Introduction: This report is an observational summary of the Landlord and Tenant Board in Mississauga Ontario, located at 3 Robert Speck Parkway suite 520. The office was on a main route and had a bus stop nearby. Despite the available public transportation, the location might have been inconvenient for those who had to travel far, especially considering that there are only 4 Landlord and Tenant Boards in the greater Toronto area (GTA). In addition, to the long travel, the cost of commuting could potentially take a toll on people financially due to the price of gas and bus fare. The board office itself was located on the 5th floor of a large building. The entrance had security stationed at the front desk who were able to give directions.
…show more content…
The duty counsellor’s office was available in the same building as the tribunal, which made it easier for tenants to seek assistance and it also contributed to the idea of natural law, in that one of the principles of natural law states that everyone has a right to be heard and to equal treatment. The counsellor helped to make sure that the tenant’s needs were met, and that tenant navigated through the board proceedings correctly. The duty counsel was its on separate entity, and was not a part of the board. Those who had wanted assistance from the duty counsel needed to have had a hearing scheduled for the same …show more content…
One board officer had listened to un-opposed cases, and the other had listened to cases that involved both landlord and tenants being in attendance. For both board officers their main goal was to determine which side had put forth more compelling evidence, and better argued their position, much like in Small Claims Court. Where board officers differed, from Small Claims Court, is that they had a more laid back manner. Parties were not expected to stand when speaking, and were not required to refer to the board officers with any particular title. Board officers often allowed parties to speak out of turn, and wore more flexible on the rules. Board officers were typically expertise in their fields, which allowed them to be aware of the appropriate times to differ from regular proceedings. In one particular instance, a board officer allowed for a witness to be called despite the fact that witnesses were not generally used in un-opposed cases. The officers were stricter with the paralegals, in contrast to the sympathetic behaviour the board officers showed towards unrepresented people. The assumption would be that because the paralegals were more adverse in the subject of law, the board officers had higher expectations. In one case a landlord requested a rescheduled hearing after not filing the appropriate paper work in time, his motion was granted. If the landlord had a paralegal, the board
The duty counsellor’s office was available in the same building as the tribunal, which made it easier for tenants to seek assistance and it also contributed to the idea of natural law, in that one of the principles of natural law states that everyone has a right to be heard and to equal treatment. The counsellor helped to make sure that the tenant’s needs were met, and that tenant navigated through the board proceedings correctly. The duty counsel was its on separate entity, and was not a part of the board. Those who had wanted assistance from the duty counsel needed to have had a hearing scheduled for the same …show more content…
One board officer had listened to un-opposed cases, and the other had listened to cases that involved both landlord and tenants being in attendance. For both board officers their main goal was to determine which side had put forth more compelling evidence, and better argued their position, much like in Small Claims Court. Where board officers differed, from Small Claims Court, is that they had a more laid back manner. Parties were not expected to stand when speaking, and were not required to refer to the board officers with any particular title. Board officers often allowed parties to speak out of turn, and wore more flexible on the rules. Board officers were typically expertise in their fields, which allowed them to be aware of the appropriate times to differ from regular proceedings. In one particular instance, a board officer allowed for a witness to be called despite the fact that witnesses were not generally used in un-opposed cases. The officers were stricter with the paralegals, in contrast to the sympathetic behaviour the board officers showed towards unrepresented people. The assumption would be that because the paralegals were more adverse in the subject of law, the board officers had higher expectations. In one case a landlord requested a rescheduled hearing after not filing the appropriate paper work in time, his motion was granted. If the landlord had a paralegal, the board