Amending an Application (LTB)
15.1 A request to amend an application before the hearing must be:
- a) in writing;
- b) served with the amended application to all other parties; and
- c) filed with LTB with the amended application and a completed Certificate of Service.
15.2 Where the request to amend requires the LTB to revise the Notice of Hearing, the applicant must serve the revised Notice of Hearing to all other parties and file a Certificate of Service within 7 days of receiving the revised Notice.
15.3 The request to amend will be decided at the hearing after considering:
- a) whether the amendment was requested as soon as the need for it was known;
- b) any prejudice a party may experience as a result of the amendment;
- c) whether the amendment is significant enough to warrant any delay that may be caused by the amendment;
- d) whether the amendment is necessary and was requested in good faith; and
- e) any other relevant factors.
15.4 The LTB may exercise its discretion to grant a request to amend made at the hearing if satisfied the amendment is appropriate, would not prejudice any party and is consistent with a fair and expeditious proceeding.
5. The Landlord’s application includes a claim made pursuant to s. 89(1) of the Act (the ‘damage claim’) in the amount of $2,500.00. But the application includes no particulars; it is simply blank. Absent a timely request to amend the application to include particulars, proceeding to hear such a claim would deny the Tenant the right to know the case against him. So the Landlord’s damage claim must also be dismissed.
6. The Tenant’s application as originally filed names another applicant tenant. He is the tenant of another rental unit in the residential complex. He rents the other room on the upper level. So he and the Tenant are both tenants of the Landlord but they do not share a rental unit; they have separate tenancy agreements.
7. Pursuant to s. 186(2) of the Act:
- Two or more tenants of a residential complex may together file an application that may be filed by a tenant if each tenant applying in the application signs it.
8. Here, only the Tenant signed the application. The other tenant named in the application played no role in these proceedings and the allegations contained in the application pertain to this Tenant alone.
9. As a result, the Tenant’s application is amended to remove the second named applicant tenant as a party.
17. The Landlord did not seek to amend the application prior to the hearing pursuant to Rule 15.1, the amendment was not requested as soon as the need for it was known, the Tenant is prejudiced by the lateness of the claim, and delaying the hearing to permit proper amendment of the application is not warranted given the minor value of the claim.
18. As a result, the request to amend the application to include the NSF claim is denied.
6. The Tenant’s application states that one of the reasons she is applying to the LTB is because the Landlords interfered with a vital service; however, she indicated at the CMH that this was an error. The Tenant’s application is amended to withdraw this issue from the application.
7. The parties agree that the rental unit is a room in the complex and that it is referred to as the “BR” and further agree that the application is amended to add BR as the unit.
8. The Tenant’s application states the monthly rent was $1,500.00 per month. The parties agree this amount is incorrect and the Tenant states she will correct the amount on her amended application.
When MS requested the adjournment, she also requested that the applications be amended to remove JS as a party because JS allegedly no longer lives in the rental unit. Although the Landlord did not oppose the amendment, the amendment is denied. During the hearing, the Landlord gave evidence that he always sees JS, MS’s daughter, at the rental unit. Therefore, the evidence before me suggested that JS is still a tenant. Therefore, MS’ request to amend is denied and both JS and MS remain parties to the applications.
1. By way of background, the Tenant filed a tenant’s rights and maintenance application with file number TET-81382-17. The parties came to a mediate agreement on September 26, 2017. On April 24, 2018 the Tenant filed a request to re-open this file. On the same day, the Tenant filed a second tenant’s rights application with the Board.
2. After the request to re-open was determined at the hearing, the Tenant’s representative requested to amend the application to add a remedy of abatement of $4,886.40.
3. The Landlord opposed this amendment request because it would be unfair to him as this information is brand new to him.
4. I am inclined to agree with the Landlord. This application has already been dealt with via mediation and now with a re-open. To amend the application at this point in the process is prejudicial to the Landlord. The request to amend is denied.