Manpel v. Greenwin Property Management et al., (2005) 200 O.A.C. 301 (DC)

• Judge: Meehan, Molloy and Swinton, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: July 15, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2005), 200 O.A.C. 301 (DC)

Manpel v. Greenwin Prop. (2005), 200 O.A.C. 301 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.075

Larry I. Manpel (appellant/tenant) v. Greenwin Property Management, Cristian Cocar and Betty Marsman (respondents)

(290/04)

Indexed As: Manpel v. Greenwin Property Management et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Meehan, Molloy and Swinton, JJ.

July 15, 2005.

Summary:

A tenant filed an application with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that his landlord had sent him a form of notice which constituted a threat, intimidation, obstruction and coercion contrary to s. 35 of the Tenant Protection Act. Following receipt of the tenant's evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the application on a non-suit motion on the ground that the tenant failed to establish a prima facie case. The tenant appealed, submitting that (1) he was denied a fair hearing; (2) the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to dismiss an application for want of a prima facie case; and (3) even if such jurisdiction existed, the evidence established a prima facie case.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing on the basis of a breach of natural justice and denial of procedural fairness where the tenant was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the non-suit motion.

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - A tenant filed an application with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that his landlord had sent him a form of notice which constituted a threat, intimidation, obstruction and coercion contrary to s. 35 of the Tenant Protection Act - Following receipt of the tenant's evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the application on a non-suit motion (no prima facie case for landlord to meet) - The tenant appealed, submitting that (1) he was denied a fair hearing; (2) the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to dismiss an application for want of a prima facie case; and (3) even if such jurisdiction existed, the evidence established a prima facie case - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing - The Tribunal had jurisdiction to dismiss an application on a nonsuit motion in the clearest of cases, but erred in doing so - The Tribunal invited the tenant to respond to the motion, but he was immediately interrupted by the landlord's agent and the Tribunal ruled without hearing the tenant's submissions or affording him an opportunity to call additional evidence (two uncalled witnesses present) - That constituted a breach of natural justice and denial of procedural fairness - Furthermore, the Tribunal erred by misapprehending the evidence to find no prima facie case - There was evidence that the tenant felt intimidated and, in any event, actual intimidation was not required - Finally, the tenant was denied a fair hearing as evidenced by the Tribunals' impatience and constant interjections, the uncontrolled interruptions by the landlord's agent, the nature of the tenant's cross-examination, etc.

Administrative Law - Topic 2493

Natural justice - Procedure - At hearing - Right to make submissions - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2266 ].

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 7023

Regulation - Powers of board or officers (incl. rentalsman) - Respecting complaints or applications - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2266 ].

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 7143

Regulation - Procedure - Procedural fairness - Requirement of - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2266 ].

Cases Noticed:

Dollimore v. Azuria Group Inc. (2002), 152 O.A.C. 57 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 16].

London (City) v. Ayerswood Development Corp. et al. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Felker v. Felker, [1946] O.W.N. 368 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Carrier v. Cameron (1985), 11 O.A.C. 369 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

Larry I. Manpel, on his own behalf;

Martin P. Zarnett, for the respondent, Greenwin Property Management;

Betty Marsman, on her own behalf.

This appeal was heard on June 10, 2005, at Toronto, Ontario, before Meehan, Molloy and Swinton, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by Molloy, J., and released on July 15, 2005.