Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Landlord and Tenant Board ordered eviction after finding that the Tenant persistently paid rent late for about two years.
   
• Clerical errors in the figures used in the Eviction Decision were later corrected through an Amended Decision issued under Rule 24.2 of the LTB Rules.
   
• Whether the Adjudicator correctly applied section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 in refusing relief from eviction was a central issue on appeal.
   
• Procedural fairness was challenged on the basis that the Amended Decision was released without advance notice to the Tenant.
   
• Determining the correct standard of review for the appeal (correctness) as distinct from the judicial review (reasonableness) arose as a threshold question.
   
• Ultimately, the Divisional Court considered whether any of the LTB's decisions were founded on errors of law or were otherwise unreasonable.
   

Facts of the case

Andre Edwards, the Tenant, appealed and sought judicial review of two decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB): the Eviction Decision dated February 6, 2025, and the Review Decision dated March 10, 2025. The LTB had granted an eviction order on the basis that the Tenant persistently paid his rent late. There was a lengthy history of LTB applications involving this tenancy, including a November 2024 order that voided a prior eviction after the Tenant met the payment terms set out in that earlier order. Immediately after that eviction order was voided, the Tenant resumed paying rent late, and his counsel acknowledged that the Landlord was then entitled to bring the application underlying the Eviction Decision. At the hearing that led to the Eviction Decision, the Tenant did not dispute that he had been paying rent late for roughly two years. On review, the LTB accepted that there were clerical errors in the figures contained in the Eviction Decision, and those errors were corrected in an Amended Decision released on April 24, 2025, by the same Adjudicator who had decided the Eviction Decision. The LTB had required the Tenant to vacate the premises in February 2025, but that eviction has now been stayed for over a year.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Two provisions were central to the appeal. Section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, governs the LTB's discretion to grant relief from eviction; under section 83(1), the LTB may refuse to grant an eviction order unless it would be unfair to refuse it. The Tenant argued that the Adjudicator had applied this test backwards. Also at issue was Rule 24.2 of the LTB Rules, which permits the LTB to correct a clerical error on its own initiative, without seeking submissions from the parties or holding a hearing. The Tenant argued that applying this rule without advance notice, in the circumstances of this case, was procedurally unfair.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court noted that the Tenant's right of appeal was limited to questions of law, including issues of procedural fairness, reviewed on a standard of correctness, while the application for judicial review was reviewed on a standard of reasonableness; the Tenant did not distinguish between the two standards at the hearing. On the clerical errors, the Court found that the use of incorrect figures in the original Eviction Decision had been addressed and corrected, and that this did not amount to an error of law. On the section 83 argument, the Court observed that counsel for the Landlord noted the point had not been raised in the request for review, and found in any event that no error had been shown; reading the double-negative wording of section 83(1) in context, the Court did not find that the Adjudicator's paraphrasing of the provision led to a legal error. On the claim that the Adjudicator ignored relevant evidence under section 83, the Court found that the reasons for decision showed the Adjudicator had considered all relevant circumstances, including those raised by the Tenant, and that the LTB had ample evidentiary basis for its decision given the Tenant's admitted history of repeated and deliberate late payments. On procedural fairness, the Court held that Rule 24.2 itself was consistent with the LTB's function of efficiently correcting clerical errors, and that the Tenant had not shown the rule to be unfair or that the Adjudicator's exercise of discretion to proceed without notice was unfair in this case — noting that the Tenant had already made submissions on the figures, that the figures related to the per diem amount owed to the Landlord rather than to whether payments were late, and that the same Adjudicator decided both the Eviction Decision and the Amended Decision. The Court also found that cases relied on by the Tenant did not establish either a legal error or an unreasonable decision.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Divisional Court concluded that the Eviction Decision, Review Decision, and Amended Decision were not founded on errors of law and had not been shown to be unreasonable, finding that they demonstrated the required justification, intelligibility, and transparency. The proceedings were dismissed, with costs awarded to the Landlord, Centurion Property Associates Inc., in the agreed amount of $2,000, all inclusive. The Court further ordered that if the Tenant paid his full rent on August 1, 2026, with no arrears owing as of that date, he would have until August 31, 2026 to provide vacant possession of the premises; otherwise, he was required to vacate by August 3, 2026.