Best Rank Investments Inc. v. Tenants of 3161 Eglinton Avenue East, Scarborough, (1990) 42 O.A.C. 15 (DC)

JudgeO'Driscoll, Southey and O'Brien, JJ.
CourtOntario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
Case DateSeptember 21, 1990
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(1990), 42 O.A.C. 15 (DC)

Best Rank v. Tenants of 3161 Eglinton (1990), 42 O.A.C. 15 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Best Rank Investments Inc. (applicant/appellant) v. All of the Tenants of the Residential Complex known as 3161 Eglinton Avenue East, Scarborough, Ontario, as set out in Schedule "A" to the Notice of Appeal (respondents/respondents in appeal)

(1258/89)

Indexed As: Best Rank Investments Inc. v. Tenants of 3161 Eglinton Avenue East, Scarborough

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

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

October 1, 1990.

Summary:

A landlord applied for an increase in rent in an amount more than that provided by the guidelines. Specifically, the landlord claimed an increase on the basis of an increase in the mortgage rate he was required to pay. The Rent Review Hearing Board calculated the amount of the increase to which the landlord was entitled. The landlord appealed.

The Ontario Court of Justice, General Division (Divisional Court), allowed the application and referred the issue back to the Board with directions.

Evidence - Topic 466

Functions of counsel, judge and jury - Acceptance of evidence - The Ontario Divisional Court stated that a finder of fact is under no obligation to accept the evidence adduced by a party, if it finds that evidence to be unreasonable, even though there is no evidence to the contrary - See paragraph 7.

Trade Regulation - Topic 8512.2

Price and wage regulation - Rent controls - Rent increase - Considerations - A landlord claimed an increase in rent based on the increase in the mortgage rate that he was required to pay - Regulation 440/87, s. 31, under the Residential Rent Regulation Act, allowed, as part of the justified rent increase, the difference between the new interest rate and the previous rate - The Ontario Divisional Court determined the proper method of calculation of the difference resulting from a change in interest rates, pursuant to s. 31(2) - See paragraphs 2 to 5.

Trade Regulation - Topic 8512.2

Price and wage regulation - Rent controls - Rent increase - Considerations - A landlord claimed an increase in rent based on an increase in the mortgage rate that he was required to pay - The Ontario Divisional Court affirmed that there was no legislation requiring the Rent Review Hearing Board to recognize fees for the third mortgage incurred to finance capital expenditures - See paragraphs 12 to 13.

Trade Regulation - Topic 8512.2

Price and wage regulation - Rent controls - Rent increase - Considerations - The Rent Review Hearing Board heard a landlord's application for a rent increase based on an increase in the mortgage rate that he was required to pay - The Board rejected an interest rate of 16% on the new mortgage, as evidenced by the landlord, as being unreasonable - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the Board was entitled, from its own experience and knowledge, to hold that the rate was unreasonable in the circumstances; the Board was not empowered to substitute a reasonable rate of 13.5% - The Board was not entitled to take notice of the interest rate under s. 16(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act - See paragraphs 6 to 9.

Words and Phrases

Generally recognized, scientific or technical facts, information ... - The Ontario Divisional Court held that this phrase, as found in s. 16(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 484, did not include interest rates - See paragraphs 6 to 9.

Statutes Noticed:

Residential Rent Regulation Act, S.O. 1986, c. 63, sect. 75(b) [para. 2]; sect. 115(3)(b) [para. 13].

Residential Rent Regulation Act Regulations, O.R. 440/87, sect. 31(1) [para. 3]; sect. 31(2) [paras. 3-5].

Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 484, sect. 16(b) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Robert G. Doumani, for the applicant/appellant;

Robert H. Ratcliffe, for the Rent Review Hearing Board;

No one appearing on behalf of the tenants/respondents.

This case was heard before O'Driscoll, Southey and O'Brien, JJ., of the Ontario Court of Justice, General Division (Divisional Court), on September 21, 1990. The decision of the Divisional Court was delivered orally by Southey, J., and released on October 1, 1990.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • 355 and 365 Grandravine Holdings Ltd. v. Pacini et al., (1992) 54 O.A.C. 380 (DC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
    • 11 d2 Fevereiro d2 1992
    ...- 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. Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 14]. Statutes Noticed: Residential Ren......
  • Barker v. Park Willow Dev., (2004) 188 O.A.C. 276 (DC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 12 d1 Julho d1 2004
    ...evidence regarding "value". 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. 355 and 365 Grandravine Holdings Ltd. v. Pacini et al. (1991), 54 O.A.C. 380 ; 8 O.R.(3......
2 cases
  • 355 and 365 Grandravine Holdings Ltd. v. Pacini et al., (1992) 54 O.A.C. 380 (DC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
    • 11 d2 Fevereiro d2 1992
    ...- 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. Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 14]. Statutes Noticed: Residential Ren......
  • Barker v. Park Willow Dev., (2004) 188 O.A.C. 276 (DC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 12 d1 Julho d1 2004
    ...evidence regarding "value". 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. 355 and 365 Grandravine Holdings Ltd. v. Pacini et al. (1991), 54 O.A.C. 380 ; 8 O.R.(3......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT