Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction of the Divisional Court limited to questions of law, not fact or mixed fact and law.

• Timeliness and reasonableness of the landlord’s response to maintenance complaints scrutinized under section 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).

• Tenant’s right to raise maintenance issues and seek rent abatement during eviction proceedings considered under sections 82 and 83 of the RTA.

• Admissibility of new evidence at the review stage addressed and denied.

• Standard of review for administrative tribunal decisions clarified, emphasizing deference to factual findings.

• Costs awarded to the successful party, with a specific amount ordered against the appellant tenant.

Facts of the case

Stephan Stewart, the tenant, resided in a property owned by Emerald Limited Partnership. In February 2024, Stewart began experiencing a disruptive noise from the HVAC system in her rental unit. She reported the issue to the landlord and subsequently withheld rent payments, arguing that the noise rendered the apartment uninhabitable. The landlord responded by contacting an HVAC company, which replaced a cartridge on March 2, 2022, and conducted follow-up visits to ensure the problem was resolved. Additional inspections and a precautionary replacement of an electrical element were also performed. Stewart claimed the noise persisted and sought a rent abatement of $3,000.15, as well as relief from eviction.

Procedural history and board decisions

Emerald Limited Partnership applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board for Stewart’s eviction due to non-payment of rent. At the hearing, Stewart invoked sections 20, 82, and 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, arguing that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a good state of repair and that she was entitled to a rent abatement and relief from eviction. The Board found the landlord had acted reasonably and promptly in addressing the noise complaint, referencing relevant case law that a breach of section 20 would not be found if the landlord’s response was reasonable. The Board dismissed Stewart’s claims and ordered termination of the tenancy unless arrears were paid before enforcement. Stewart’s subsequent request for review was also denied, with the Review Member finding no error that would have changed the outcome.

Policy terms and statutory provisions at issue

The case centered on the interpretation and application of sections 20, 82, and 83 of the RTA. Section 20 requires landlords to maintain rental units in a good state of repair and fit for habitation. Section 82 allows tenants to raise maintenance issues during eviction proceedings, and section 83 gives the Board discretion to refuse or postpone eviction if fairness so requires, particularly if the landlord is in serious breach of obligations.

Appeal to the Divisional Court

Stewart appealed both the Eviction Order and the Review Order to the Ontario Divisional Court, arguing that the Board erred in determining when the noise issue was resolved, in finding the landlord acted reasonably, and in refusing to admit new evidence at the review stage. The Court clarified that its jurisdiction was limited to questions of law, not fact or mixed fact and law. It found that the issues raised by Stewart were either factual or mixed questions, and thus not appealable under section 210 of the RTA. The Court also upheld the Review Member’s refusal to admit new evidence, noting that such evidence would not have changed the outcome.

Ruling and outcome

The Divisional Court dismissed Stewart’s appeal, finding no error of law in the Board’s or Review Member’s decisions. The Court ordered Stewart to pay the landlord’s partial indemnity costs in the amount of $3,500, including disbursements and HST, within 60 days. The landlord, Emerald Limited Partnership, was the successful party in the proceedings, with the monetary award for costs clearly specified.