355 and 365 Grandravine Holdings Ltd. v. Pacini et al., (1992) 54 O.A.C. 380 (DC)

• Judge: O'Driscoll, O'Brien and Austin, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: February 11, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1992), 54 O.A.C. 380 (DC)

355 and 365 Grandravine v. Pacini (1992), 54 O.A.C. 380 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

355 and 365 Grandravine Holdings Limited (landlord/appellant) v. Ben Pacini and all other Tenants of 355 and 365 Grandravine Drive as shown on schedule "A" to the Notice of Appeal (tenants/respondents)

(Court File No. 433/90)

Indexed As: 355 and 365 Grandravine Holdings Ltd. v. Pacini et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

O'Driscoll, O'Brien and Austin, JJ.

February 11, 1992.

Summary:

The Ontario Rent Review Hearings Board reduced a landlord's justified rent increase from 11.19% to 8.85%. The landlord appealed under s. 115 of the Ontario Resi­dential Rent Regulation Act, 1986. The tenants cross-appealed, claiming that the rent increase should have been reduced to 4.6%.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the landlord's appeal, remitted the matter to the board with the opinion of the court and directed a further hearing before a panel of the board composed of members who had not sat on the original hearing.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 3948

Rent - Rent increases - Statutory regu­lation - The Ontario Rent Review Hear­ings Board reduced a landlord's justified rent increase from 11.19% to 8.85% - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the landlord's appeal, remitted the matter to the board with the opinion of the court and directed a further hearing before a panel of the board composed of members who had not sat on the original hearing.

Trade Regulation - Topic 8512.2

Price and wage regulation - Rent con­trols - Rent increase - Considerations - The Ontario Rent Review Hearings Board reduced a landlord's allowable justified rent increase - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the board erred in law by disallowing capital tax which was a recog­nized operating cost - See paragraphs 5 to 8.

Trade Regulation - Topic 8512.2

Price and wage regulation - Rent con­trols - Rent increase - Considerations - The Ontario Rent Review Hearings Board reduced a landlord's allowable justified rent increase - The Ontario Divisional Court declined to decide whether the board had discretion to reduce the management and administra­tion overhead allowance when calculating financial loss - The court opined that if the board did have discre­tion, then it was required to give reasons for exercising it - See paragraphs 9 to 15.

Trade Regulation - Topic 8512.2

Price and wage regulation - Rent con­trols - Rent increase - Considerations - The Ontario Rent Review Hearings Board reduced a landlord's allowable justified rent increase - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the board erred in law by finding that there had been a withdrawal of two services and facilities - The board did not address the issue of whether the ser­vices and facil­ities were included in the base rent - There was no evidence to the contrary - The court stated that such a reduction should be based on "average monthly cost" and the parties should be given the opportunity to make submissions on quantum - See paragraphs 16 to 23.

Trade Regulation - Topic 8512.2

Price and wage regulation - Rent con­trols - Rent increase - Considerations - The Ontario Rent Review Hearings Board reduced a landlord's justified rent increase - The board found financial loss, but did not allow for hardship pur­suant to s. 79(2) of the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986 - The Ontario Divisional Court concluded that although the section gave the board a discretion, the board erred at law when it failed to tell the parties that the allowance was "at risk" and failed to give the landlord the opportunity to make submissions - The landlord was entitled to reasons why the board disallowed relief - See paragraphs 24 to 27.

Trade Regulation - Topic 8512.2

Price and wage regulation - Rent con­trols - Rent increase - Considerations - The Ontario Rent Review Hearings Board reduced a landlord's justified rent increase - The landlord's tenants cross-appealed for a greater reduction, alleging that they were required to bear the bur­den of financing a mortgage debt which exceeded the pur­chase price of the prop­erty - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the cross- appeal and affirmed the board's finding that the landlord had purchased the prop­erty in an arm's length transaction - See paragraphs 28 to 29, 31.

Cases Noticed:

Best Rank Investments Inc. v. Tenants of 3161 Eglinton Avenue East, Scar­borough (1990), 42 O.A.C. 15; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 371 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 13].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Residential Rent Regulation Act, S.O. 1986, c. 63, sect. 1 [paras. 5, 9, 16, 25]; sect. 13(2) [para. 16]; sect. 74 [para. 1]; sect. 75(b) [para. 5]; sect. 75(e) [para. 9]; sect. 75(f) [para. 16]; sect. 75(j), sect. 77(1) [para. 9]; sect. 79(2) [paras. 24, 27]; sect. 79(3) [para. 25]; sect. 115 [paras. 1, 30].

Residential Rent Regulation Act Regula­tions (Ont.), Reg. 749/86, sect. 6 [para. 5]; sect. 9 [para. 17]; Reg. 440/87, sect. 1 [para. 16]; sect. 47(3) [para. 25]; sect. 57(2) [para. 16]; sect. 57(3) [paras. 16, 23]; sect. 64(e), sect. 66(1), sect. 66(2) [para. 9].

Counsel:

R. G. Doumani, for the appel­lant/landlord;

Ben Pacini, in person, for the respon­dents/tenants;

No one, for the Rent Review Hearings Board.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on December 16 and 17, 1991, before O'Driscoll, O'Brien and Austin, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court, who released the following oral judgment on February 11, 1992.