The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated a digital transformation at the Landlord and Tenant Board that has fundamentally changed how landlord-tenant disputes are resolved in Ontario. While virtual hearings and digital processes have made the system more efficient in many ways, they have also created new barriers to access and raised important questions about procedural fairness in the digital age.
This comprehensive analysis of real LTB cases reveals how technology is reshaping access to justice, the challenges parties face in navigating digital proceedings, and the evolving legal standards for what constitutes fair participation in virtual hearings.
The Shift to Virtual Hearings
The LTB's transition to video conference hearings represents one of the most significant procedural changes in the Board's history. While this shift has enabled continued operations during the pandemic and beyond, it has also created new categories of procedural issues.
Case Study: When Technology Fails
In nguyen-v-bernard-20230525, a landlord "requested a review of the order issued on May 12, 2023" claiming they "were not reasonably able to participate in the previous hearing due to technological difficulties."
The Board found merit in the claim, determining that "the matter is directed to a review hearing to determine whether there was a serious error in the order or the proceeding and whether the landlord was reasonably able to participate in the proceedings."
This case illustrates how technological barriers can constitute grounds for review when they prevent meaningful participation in hearings.
Case Study: The Zoom Link Problem
A recurring issue involves parties who cannot access virtual hearings due to technical problems. In palma-v-bilotta-20230405, "the tenant claims they did not receive the Zoom link to access the hearing."
However, the Board found that "the Notice of Hearing contains all relevant details and instructions with respect to the March 15, 2023 hearing, including the Zoom virtual link as well as a toll-free telephone option." The Board noted that "the tenant never indicated if they attempted to use the telephone number provided in the notice."
This case demonstrates that while technical difficulties can be legitimate grounds for review, parties must make reasonable efforts to use alternative access methods provided by the Board.
The Burden of Technological Proficiency
The shift to digital proceedings has created an implicit requirement for technological literacy that disproportionately affects certain populations.
Case Study: Poor Technological Proficiency
In hansen-v-carter-20250306, the Board found that the "Tenant was not reasonably able to participate in the original hearing due to poor technological proficiency."
This recognition that lack of technological skills can constitute a barrier to participation represents an important development in access to justice jurisprudence. The Board granted the tenant's request for review, acknowledging that technological barriers can be as significant as other impediments to fair participation.
Case Study: The Learning Disability Factor
In mancini-and-gilbert-v-porter-and-reisner-20220113, "Tenant Trevor Reisner was aware of the hearing but had technological issues" and "has a learning disability that made it difficult to communicate."
The Board found that "the Tenants were not reasonably able to participate in the initial proceeding due to technological difficulties, and were granted a review." This case highlights how technological barriers can compound existing accessibility challenges.
Email Service and Digital Communication Issues
The Board's reliance on email for service of notices has created new procedural challenges and fairness concerns.
Case Study: The Email Service Dilemma
In osgoode-properties-v-binye-20210510, the landlord's representative "indicated she did not receive the Notice of the hearing that took place on March 9, 2021, although it appears from the Board's file that it was properly served by email on February 16, 2021."
The representative had "sent a general request to the Board to mail rather than email the Notice prior to the scheduling of the hearing, and also called her internet provider to investigate whether the problem was with her technology."
The Board found that "on a balance of probabilities, there may have been an error in procedure and the Landlord did not have an adequate opportunity to participate in the hearing," demonstrating the challenges of proving email delivery and receipt.
Case Study: Missing Video Conference Instructions
In robertson-v-murphy-20210625, "the Tenant was not reasonably able to participate in the hearing that took place on April 1, 2021 as the notice of hearing did not include instructions for logging into the video conference hearing."
The Board found that "the Tenant provided detailed and consistent testimony, which was supported by documentary evidence in the Board file" and granted the review request. This case emphasizes the importance of clear, complete instructions for accessing virtual proceedings.
The Digital Accommodation Challenge
The intersection of technology and disability accommodation has created complex new challenges for ensuring equal access to LTB proceedings.
Case Study: Lack of Access to Technology
In mara-investments-incorporated-v-puskas-20220301, the "Tenant claimed he was not able to reasonably participate in the L1 hearing because he did not have a phone or access to technology, and could not get assistance through community support services due to COVID-19 lockdown."
However, the Board found that "the Tenant failed to submit any evidence to support his argument that he was not reasonably able to participate in the original L1 hearing." This case illustrates the evidentiary burden parties face when claiming technology-related barriers.
Case Study: The Payment Technology Barrier
In mcewen-v-kelly-20230614, a landlord created barriers by changing payment methods without considering the tenant's technological limitations. The Board found that the "Landlord has not provided a bank account number that the Tenant can use to deposit his payment knowing that he lacks access to technology."
The Board determined that "the Landlord created a barrier for the Tenant, which caused the Tenant to breach a condition of the order" and granted relief from eviction. This case shows how technological requirements can create unfair barriers beyond the hearing process itself.
Procedural Fairness in the Digital Age
Virtual proceedings have raised new questions about what constitutes procedural fairness and adequate opportunity to participate.
