A few recent rulings which might be of interest (an N12-based appeal, a couple of rulings from the Human Rights Tribunal, a couple of commercial lease cases):
Appeal of N12 decision based on "new post-hearing evidence about the mother living in Florida this past winter", challenging the good faith claim.
"Both the finding of good faith and the finding of intended full time occupancy are findings of fact."
Appeal dismissed.
"[8] We conclude that the appeal raises no question of law, and the Court therefore has no jurisdiction under s. 210 of the RTA. The Tenants are essentially challenging the factual findings of the Board, which are not the subject of appeal. Both the finding of good faith and the finding of intended full time occupancy are findings of fact. There was no extricable issue of law and no error of law. The exceptional circumstances referred to by counsel, in which a factual matter may give rise to an error of law, do not apply in this case. The new evidence, even if admitted, does not give rise to an error of law."
Interim decision of the Human Rights Tribunal about witnesses' evidence:
"[7] The proposed witnesses’ evidence that the respondent is not racist is not admissible and they will not be permitted to testify on that issue. This is opinion evidence about the respondent’s character and is not directly relevant to the interaction between the parties that gave rise to the allegation of discrimination. This is consistent with other Tribunal decisions such as Segal v. Toronto (City), 2009 HRTO 1907 at paras. 9 to 15 and Benjamin v. PTC Accounting & Finance Inc., 2011 HRTO 1593 at para. 24.
[8] The Application alleges that the respondent told her that he had bad experiences in the past when he rented out to Black people. The respondent denies this. The applicant’s narrative puts into issue whether the respondent told her that he did not want to rent to Black people based on his past experience when he rented to Black people. The racial background of past tenants and tenants to whom he rented after the interaction has some relevance. If the applicant does not dispute the fact that the respondent rented units to these two tenants, then there may be no reason for the tenants to testify on this point. This will be further addressed at the hearing to determine whether the tenants are necessary and relevant witnesses.
[9] The proposed witnesses will not be permitted to testify about their opinion as to whether the respondent is racist."
A decision from HRTO involving a failure to establish a link between the respondent's alleged actions/inactions and applicant's Code-protected grounds / characteristics.
"[15] It states, in Section 2.(2), of the Code: “Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance”. The applicant did not complain to the respondent that the harassment he was experiencing from his neighbour was because of a protected grounds. The applicant did not allege or provide evidence in his possession or that may be reasonably available to the applicant to link the harassment of the neighbour or the failure, if any, on the part of the respondent to resolve the issues between the applicant and his neighbour, because of his race, colour or disability.
[16] The Tribunal has stated on many occasions that it does not have a general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. See, for example, Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389; Szabo v. Office of a Member of Parliament of Canada, 2011 HRTO 2201; and Abdi v. Voyageur Transportation, 2011 HRTO 1319. Discrimination generally involves an allegation of unfair treatment on the basis of one or more of the grounds under the Code, such as disability. Unfair treatment is not discriminatory in the legal sense unless there is proof that one or more of these personal characteristics were a factor in the treatment the applicant experienced. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to claims of discrimination that are linked to the protections set out in the Code
[17] In order to make out a violation of the Code, the applicant would have to establish a link between the respondents’ alleged actions/inactions and his race, colour and/or disability. I find that the applicant has failed to point to any evidence in his possession or that may be reasonably available to the applicant that could reasonably establish that his race, colour or disability was a factor in any of the respondent’s actions/inactions in regard to his tenancy at the apartment building owned and managed by the respondent."
An interesting decision on whether or not a commercial tenant was in default of the lease (with involvement of CECRA funding), on applicability of estoppel by convention and on conditions for relief from forfeiture:
On validity of an arbitration clause as the basis for renewing a commercial lease term:
______________________
On whether an "air parcel" is assessable "land" for land assessment (MPAC) purposes:
Disclaimer:
You should not act or rely on any information provided in this blog. It is not legal advice, and the content is provided for general discussion and general information purposes only and to help encourage further research. To ensure your interests are protected, retain or formally seek legal advice from a licensed legal professional.
Never disclose details about your specific legal matters outside of situations when you have established solicitor-client relationship with a qualified legal professional. By using this blog, you acknowledge and accept this warning and agree to waive all liability for use of any information contained in this blog.
