Article

Standard of Review from Decisions of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal

Authors:
Paul Stuart Rapsey
Paul Stuart Rapsey
Paul Stuart Rapsey
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Download citation
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

RÉSUMÉ L'article aborde essentiellement la question de la norme d'examen applicable aux appels de décisions rendues par le Tribunal du logement de l'Ontario en vertu de la Loi de 1997 sur la protection des locataires interjetés auprès de la Cour divisionnaire de l'Ontario. Il y a un volume considérable de décisions contradictoires portant sur la jurisprudence d'appel sur la question. L'auteur conclut qu'une norme de bien-fondé devrait s'appliquer aux décisions du Tribunal. En outre, il examine brièvement la norme d'examen appliquée dans les procédures de révision du Tribunal et dans les demandes d'examen judiciaire auprès de la Cour divisionnaire. Pour ce qui est des examens effectués par le Tribunal, l'auteur conclut que le Tribunal a adopté une démarche inutilement restrictive.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
  • Mar 1979
  • 28-30
  • Ozmond V Young Hahn
  • Kramer
Ozmond v. Young (1980), 28 O.R. (2d) 225 (Div. Ct.); Re Hahn and Kramer (1979), 23 O.R. (2d) 689 (Div. Ct.); Re Oshawa Housing Authority and Maule (12 March 1979), (Ont. Div. Ct.) [unreported]. Discretionary decisions, and decisions of fact were accorded more deference.
leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal granted
  • Jul 2000
  • 207
  • O R Catzman
  • Feldman
  • J J Sharpe
The author is only aware of the following two proceedings: Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority v. Godwin (2000), 50 O.R. (3d) 207 (Div. Ct.) (O'Driscoll J.), leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal granted 19 July 2001, (Catzman, Feldman, Sharpe JJ.A.); and Santokie v. Toronto Housing Co., [2001] O.J. No. 30, online: QL (Div. Ct.) (O'Driscoll, Southey and O'Connor JJ.).
Minto Management Limited
  • Jun 2001
  • Torres V
Torres v. Minto Management Limited (29 June 2001; von Cramon), File No. EAT-02491-RV (ORHT).
Review of an Order File No. TSL-19462-RV (ORHT), for example, an interpretation of s. 71 was held to be reasonable and therefore the review adjudicator would not interfere even though another interpretation was possible
  • Jun 2000
  • Orht Interpretation Guideline
ORHT Interpretation Guideline, "Review of an Order". In Fox v. Bond (16 June 2000; Rogers), File No. TSL-19462-RV (ORHT), for example, an interpretation of s. 71 was held to be reasonable and therefore the review adjudicator would not interfere even though another interpretation was possible.
Except where this Act provides otherwise, an order of the Tribunal is final, binding and not subject to review except under section 21.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act
  • S Tpa
TPA, s. 195 states: "Except where this Act provides otherwise, an order of the Tribunal is final, binding and not subject to review except under section 21.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act." [Emphasis added.] Section 196 provides otherwise.
Hamilton File No. L4751/96 (Ont
  • Jul 1996
  • Ontario Ltd
Ontario Ltd. (24 July 1996), Hamilton File No. L4751/96 (Ont. Gen. Div.); aff'd (10 September 1997) File No. D752/96 (Ont. Div. Ct.) [unreported];
  • Jan 1979
  • 689
  • Re Hahn
  • Kramer
Re Hahn and Kramer (1979), 23 O.R. (2d) 689 (Div. Ct.);
The Tribunal could entertain a review from an interim order in an appropriate situation: e.g., see Godwin v. Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority
  • Feb 2000
  • 50
In any event, rules may be waived: ORHT Rule 1.5. The Tribunal could entertain a review from an interim order in an appropriate situation: e.g., see Godwin v. Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (4 February 2000; Braund), File No. TST-01206-I-RV2 (ORHT), rev'd on other grounds at (2000), 50 O.R. (3d) 207 (Div. Ct.) (O'Driscoll J.).
Frontenac Housing Corporation v. Kaloudas
  • Jun 2001
  • E G Kingston
E.g., Kingston & Frontenac Housing Corporation v. Kaloudas (29 June 2001; Goodchild), File No. EAL-21668-RV (ORHT).
for example, an interpretation of s. 71 was held to be reasonable and therefore the review adjudicator would not interfere even though another interpretation was possible
  • Rogers
Rogers), File No. TSL-19462-RV (ORHT), for example, an interpretation of s. 71 was held to be reasonable and therefore the review adjudicator would not interfere even though another interpretation was possible.