Case Study: Unfamiliarity with Technology
In frontenac-property-management-v-allison-20220125, "the Landlord was not reasonably able to participate in the initial proceedings due to unfamiliarity with the videoconference technology."
The Board emphasized that it "must be flexible with parties and representatives who encounter such barriers," recognizing that technological unfamiliarity can constitute a legitimate impediment to participation.
Case Study: Technical Difficulties During Hearings
In bendzsel-v-turner-and-davidson-20220201, the landlord and their representative "tried numerous times to join the video conference but were never admitted into the hearing room."
The Board found that they "were not reasonably able to participate in the hearing on October 5, 2021, due to technical difficulties with being admitted to the video conference" and granted the review request. This case demonstrates that technical problems during hearings, not just before them, can constitute grounds for review.
The Inconsistent Application Problem
One concerning trend is the inconsistent application of standards for what constitutes reasonable inability to participate due to technological issues.
Case Study: Inconsistent Reasons Rejected
In lorini-v-parent-20211216, a tenant claimed "difficulty with outgoing audio on cellphone" and that he "had electricity shut off, preventing him from joining the conference via internet."
However, the Board found that "the Tenant's reasons for missing the hearing were inconsistent and he did not take reasonable steps to remedy his technology issues." The Board noted that the tenant "had ample time to take reasonable steps to remedy his technology difficulties."
This case illustrates the Board's expectation that parties take proactive steps to address technological barriers rather than simply claiming inability to participate.
The Virtual Hearing Participation Spectrum
Cases reveal a spectrum of virtual hearing participation issues, from complete inability to access hearings to partial participation problems.
Case Study: Partial Participation
In stan-v-cumming-20210916, "the Tenant did not attend the hearing after initially appearing and leaving the virtual hearing room several times."
This case highlights how virtual hearings can create new forms of partial or interrupted participation that don't exist in traditional in-person proceedings.
Case Study: Disconnection During Proceedings
In metcap-living-management-inc-v-konadu-20240123, "the tenant had initially attended the video conference and mediation, but then disconnected and did not attend the hearing."
These cases demonstrate how virtual proceedings can create ambiguity about whether a party's absence is voluntary or due to technical difficulties.
The Accommodation Imperative
The shift to digital proceedings has highlighted the need for accommodation not just for traditional disabilities, but for technology-related barriers.
Case Study: Written Hearing Accommodation
In sri-v-r-t-20161230, "the Board granted the Tenant's request for a written hearing due to the combination of the Tenant's disability-related needs and the religious accommodation required for the Landlord's witness."
This case shows how the Board can provide alternative hearing formats to accommodate various needs, including those that may intersect with technological barriers.
Case Study: Communication Method Accommodation
In rl-v-nj-20190318, the Board ordered that "the Landlord and Tenant are ordered to communicate by email" after finding that the landlord "did not know the difference between email and texting, and only had a flip phone without ability to text or email."
This case illustrates how technological limitations can affect not just hearing participation but ongoing landlord-tenant relationships.
The Evidence and Documentation Challenge
Digital proceedings have changed how evidence is presented and documented, creating new challenges for parties.
Case Study: Video Evidence in Virtual Hearings
In krishna-v-alexandra-park-co-operative-20220107, a tenant argued there was "procedural unfairness in the LTB hearing process and failure to accommodate his disability" partly based on the use of video evidence in virtual proceedings.
However, the Divisional Court found "no procedural unfairness in the LTB's handling of the case, including the expedited hearing, use of video evidence, and consideration of evidence not specifically mentioned in notices."
This case demonstrates that virtual hearings don't necessarily compromise the ability to present and consider complex evidence.
Best Practices for Digital Proceedings
Based on the cases analyzed, several best practices emerge for navigating digital LTB proceedings.
For Parties
Before the Hearing:
- Test technology well in advance of the hearing date
- Ensure you have multiple ways to access the hearing (computer, phone, etc.)
- Have backup internet access if possible
- Request accommodation early if you have technological limitations
- Keep documentation of any technical difficulties
During the Hearing:
- Join early to resolve any technical issues
- Have phone backup ready if video fails
- Ensure you're in a quiet, private location
- Have all documents ready in digital format
- Take notes about any technical problems that occur
After Technical Difficulties:
- Document the specific nature of technical problems
- Request review promptly if you couldn't participate
- Provide evidence of attempts to resolve technical issues
- Be specific about what prevented participation
For Representatives
Client Preparation:
- Assess clients' technological capabilities early
- Provide technology training if needed
- Have backup plans for clients with limited tech access
- Consider requesting written hearings for clients with significant barriers
During Proceedings:
- Be prepared to advocate for adjournments due to technical difficulties
- Document any procedural issues that arise
- Assist clients with technology during hearings when possible
The Access to Justice Implications
The digital transformation of LTB proceedings has created both opportunities and challenges for access to justice.
