COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
W.S. (Appellant/Applicant in Application) v. ONTARIO RENTAL HOUSING TRIBUNAL and TORONTO HOUSING COMPANY INC. (Responding Parties/Respondents in Application)
BEFORE:
CATZMAN, LABROSSE and DOHERTY JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
John Terry
for the appellant
Karen Andrews
for the respondent
HEARD:
February 21, 2002
On appeal from the order of the Divisional Court (Justice J.G.J. O’Driscoll, Justice J.B.S. Southey and Justice Terrance O’Connor) dated October 18, 2000.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1This appeal emanates from a purely private landlord and tenant dispute. That dispute no longer exists. The appellant has successfully avoided eviction.
2While there is a potentially significant public interest component to one of the issues raised in the course of this private litigation (the alleged publication of the identity of an alleged young offender), the appellant’s interests in that issue is limited to the potential publication of the identity of a specific young person in the course of the ongoing landlord and tenant proceedings brought against her. There is no longer any risk that such publication will occur. The appeal is clearly moot.
3This is not one of those unusual cases where the court should exercise its discretion to hear a moot appeal. Unlike Horseman’s Benevolent and Protective Association v. Ontario Racing Commission (1997), 1997 1907 (ON CA), 37 O.R. (3d) 430 (C.A.), this is not a case where the same issue is likely to arise as between the same parties in the future. The appellant can claim no interest in the resolution of the issue concerning the Young Offenders Act beyond that which any interested member of the public might have. Nor is the issue one which is “evasive of judicial review”. The issue has arisen in the past and no doubt will arise again in a variety of circumstances.
4The appeal is quashed as a moot appeal.
“M.A. Catzman J.A.”
“J.M. Labrosse J.A.”
“Doherty J.A.”