) ) RAYMOND WOLF v. IRMA, 2023 ONSC 2379

CITATION : Wolf v. Manulife Investment Management, 2023 ONSC 2379 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 22-460 DATE: 20230417 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT Sachs, D.L. Corbett and J.A. Ramsay JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) RAYMOND WOLF AND IRMA GERENCSER Appellants – and – MANULIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AND MICHAEL MOTZ LANDORD AND TENANT BOARD Respondents ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Self-represented Appellants Kristin A Ley , for Manulife Investment Management and Michael Motz Katia Snuka, for Tribunals Ontario Legal Services ) HEARD at Toronto: April 17, 2023 D.L.

CORBETT J. (Orally) [ 1 ] With the greatest of respect to the appellants, their position below and in this court is premised on an incorrect legal analysis. For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The landlord Manulife had a practice of renewing residential leases for one-year terms.

Manulife decided to change its practice and to not renew residential leases with the result that pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act , the leases became month-to- month tenancies with all the security of tenure afforded to residential tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act. [ 3 ] In the result, the appellants’ lease was not renewed for a one-year term when it expired, and the appellants became month-to- month tenants with no fixed term. The tenants were concerned that this change presaged eviction.

They applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board for relief on the basis that their landlord had violated s. 23 of the Residential Tenancies Act which provides “a landlord shall not harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a tenant”. The alleged misconduct was Manulife’s failure to renew the lease for a one-year term. [ 4 ] Once the Landlord and Tenant Board clarified the nature of the tenant’s claim, the hearing was brief.

The Board did not permit the tenants to adduce evidence going to the landlord’s motivation for its change of renewal practice, that motivation being irrelevant to the landlord’s decision to do something it was permitted to do as a right under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Board’s conclusion, that the tenant’s complaint had no foundation in law, was based on ss. 38(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act which states “if a tenancy agreement for a fixed terms ends, and has not been renewed or terminated, the landlord and tenant shall be deemed to have renewed it as a monthly tenancy agreement containing the same terms and conditions that are in the expired tenancy agreement and subject to any increases in rent, charged in accordance with this Act ”. [ 5 ] In paragraphs 3 to 6 of the Landlord and Tenant Board’s Reconsideration Decision, the Board found that the original decision was premised on a correct understanding of the law and that it was not procedurally unfair to decline to hear evidence in respect to an argument that, in law, was doomed to fail.

Subsection 38(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act could not be clearer. Its meaning and effect have been a central feature of residential tenancies in Ontario for decades. It is one provision in a scheme of protection of tenure for residential tenants. Unlike the cases cited to us by the appellants, such as Bhasin v. Hrynew 2014 SCC 71 , non-renewal of a residential tenancy does not have the effect of terminating the contract. There is no analogy between the present case and cases where commercial tenancies or other ongoing commercial agreements are terminated through non-renewal.

The tenants enjoy all the protection of the Residential Tenancies Act , and reversion to month-to-month tenancy has not compromised that security.

[ 6 ] In respect to the procedural fairness arguments, I likewise see little merit in the appeal. Once the Board understood that the appellants’ position was premised on an untenable legal position, the Board declined to devote time to permit the appellants to develop a further factual basis for their case. This was not unfair and was a reasonable exercise of discretion. The Landlord and Tenant Board is a very busy tribunal and should not be wasting its scarce resources hearing evidence that is unnecessary for the disposition of the issues before the Board. [ 7 ] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

SACHS J. (Costs) [ 8 ] The respondent landlord as the successful party has made a request for costs against the appellant in the amount of $2,500 all inclusive. We find the request to be a reasonable one and it is ordered that the appellant is to pay the respondent landlord the sum of $2,500 by way of costs all inclusive. _______________________________ D.L. Corbett J. I agree _______________________________ Sachs J. I agree _______________________________ J.A. Ramsay J. Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: April 17, 2023 Date of Written Release: April 21, 2023 CITATION : Wolf v.

Manulife Investment Management, 2023 ONSC 2379 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 22-460 DATE: 20230417 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, D.L. CORBETT AND J.A. RAMSAY JJ. BETWEEN:

RAYMOND WOLF AND IRMA GERENCSER Appellants – and – MANULIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AND MICHAEL MOTZ LANDORD AND TENANT BOARD Respondents ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT D.L. Corbett J. Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: April 17, 2023 Date of Written Release: April 21, 2023