Divisional Court Upholds LTB Decision: Desbien v. Jiang, 2024 ONSC 895
Divisional Court upholds LTB decision, finding no procedural unfairness in denying tenant's adjournment request
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Feb 2024
Order Date
Feb 12, 2024
Dispute Summary
Tenant appealed LTB decisions dated August 31, 2022 and October 4, 2022 to the Divisional Court. The main issue was the denial of an adjournment request by the tenant to retain counsel at the LTB hearing.
Determinations
- No error of law or denial of procedural fairness by LTB
- LTB has broad discretion to control its process
- Tenant failed to act diligently in retaining counsel
- Tenant did not seek rescheduling in advance
- Tenant retains right to advance claim for funds due from landlord
Case Study
The court found no error of law or denial of procedural fairness in the LTB's decision to deny the adjournment request. The LTB has broad discretion to control its process and considered relevant factors in making its decision.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Actions
Landlord was present and ready to proceed at the LTB hearing.
Procedural Errors
Landlord did not provide a Cost Outline in advance of the Divisional Court hearing as required.
Tenant
Arguments
Tenant argued that he was denied a fair hearing because he was denied an adjournment to retain counsel.
Actions
Tenant returned possession of the rented premises to the landlord before the LTB hearing. Tenant does not contest the gross arrears owing.
Procedural Errors
Tenant failed to act diligently in retaining counsel and did not seek rescheduling in advance of the LTB hearing.
Decision Summary
The Divisional Court dismissed the tenant's appeal of the LTB decisions. The court found no error of law or denial of procedural fairness in the LTB's refusal to grant an adjournment for the tenant to retain counsel. The court noted that the tenant had ample time to retain counsel and that the LTB considered relevant factors in its decision.
Adjudicator Details
Divisional Court
Total Orders
7
Landlord Favorable
85.7%
Tenant Favorable
14.3%
Mutual Agreement
0.0%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Source
Similar Cases
Click to switch between case outcomes
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Goklani v Cannata
Toronto tenants' maintenance dispute against landlord dismissed by LTB
Jeff v Ferguson
Woodstock landlords awarded $35,186 in rent arrears, tenants face eviction for non-payment.
Oxford Properties Group v Benjamin
Tenant ordered to pay $22,461.70 for flood damage with conditional tenancy preservation
Sufi Properties Ltd v Nieman
Tenants ordered to pay $16,866 in rent arrears to Former Landlord after complex dispute.