Adjust Font Size

Jurisdiction of the ORHT in Social Housing

ACTO has filed an appeal of a decision to the Divisional Court by a social housing provider to retroactively increase a tenant's RGI rent. The appeal involves the application of the Social Housing Reform Act (SHRA) to an eviction application under section 61(1) of the Tenant Protection Act (TPA) for arrears of rent. The arrears of rent claimed were based almost entirely on a RGI rent increase of over 725% that took effect on five months before it was served.

The ORHT evicted the tenant for arrears of rent on the basis that the SHRA allowed the retroactive increase and that such arrears could be collected under the TPA. The ORHT also decided that it could grant a repayment plan that exceeded 12 months. ACTO is arguing that the ORHT erred:

in finding that the TPA 1997 allowed an eviction application for retroactive RGI arrears where there was no allegation of misrepresentation of income
in failing to make a reasoned decision;
by fettering its equitable discretion in limiting the repayment period to 12 months; and
in determining that the tenant "consented" to the 12-month repayment plan.

A hearing before the Divisional Court was scheduled for December 6, 2005. However, prior to the hearing, the tenant vacated the rental unit. As there was no dispute that the tenant owed the arrears of rent and the substantive issue was whether the landlord could collect such arrears under s. 61(1) of the TPA pursuant to a retroactive RGI rent increase, the parties settled the appeal on the grounds that the appeal was moot.

Jurisdiction of the ORHT in rent subsidy disputes in private market rent supplement units

The City of Ottawa has filed an appeal to the Divisional Court of an order of the ORHT adding the City as a party and finding them to be a landlord under the TPA.

A subsidy dispute arose between the City and the tenant and the City stopped paying the rent supplement portion of the tenant's rent to the private market landlord. The landlord claimed the arrears of rent from the tenant and applied to the ORHT to evict the tenant. The City is arguing that the ORHT had no jurisdiction to add the City as a party, erred by finding the City to be a "landlord" under the TPA, and erred in finding that the ORHT had jurisdiction to review a City decision to cancel a rent subsidy under the SHRA. Finally, the City is arguing that any dispute with respect to a rent subsidy must be dealt with by application for judicial review and not in an arrears application at the ORHT.

Prior to the hearing, ACTO advised Ottawa that the appeal was moot as Ottawa had paid the rent supplement portion to the landlord and arrears of rent were no longer owed by the tenant. In addition, the tenant had vacated the rental unit. Ottawa refused to acknowledge the mootness and the Divisional Court heard Ottawa's appeal on November 22, 2005.

The Court dismissed Ottawa's appeal finding that the issue was moot even before the ORHT. There was no need for the Tribunal to add Ottawa as a party or to find it to be a landlord. At the hearing, Ottawa no longer objected to the ORHT's finding that it should be a party under the TPA but argued that it was not a landlord. The Court declined to decide that issue but stated that, if required to decide the issue, it would be inclined to find that the ORHT erred in law in finding Ottawa to be a landlord under the TPA.

Two Appeals to Divisional Court

ACTO challenges two ORHT decisions determining that it had no jurisdiction to inquire into the circumstances of the cancellation of a tenant's rent subsidy and into the amount of arrears claimed by the landlord.

831 Queenston Road, Hamilton

ACTO appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (ORHT) that held that it had no jurisdiction to inquire into the circumstances of the cancellation of a tenant’s rent subsidy. The landlord revoked the tenant’s subsidy, raised the rent to the market level and brought an application to evict the tenant based on the market level arrears of rent.

ACTO’s appeal took the position that the ORHT must determine, based on the evidence, whether the revocation of sudsidy was appropriate. The ORHT has the responsibility to determine whether there are statutory grounds for eviction. This requires a review of the facts surrounding the revocation of the subsidy

ACTO also filed:

a judicial review application, challenging the fairness of the original decision of the private non-profit landlord to cancel the rent subsidy; and
a human rights complaint challenging the landlord’s decision to revoke the disabled tenant’s subsidy because his brother – a caregiver – occasionally stayed overnight with him.

The appeal and the judicial review and the human rights complaint settled: the tenant will remain in his home and keep his subsidy.

51 Burris Street, Hamilton

The landlord sought to evict a mother and two children based on arrears of rent after cancellation of a rent subsidy. The rent subsidy was cancelled because the tenant was late in filing income verification information showing her income had not increased. The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the dispute concerning the subsidy, but nevertheless granted the eviction.

ACTO prepared a factum for Divisional Court arguing that the Tribunal should not have granted the eviction order without considering whether the tenant should continue to get a rent subsidy.

In addition, ACTO intended to argue that the Tribunal should have refused the eviction order pursuant to its discretion under s. 84(1) of the Tenant Protection Act.

Unfortunately, the client can no longer be contacted and the appeal has been withdrawn.

Note: Legal materials are found in the password protected TDCP area for use by legal clinic staff only. These materials are not available to the general public.