Standard of Review from Decisions of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RtSUMIt L'article aborde essentiellement la question de la norme d'examen applicable aux appels de d6cisions rendues par le Tribunal du logement de l'Ontario en vertu de la Loi de 1997 sur la protection des locataires interjet6s auprbs de la Cour divisionnaire de l'Ontario.I1 y a un volume consid6rable de d6cisions contradictoires portant sur la jurisprudence d'appel sur la question.L'auteur conclut qu'une norme de bien-fond6 devrait s'appliquer aux d6cisions du Tribunal.En outre, il examine bri~vement la norme d'examen appliqu6e dans les proc6dures de r6vision du Tribunal et dans les demandes d'examen judiciaire aupr~s de la Cour divisionnaire.Pour ce qui est des examens effectu6s par le Tribunal, l'auteur conclut que le Tribunal a adopt6 une d6marche inutilement restrictive.4. P.S. Rapsey."See No Evil.Hear No Evil, Remedy No Evil: How The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal Is Failing To Protect The Most Fundamental Rights Of Residential Tenants" (2000) 15 J. L. & Social Pol'y 163. 5. TPA s. 157(2) and s. 162.6.In 501606 Ontario Limited v. Manbauhar and Waldman (29 July 1998; Feldman), File No. TSL-00469 (ORHT), the adjudicator stated that s. 157 simply begged the question of whether something was within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.In Swire v. Walleye Trailer Park Limited Cunningham v. Walleye Trailer Park Limited (31 July 2001), Court File Nos.229/00 and 230/00 (Ont.Div.Ct.) (Maloney J.), an appeal from a decision of the Small Claims Court.a single judge of the Divisional Court held that only the ORHT could determine residential tenancy matters, even though the TPA in this case clearly did not give the Tribunal the authority over the question;, whereas in Crooks v. Levine, [2001 ] O.J. No. 278, online: QL (Div.Ct.) (Rutherford J.) another judge of the Court reached the opposite conclusion: i.e., the exclusive jurisdiction provision did not preclude the Small Claims Court from hearing matters merely because a residential tenancy issue was involved.7. Supra note 5 at pp 166-69.8. R.S.O.1990, c. L.7, Part IV, as rep.by the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c. 24, s. 213(4).Part IV of the LTA previously dealt with residential tenancies.9.Moreau-Birube v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), [20021 S.C.J. No. 9, [Moreau-Berubf] at para.37.This was an appeal from a judicial review proceeding of a judicial council's decision.The decision by Arbour J. succinctly analyzes the developments in the law regarding the standard of review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".