The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (ORHT) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to the rental history of a specified property purchased by the requester’s client. The requester also asked ORHT to “advise whether or not the aforementioned building, tenants and current owners are involved in any outstanding claims and if so, how many and what units”.
ORHT advised the requester that a total of 128 applications had been filed under the Tenant Protection Act (TPA) relating to the property, and that all but two of these applications concerned tenancy terminations that had since been resolved. Of the remaining two applications, one is a tenant application alleging interference with reasonable enjoyment of the residence (ORHT file TET-02094), and the other is an application to increase rent by more than the allowable guideline (ORHT file TEL-19402). ORHT denied access to all records related to those two applications on the basis that qualify for exemption under section 21 of the Act.
The requester, now the appellant, appealed ORHT’s decision.
During mediation, the appellant narrowed the scope of the appeal to two records: an appendix attached to the ORHT order disposing of file TEL-19402 (Record #1); and the ORHT order disposing of file TET- 02094 (Record #2). The actual order for file TEL-19402 was disclosed. Also during mediation, ORHT issued a revised decision letter, providing the appellant with all portions of Record #2, with the exception of the unit number and names of the tenants who were parties to file TET-02094.
Further mediation was unsuccessful and the file was transferred to me for adjudication.
I began my inquiry by sending a Notice of Inquiry to ORHT, outlining the facts and issues and seeking representations. I also provided a copy of the Notice to the two individuals who are identified by name in the file TET-02094, as affected parties whose interests might be affected by the outcome of the appeal. ORHT chose not to provide representations in response to the Notice, and the copy of the Notice sent to the affected parties was returned to this office as undeliverable. I then sent the Notice of Inquiry to the appellant, who also declined to submit representations.