Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: DC-05005493-00 (Brampton) ORHT No. CET-04866 DATE: 20070220
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Ernesto Natarelli and Lina Natarelli Tenants/Appellants -and- Adnan Sheikh Landlord/Respondent
HEARD: January 15, 2007
BEFORE: Cunningham A.C.J.S.C., Lane and Carnwath JJ.
COUNSEL: Patrick Di Monte, for the Tenants Jane Ferguson, for the Landlord
ENDORSEMENT
1This is an appeal by the tenants from the order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (“Tribunal”) dated April 29, 2005 whereby the Tribunal found that the landlord had harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the tenants in their efforts to remove their possessions from the rented premises following their eviction. The Tribunal further found that the tenants had suffered damages as a result of the landlord’s acts for which the landlord was liable. The tenants’ appeal is from the award of $2,000 as an abatement of rent as a consequence of the landlord’s acts.
2The tenants were ordered evicted in an undisputed hearing on February 2, 2005, and they did vacate. The eviction order also directed that the landlord allow the tenants to remove their remaining possessions from the rental unit garage. However, when they went to do so, the tenants discovered that their possessions had been disposed of.
3The tenants then brought the application resulting in the order appealed from. The tenants seek an increase in the damages from the $2,000 awarded by the Tribunal to $30,000 to compensate them for the loss of their goods, or that the matter of quantum be referred to arbitration or a reference.
4The Tribunal gave no reasons at all for selecting the amount of $2,000 as an appropriate award. The tenants had asked in their application that they be allowed to proceed under section 193 of the Tenant Protection Act in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover their losses, or in the alternative that the Tribunal fix them. The Tribunal gave no reasons for not refraining from making an award and permitting the tenants to take their claim to court, which was their primary claim.
5The right of appeal to this court from the Tribunal is confined to errors of law. Failing to give reasons in support of the amount of the damages and failing to explain why the adjournment was not granted are errors of law and we have jurisdiction. Where there are no reasons, the decision cannot stand: Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; Megens v Ontario Racing Commission (2003), 64 O.R. (3rd) 142 (Div. Ct.).
6Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside paragraph 2 of the order of the Tribunal dated April 29, 2005 in which it awards the tenant the sum of $2,000 and substitute for that paragraph an order that the tenants have 60 days from the release of these reasons in which to serve upon the landlord and file with the Tribunal their election whether to proceed with an assessment of their losses before the Tribunal, differently constituted, pursuant to sections 35 and 193(1) of the Tenant Protection Act; or alternatively, to commence proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to section 193(2) of that Act.
7Costs to the appellant fixed at $3500, plus $750 for the earlier hearing as agreed at the hearing before us.
Cunningham A.C.J.
Lane J.
Carnwath J.
DATE: