Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appeal was limited to questions of law, not fact or mixed fact and law, as per statutory jurisdiction.

• The Board’s refusal to grant a further adjournment was challenged as a denial of procedural fairness, but was found reasonable due to multiple previous adjournments and the urgent circumstances.

• The landlords’ claim of “good faith” requirement for possession under s. 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 was disputed, but the Court found no error in the Board’s application of the legal test.

• Allegations that the landlords harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened, or interfered with the tenant under s. 23 of the RTA, and that eviction should be refused under s. 83, were considered and dismissed for lack of evidence and for not raising a question of law.

• The tenant’s motion to adduce fresh evidence was denied as irrelevant to the legal questions on appeal and for failure to comply with procedural directions.

• The tenant’s failure to file a complete, certified transcript was noted as a procedural deficiency that could have justified dismissal of the appeal.

Background and facts of the case

Fernando Linton, the tenant, appealed from an Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated September 16, 2024, which evicted him from his basement apartment on the grounds that the rental unit was required by the landlords, Gian Daley and Baldish Daley, for their daughter and her husband. The tenant’s request for review of the Order was denied by Review Order dated March 10, 2025. During the appeal, Linton confirmed he was only appealing the original Order, not the Review Order.

The landlords, an elderly couple, reside on the main and upper floors of their four-bedroom home. Following the death of their oldest daughter, SKP, in March 2023, the landlords assumed responsibility for raising SKP’s grandchildren. On November 23, 2023, the landlords served Linton a Form N12 notice of termination with a termination date of January 31, 2024, claiming that under s. 48 of the RTA, they in good faith required vacant possession for their other daughter, JD, and her spouse, who had been assisting with the grandchildren.

The Board heard the tenant’s challenge to the N12 by videoconference on January 22, 2024, May 23, 2024, and July 25, 2024. The hearing was adjourned three times at the tenant’s request: first, due to unsuccessful attempts to secure representation from Rexdale Community Legal Clinic; second, after a referral to Downsview Community Legal Services; and third, after Downsview withdrew representation one day before the scheduled hearing. The Canadian Centre for Housing Rights also declined to provide legal advice or representation. Although Linton was approved for legal aid, he was unable to retain a private lawyer. On July 25, 2024, his lawyer withdrew for ethical reasons, and the Board denied Linton’s request for a further adjournment.

Legal arguments and issues raised on appeal

On appeal, Linton argued that he was denied procedural fairness when the Board dismissed his request for adjournment to obtain legal assistance. He also claimed the Board erred in failing to find that the Notice of Termination was a “bad faith” eviction and in failing to find that the landlords had harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened, or interfered with him contrary to s. 23 of the RTA. Additionally, he brought a motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence.

Discussion of policy terms and statutory provisions

The Court adopted principles from Jedadiah Drummond v. Ridgeford Charitable Foundation, 2024 ONSC 4658, confirming that appeals from the Board lie only on questions of law. The Court reviewed s. 48(1) of the RTA, which allows a landlord to terminate a tenancy in good faith for occupation by specified family members. The Court also considered s. 23 (prohibiting landlord harassment) and s. 83 (allowing the Board to refuse or postpone eviction in certain circumstances) of the RTA.

Court’s findings and reasoning

The Court found that the Board did not err in denying the tenant’s request for a further adjournment, noting that multiple adjournments had already been granted and that the hearing had returned to the Board on an urgent basis, causing stress to the landlords’ family. The Review Member’s decision upholding the refusal of adjournment was also found reasonable. The Court determined that the tenant’s challenge to the landlords’ good faith did not raise a question of law and that the Board had applied the correct legal test under s. 48 of the RTA. Allegations of harassment and coercion were considered but dismissed due to lack of evidence beyond the tenant’s statements. The tenant’s motion to adduce fresh evidence was denied because it was not relevant to the legal questions on appeal and the motion record had not been uploaded as directed. The Court also noted that the tenant failed to file a complete, certified transcript of the hearing, which could have justified dismissal of the appeal.

Outcome and costs

The appeal was dismissed. The landlords sought costs of $3,000.00 all inclusive. The Court ordered the tenant to pay costs of $1,500.00 to the landlords in respect of the appeal within 90 days, taking into account the tenant’s impecuniosity. The landlords were the successful party, and the amount awarded in their favor was $1,500.00.