recent resignations, the statement reads.”

We need solutions now. I urge you to immediately hire more staff members and appoint more adjudicators province wide.

Should you require more information, please contact me.

Yours truly,

Marshall Yarmus
Civil Litigations

c: Suze Morrison
NDP, Critic, Housing
Queen’s Park
Room 345
Main Legislative Building, Queen’s Park
Toronto
ON
M7A 1A5
SMorrison-QP@ndp.on.ca

Sara Singh
NDP Critic, Attorney General
Queen’s Park
Room 331
Main Legislative Building, Queen’s Park
Toronto
ON
M7A 1A8
SSingh-QP@ndp.on.ca

My MPP
Stan Cho (Willowdale)
111 Sheppard Avenue West
North York
ON
M2N 1M7
stan.cho@pc.ola.org

What is the Limitation Period to sue in Small Claims Court?

How long do I have to sue? The answer to that and most questions dealing with the law is….it depends.

There are two limitation acts in Ontario. They are the Limitations Act, 2002, and the Real Property Limitations Act.

Let’s focus on the Limitations Act, 2002. This act has many sections dealing with different types of claims from claims by minors and people who are not mentally competent to claims that have no limitation period

The basic limitation period is set out in section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002. It states:

  1. Unless this Act provides otherwise, a proceeding shall not be commenced in respect of a claim after the second anniversary of the day on which the claim was discovered.”

Section 5(1)(2) sets out when a claim is discovered.
(1) A claim is discovered on the earlier of,

(a) the day on which the person with the claim first knew,

(i) that the injury, loss or damage had occurred,

(ii) that the injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission,

(iii) that the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is made, and

(iv) that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy it; and

(b) the day on which a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the person with the claim first ought to have known of the matters referred to in clause (a).

Presumption

(2) A person with a claim shall be presumed to have known of the matters referred to in clause (1) (a) on the day the act or omission on which the claim is based took place, unless the contrary is proved..

 

In some cases pinpointing when the Plaintiff knew or when a reasonable person ought to have discovered a cause of action is complex.

A thorough review of relevant case law is required.

Other types of claims found in the Limitations Act, 2002 include claims regarding acknowledgement of liability. This is set out in section 13 of the act.

Section 13(1) and 13(10) state:

13 (1) If a person acknowledges liability in respect of a claim for payment of a liquidated sum, the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a charge on personal property or relief from enforcement of a charge on personal property, the act or omission on which the claim is based shall be deemed to have taken place on the day on which the acknowledgment was made.”

“13 (10)  Subsections (1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) do not apply unless the acknowledgment is in writing and signed by the person making it or the person’s agent.
If a person acknowledges a debt in writing, the limitations clock stats over. Interestingly, there is a lot of case law concerning whether an email can be an acknowledgement in writing.

There are a number of types of actions that have no limitation period at all. One such action is the enforcement of a judgment.

Section 16(1)(b) states:

16 (1) There is no limitation period in respect of,

(b) a proceeding to enforce an order of a court, or any other order that may be enforced in the same way as an order of a court

That means a money judgment obtained after January 1, 2004 never expires. There are many other types of claims under section 16 that have no limitation period at all.

Section 19 has a schedule of fourth-six (46) different acts where the Limitations Act, 2002 does not apply. To find the limitation period for causes of action mentioned in section 19 you need to look to the specific acts and section numbers mentioned

Section19 includes certain sections of the Insurance Act, Corporations Act, Creditors’ Relief Act, 2010, Business Corporations Act, Business Practices Act, and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act to name just a few.

I have talked about Rule 12.02 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court in another blog.

A motion can be brought under rule 12.02 in the small claims court Ontario to strike out a Plaintiff’s if, as a matter of law, it is plain and obvious the limitation period for the Plaintiff to have sued expired before the litigation commenced.

Determining the proper limitation period can be difficult. A mistake can be costly. If in doubt, hire a licensed paralegal Ontario for assistance. All Ontario licensed paralegals are required to carry errors and omissions insurance. If a paralegal makes a mistake that costs you the case, you can be assured you are protected.

Do you need help representation with a small claims court action? In the GTA contact Marshall Yarmus of Civil Litigations at 416-229-1479 or visit  https://www.civilparalegal.com/home_services/small-claims-court/ Put our 22 years of experience to work for you.

When to Use a Request to Review

A Request to Review is used when a party to the action believes that either:

a) the board member made a serious error in the order.
b) a party was not able to reasonably participate in the hearing.

Landlord Tenant Board Ontario Rule 29 and Interpretation Guideline 8 deal with Requests to Review.
“A review is not an appeal or an opportunity to change the way a case was presented. The purpose of the review process is not to provide parties with an opportunity of presenting a better or different case than they did at first instance.”

A Request to Review must be filed within 30 days of the original order. If it is not filed on time, a party may request that the board extend the time to make the request.

If a Vice-Chair of the LTB believes upon reading the Request to Review that there may be a serious error or that a party was unable to participate in the hearing, they will order a hearing be scheduled.

If the Vice-Chair is not convinced that a serious error may have occurred or a party was not able to attend the hearing they will dismiss the request without a hearing.

At a review hearing the party who requested the review must first convince the member of the serious error or valid reason why they failed to attend the hearing.

If the requestor is unable to convince the member then the review will be dismissed without any rehearing of the case.

Many self-represented litigants fail to prepare to prove a serious error occurred. Therefore their application is dismissed at this preliminary state.

Some self-represented parties fail to understand that a hearing being scheduled is only one of to the review process.

A Request to Review should not be taken lightly. You should hire a paralegal Ontario to represent you.

Examples of serious errors are:

  • An error of jurisdiction. For example the order relies on the wrong section of the RTA or exceeds the LTB’s powers. This issue need not have been raised in the original hearing;
  • A procedural error which raises issues of natural justice;
  • An unreasonable finding of fact on a material issue which would potentially change the result of the order;
  • New evidence which was unavailable at the time of the hearing and which is potentially determinative of one or more central issues in dispute;
  • An error in law. The LTB will not exercise its discretion to review an order interpreting the RTA unless the interpretation conflicts with a binding decision of the Courts or is clearly wrong and unreasonable; and ,
  • An unreasonable exercise of discretion which results in an order outside the usual range of remedies or results and where there are no reasons explaining the result.

Some examples where LTB has found a party was “not reasonably able to participate” include:

  • Requestor was out the country, in hospital or in police custody when the notice of hearing was served and/or the hearing was held.
  • Notice of hearing and other documents were served on the wrong address or the wrong person, received late or not received at all.
  • Requestor was unable to attend or ask for an adjournment of the proceeding due to sudden illness, a family crisis, extreme weather or transportation problems.
  • Requestor was led to believe by the other party that there was no need to attend the proceeding or reasonably believed the issues had been settled.
  • Requestor or the requestor’s representative was at the LTB but provides a reasonable explanation why he or she was not present in the hearing room when the application was decided.

New Evidence

Parties are expected to make every effort to produce all relevant evidence in support of their positions in the original hearing. The review will be dismissed unless the LTB is satisfied the new evidence could not have been produced at the original hearing, is material to the issues in dispute and its consideration could change the result.

If you need representation at a Request to Review or any LTB matter contact Marshall Yarmus of Civil Litigations at 416-229-1479 or  http://www.civilparalegal.com/home_services/landlord-and-tenant-board/