Phoenix Enterprises Ltd. v. Residential Tenancies Date:, 2011 MBCA 100

Citation: Phoenix Enterprises Ltd. v. Residential Tenancies Date: 20111205 Commission (Man.), 2011 MBCA 100 Dockets: AI 11-30-07622; AI 11-30-07623 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram : Chief Justice Richard J. Scott Madam Justice Barbara M. Hamilton Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin B E T W E E N : PHOENIX ENTERPRISES LTD. t/a ) T. K. Ray GLOBE GENERAL AGENCIES ) for the Appellant ) (Applicant) Appellant ) G. A. McKinnon and ) S. R.

Paul - and - ) for the Respondent ) THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ) COMMISSION ) Appeals heard and ) Decision pronounced: (Respondent) Respondent ) December 5, 2011 SCOTT C.J.M. (for the Court): 1 These two appeals arise from the decision upon judicial review by a Court of Queen’s Bench judge, whereby the landlord applied to quash two procedural decisions of the Residential Tenancies Commission (the RTC) to add all tenants as parties to the proceedings before it. See s. 164 of The Residential Tenancies Act , C.C.S.M., c. R119.

The substantive proceedings before the RTC consisted of applications by the landlord to permit an increase of the rent in its complexes beyond that established by regulation. 2 In the Court of Queen’s Bench, the landlord argued, in effect, that the RTC’s reasons for decision inadequately explained why all tenants in the complexes were added as parties. To this, the Queen’s Bench judge concluded (at paras. 17-18): While the June 24, 2009 reasons of the RTC are brief, they adequately explain why it decided to add all of the tenants to the appeal.

It is clear that following an initial analysis of the application and material filed in support of it, that the RTC thought the evidence presented to it might lead it to substantially revise the decision of the Residential Tenancies Branch.

Under the circumstances, it concluded the tenants were interested parties and should be involved in the process “... to ensure compliance with the rules of natural justice and the equitable application of the rent regulation provisions of the Act .” As this was merely a procedural issue, it would have been inappropriate for the RTC to have gone further and examine the evidence in detail as Globe appears to be suggesting.

The decision on the merits was for another day. 3 We are not persuaded that the Queen’s Bench judge erred in so concluding; the appeals are accordingly dismissed, with one set of costs to the RTC. ___________________________ C.J.M.

_____________________________ J.A. _____________________________ J.A.