Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Procedural fairness at the Landlord and Tenant Board was challenged, including the rejection of the tenant’s review request on allegedly contradictory grounds.
• Allegations were made that the LTB failed to consider new evidence tendered by the tenant in accordance with its own rules.
• The tenant argued that section 33 of the Residential Tenancies Act was misapplied, improperly shifting the burden of proof regarding compensation for damage to the rental unit.
• Concerns were raised that the LTB relied on misleading or incomplete evidence and did not undertake a proper factual review.
• The adequacy and reasonableness of the LTB’s reasons were attacked, with claims that the decision lacked a proper legal basis.
• At the appellate level, the main issue became the tenant’s failure to perfect and properly serve the appeal, leading to a successful motion to dismiss.

Background and facts

The dispute arises out of a residential tenancy in Ontario between the landlord respondents, Hansmattie Mackenzie and Dean Allan Mackenzie, and the tenant, Qidao Li. The relationship deteriorated over alleged damage to the rental property, which the landlords claimed was caused during Mr. Li’s tenancy. The landlords sought compensation for those damages through the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB), invoking their statutory rights under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA). The tenant, in turn, disputed both his responsibility for the damage and the manner in which the LTB handled the hearing and subsequent review process.
No insurance policy or contractual policy terms are discussed in the decisions provided. The case centres on statutory obligations and remedies under the RTA, particularly section 33, which governs a tenant’s liability for “undue damage” to a rental unit and forms the legal basis for a landlord’s claim for compensation for property damage.

Proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board

The LTB hearing took place on October 28, 2024. Mr. Li attended that hearing but, according to the Divisional Court’s summary, he did not provide evidence at the hearing in support of his position. On January 13, 2025, the LTB issued its decision under File No. LTB-L-084122-23, ordering the tenant to pay compensation for damages to the rental property in favour of the landlords. The precise amount of the damages award is not stated in the court’s endorsement.
Following this adverse ruling, the tenant sought to challenge the LTB’s decision by filing a Request for Review. In that request, he alleged procedural unfairness, claimed the Board had rejected his review request on contradictory grounds, and asserted that it had failed to consider new evidence he attempted to file, contrary to its own rules and practices. He further maintained that the Board misapplied section 33 of the RTA by effectively shifting the burden of proof to him to disprove liability, rather than requiring the landlords to prove their claim for compensation. He also alleged that the Board relied on misleading evidence and did not properly analyze the factual record.
The LTB dismissed the Request for Review. As a result, the original decision—ordering the tenant to compensate the landlords for damage to the rental unit—remained in force. The landlords then took steps to enforce the LTB’s decision. After multiple requests for payment, and no response from the tenant, a Notice of Garnishment was issued to recover the monies owed pursuant to the Board’s order on February 25, 2025.

Appeal to the Divisional Court

On March 4, 2025, Mr. Li filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, seeking to overturn the LTB’s decision. The appeal was framed around five principal grounds: that the LTB violated procedural fairness by rejecting his review request on contradictory grounds; that it failed to consider new evidence contradicting its own rules; that it misapplied section 33 of the RTA by shifting the burden of proof to him; that it relied on misleading evidence and failed to properly review the facts; and that the decision was unreasonable due to deficient reasons and a lack of a proper legal basis. The relief sought included having the LTB’s decision set aside and the matter remitted for proper reconsideration, in compliance with procedural fairness and legal standards.
On April 8, 2025, a stay of enforcement of the LTB decision was granted pending the outcome of the appeal. This stay had the effect of temporarily halting further enforcement steps, such as garnishment, while the Divisional Court appeal was outstanding.
However, procedural difficulties soon came to dominate the appellate process. Although the appeal was initiated, the tenant did not comply with the necessary rules for perfecting and advancing an appeal to the Divisional Court. The court’s endorsement records that the appellant did not file the required appeal materials and did not properly serve the respondents with the documents necessary to participate in the appeal. The respondents’ names appeared on the Certificate of Stay, but they never received the supporting materials for the appeal; it appears those materials were instead directed to the LTB.
Counsel for the LTB emailed the parties and pointed out that the landlords had not been named or served on the appeal. Despite this notification, Mr. Li took no steps to correct the record, add the respondents as parties to the appeal, or serve them with the required documents. As a result, the appeal remained procedurally defective, and the landlords were left in a position where their ability to respond in the appellate proceeding was compromised.

Motion to dismiss and outcome

In light of the appellant’s continuing failure to perfect the appeal or to serve the respondents, the landlords brought a motion to dismiss the appeal. They argued that the appellant had not complied with the procedural requirements of the Divisional Court, had not filed or served the necessary materials, and had effectively stalled the appeal while enjoying the benefit of a stay of enforcement. The motion focused not on the substantive merits of the tenant’s complaints about the LTB decision, but on the procedural non-compliance that prevented the appeal from moving forward.
Associate Chief Justice McWatt of the Divisional Court considered the procedural history and the conduct of the parties. The endorsement notes that the appellant had filed no materials in support of the appeal, had failed to serve the landlords with the proper documentation, and had taken none of the steps required to advance the case. The court accepted that the respondents had not received the appeal materials despite being listed on the Certificate of Stay, and that the appellant had not remedied this deficiency even after it was brought to his attention by LTB counsel. Given this record, the court concluded that the appeal had not been perfected and could not be allowed to remain pending indefinitely.
The Divisional Court therefore granted the respondents’ motion and ordered that the appeal be dismissed. In addition, the court awarded the landlords their costs of the motion, fixed in the amount of $760.50 for disbursements, payable by the appellant. The endorsement does not specify or restate the exact quantum of the original LTB damages award for compensation for damage to the rental property; that amount cannot be determined from the decision text provided. Accordingly, the successful parties in the overall appellate proceeding are the landlord respondents, Hansmattie and Dean Allan Mackenzie, whose LTB damages award remains in force and who also obtained dismissal of the appeal together with a quantified costs award of $760.50, while the precise amount of the underlying LTB compensation order cannot be determined from the available decisions.