COURT FILE NO.: 49/03
DATE: 20030303
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
RONALD TAYLOR Appellant
- and -
HAVCARE INVESTMENTS and HARVEY KREBS Respondent
Counsel: Ronald Taylor, In Person David S. Strashin, for the Respondent
HEARD: March 3, 2003
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.: (Orally)
[1] The respondent has brought a motion to quash the appeal or, in the alternative, for an order requiring the appellant to pay arrears of rent owing.
[2] The appellant argues that there is an irregularity in the respondent's affidavit because the commissioner's signature is illegible. The signature appears to be Mr. Strashin's, and he has stated that it is his. In my view, the affidavit is acceptable.
[3] On a motion to quash, the court must be satisfied that the appeal is manifestly devoid of merit. This power is seldom exercised (Schmidt v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1995), 24 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.) at p. 2). It is clear that two grounds of appeal have no merit. Item 2 states that the tribunal erred in lifting the stay of the eviction until the application for abatement of rent has been heard. No harm has come from such action, as no eviction occurred prior to the abatement hearing.
[4] The third ground of appeal is the failure to find the appellant was not justified in withholding rent due to the disrepair of the premises. A separate application was brought respecting abatement. Mr. Taylor refused to participate and the application was dismissed February 10, 2003. Therefore, there is no ongoing issue of entitlement to abatement.
[5] That leaves only the ground of denial of natural justice. At the review hearing, the appellant was represented by counsel; a rehearing was held, and the original decision was affirmed. Therefore, there is no merit to the natural justice claim.
[6] Given the grounds of appeal and the evidence of the merits, I am satisfied that this appeal is devoid of merits. The appellant now owes the landlord over $3,000.00 in arrears of rent. While a single judge of this Court should be reluctant to quash an appeal, this is an appeal, in my view, without merit.
[7] Therefore the motion is granted, the appeal is quashed. The appellant's approval of the draft order is dispensed with. The certificate of stay is vacated. Costs to the respondent fixed at $1,000, payable forthwith.
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 3, 2003
Date of Release: March 7, 2003
COURT FILE NO.: 49/03
DATE: 20030303
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
RONALD TAYLOR Appellant
- and -
HAVCARE INVESTMENTS and HARVEY KREBS Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 3, 2003
Date of Release: March 7, 2003