Positive Impacts
Increased Accessibility:
- Reduced travel time and costs
- Ability to participate from anywhere
- Accommodation for some mobility issues
- More efficient scheduling
Process Improvements:
- Faster resolution of some cases
- Better record-keeping
- Reduced administrative costs
- Environmental benefits
Negative Impacts
Digital Divide Issues:
- Barriers for those without reliable internet
- Challenges for older adults and others with limited tech skills
- Language barriers compounded by technology
- Economic barriers to accessing necessary technology
Procedural Concerns:
- Difficulty assessing credibility in virtual settings
- Technical disruptions affecting fair hearings
- Challenges with document presentation
- Privacy and confidentiality concerns
Recommendations for System Improvement
Based on the case analysis, several improvements could enhance access to justice in digital proceedings:
Technology Support
Pre-Hearing Assistance:
- Mandatory technology testing sessions
- Technical support hotlines
- Video tutorials in multiple languages
- Loaner device programs for those in need
During Hearings:
- Technical support staff available during proceedings
- Clear protocols for handling technical difficulties
- Automatic recording of technical issues
- Backup communication methods
Accommodation Enhancements
Proactive Identification:
- Screening for technological barriers during application process
- Early identification of accommodation needs
- Flexible hearing format options
- Cultural and linguistic considerations
Alternative Formats:
- Written hearing options
- Hybrid in-person/virtual proceedings
- Telephone-only participation
- Asynchronous document review processes
Training and Education
For Adjudicators:
- Training on identifying technological barriers
- Understanding of digital divide issues
- Protocols for handling technical difficulties
- Cultural competency in digital settings
For Parties:
- Public education about virtual hearing procedures
- Technology training programs
- Multilingual support materials
- Community partnerships for support
The Future of Digital Justice
The LTB's experience with digital transformation offers lessons for the broader justice system.
Emerging Trends
Hybrid Models:
- Combination of virtual and in-person proceedings
- Choice of hearing format based on case complexity
- Flexible scheduling options
- Technology-assisted in-person hearings
Enhanced Technology:
- Improved video conferencing platforms
- AI-assisted transcription and translation
- Mobile-friendly interfaces
- Accessibility-focused design
Systemic Changes:
- Integration with other digital government services
- Streamlined online application processes
- Digital case management systems
- Electronic evidence presentation tools
Ongoing Challenges
Equity Concerns:
- Ensuring equal access regardless of technological capability
- Addressing systemic barriers
- Protecting vulnerable populations
- Maintaining human connection in digital processes
Quality of Justice:
- Preserving procedural fairness in virtual settings
- Maintaining the quality of decision-making
- Ensuring adequate participation opportunities
- Balancing efficiency with thoroughness
Conclusion: Navigating the Digital Divide
The cases examined reveal that technology has fundamentally changed the landscape of landlord-tenant dispute resolution at the LTB. While digital proceedings offer significant benefits in terms of efficiency and accessibility, they have also created new barriers that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.
Key Insights:
Technology as Both Barrier and Bridge:
- Virtual hearings can increase access for some while creating barriers for others
- The digital divide reflects broader socioeconomic inequalities
- Accommodation must evolve to address technological barriers
- Multiple access methods are essential for inclusive proceedings
Procedural Fairness in Digital Settings:
- Traditional fairness concepts must adapt to virtual environments
- Technical difficulties can constitute legitimate grounds for review
- Parties have obligations to make reasonable efforts to participate
- Clear instructions and support are essential for fair proceedings
The Accommodation Imperative:
- Disability accommodation must include technological barriers
- Proactive identification of needs is crucial
- Alternative hearing formats must remain available
- Cultural and linguistic factors intersect with technological barriers
System Design Principles:
- User-centered design should prioritize accessibility
- Multiple pathways to participation must be maintained
- Technical support should be integrated into proceedings
- Continuous evaluation and improvement are necessary
Looking Forward:
The LTB's digital transformation is ongoing, and the cases analyzed provide valuable guidance for future development. Success will depend on:
- Inclusive Design: Ensuring that digital systems work for all users, not just those with high technological literacy
- Flexible Accommodation: Providing multiple ways to participate and access services
- Ongoing Support: Maintaining technical assistance and user education programs
- Continuous Evaluation: Regularly assessing the impact of digital changes on access to justice
For Parties Navigating Digital Proceedings:
- Prepare Early: Test technology and identify potential barriers well before hearing dates
- Seek Help: Don't hesitate to request accommodation or technical assistance
- Document Issues: Keep records of any technical difficulties that affect your participation
- Know Your Options: Understand alternative ways to participate if technology fails
- Stay Informed: Keep up with changes to digital procedures and available support
The digital divide at the LTB reflects broader challenges facing justice systems worldwide as they adapt to technological change. While the transition has created new barriers, it has also opened opportunities for innovation in access to justice. The key is ensuring that technological advancement serves to enhance rather than restrict access to fair and effective dispute resolution.
As the system continues to evolve, the experiences documented in these cases provide crucial insights for maintaining the balance between efficiency and equity, innovation and inclusion. The goal must be a digital justice system that works for everyone, regardless of their technological capabilities or circumstances.
The future of landlord-tenant dispute resolution will likely be hybrid, combining the best aspects of digital and traditional proceedings while continuously working to eliminate barriers to participation. Success will be measured not just by efficiency gains, but by whether all parties can meaningfully access and participate in the justice system, regardless of their relationship with technology.
