Ontario Civil

Administrative Law

Practice and procedure

On application for certiorari

Merits of rent subsidy application not warranting its continuation

Applicant had received rent subsidy for several years when Housing Connections Review Panel decided to cancel his subsidy. Applicant’s application for judicial review was settled on basis that new decision letter would be issued, which required various documents from him immediately and on ongoing basis. Applicant did not continue to provide required financial and immigration documents and his rent subsidy was terminated. Applicant fell into arrears and was evicted. Applicant applied to set aside decisions of Housing Connections. Applicant took no steps to perfect his application and it was dismissed. Applicant brought motion to set aside dismissal. Motion dismissed. Applicant’s failure to retain lawyer was not reasonable in circumstances of this case. Applicant provided no corroboration of his statement that he was without fixed address. Applicant’s claim that he had mental health issues caused by termination of his rent subsidy was not supported by evidence of prescriptions predating subsidy termination decision. Applicant’s explanations for delay were not satisfactory. Applicant had no occupied rent subsidy unit for almost two years and had not occupied unit in building for more than 18 months. With extraordinary lapse of time since termination decision was made, it was unlikely that Housing Connections would be directed to reinstate his subsidy and most that would be accomplished was that he would start from scratch in applying for rent subsidy. Merits of application and justice of case did not warrant its continuation.

Mungeni v. Housing Connections (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 3437, 2017 ONSC 1517, Kiteley J. (Ont. Div. Ct.).


cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

By 2025, there is expected to be 1.6 new licensed lawyers for every one new practising position, according to a Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario report. Does this mean positions should be restricted in law schools?