Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appellate jurisdiction limited to questions of law, not fact or mixed fact and law.

• Notice of rent increase and adequacy of service determined to be a mixed question of fact and law, outside appellate review.

• Payment of rent after the LTB order does not require double payment to void eviction.

• LTB’s jurisdiction unaffected by parallel Superior Court proceedings.

• Attempt to introduce new evidence on appeal rejected for failing to meet the legal standard.

• Costs awarded to the respondent in the amount of $4,000.

Facts of the case

Mr. André Fiset was a residential tenant of 1789331 Ontario Limited, operating as Jarvis Court Apartments, managed by Gowen Property Management, Inc. On November 1, 2022, the landlord served Mr. Fiset with an N1 Notice of Rent Increase, raising his rent from $1,200 to $1,230 effective February 1, 2023. Mr. Fiset refused to pay the increased rent, leading the landlord to seek an eviction order from the Landlord Tenant Board (LTB). The LTB issued a voidable eviction order on October 15, 2024, and subsequently denied Mr. Fiset’s request for review on November 19, 2024. Mr. Fiset appealed to the Divisional Court.

Arguments and legal issues raised

On appeal, Mr. Fiset, who was self-represented, argued that he did not receive proper notice of the rent increase and that the LTB erred in its findings regarding service of the notice. He also claimed that he had paid the rents for July through October 2024, and that the landlord’s failure to acknowledge this amounted to misconduct. Additionally, Mr. Fiset contended that his ongoing Superior Court action against the landlord should have impacted the LTB’s jurisdiction over the rent increase issue. He attempted to introduce new evidence on appeal that had not been before the LTB.

Discussion of policy terms and procedural matters

The case involved the application of the Residential Tenancies Act and the procedural rules governing appeals from the LTB. The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction on appeal is strictly limited to questions of law. Issues regarding the adequacy of notice and service, as well as the payment of rent, were found to be questions of fact or mixed fact and law, which the Divisional Court could not review. The Court also noted that any evidence not before the LTB could not be considered on appeal unless a proper motion to admit fresh evidence was brought and the legal test for admitting such evidence (as set out in Palmer v. The Queen) was met, which was not the case here.

Outcome and costs

Justice Nakatsuru dismissed Mr. Fiset’s appeal, finding no reviewable error of law in the LTB’s decision. The Court held that the LTB’s findings and procedural decisions were entitled to deference and that the existence of a separate Superior Court action did not affect the LTB’s jurisdiction over the rent increase. The attempt to introduce new evidence was rejected. The respondent landlord was awarded costs in the amount of $4,000, which was found to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The successful party in this case was 1789331 Ontario Limited, operating as Jarvis Court Apartments, with the monetary award for costs set at $4,000.