Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Christiane Carinci (Applicant –Landlord) and Michael Gartner (Respondent –Tenant)
BEFORE: Justice Cumming
COUNSEL: Ms. Carinci self-represented
HEARD: March 8, 2007
E N D O R S E M E N T
CUMMING J.
1The Landlord/Respondent in Appeal, Christiane Carinci, moves to quash the appeal of the Tenant/Appellant, Michael Gartner from the Order of Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal Member Joseph Berkovits (the “Tribunal”) dated January 22, 2007 terminating the Tenant’s tenancy for non-payment of rent and granting the Landlord arrears and eviction.
2The Tenant did not appear for the hearing. The Landlord provided an affidavit of service by regular mail February 23, 2007, in respect of Mr. Gartner.
3The single ground of appeal asserted in the Notice of Appeal dated February 1, 2007 is that the Tribunal erred in determining that Michael Gartner was the Tenant rather than “Gartner Foundation.”
4The Tribunal found, inter alia,
Having regard to section 188 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, I find that there is a sufficient connection between the party/ Tenant and the same person who is named and identified as a director of a Corporation on the lease.
5It is noted the actual lease names “Michael Gartner” as tenant on its face page and on the signature page, although someone (presumably Mr. Gartner) has printed “Director for Gartner Foundation” following Mr. Gartner’s signature.
6Mr. Gartner claims in his Notice of Appeal he is not the tenant of the Rental Agreement and that the Gartner Foundation is the legal tenant.
7In my view, and I so find, the simple addition of the words “Director for Gartner Foundation” following the signature is of no import given the contractual provisions of the printed lease and the signature of Michael Gartner.
8I note as well incidentally that Mr. Garner gives his personal address as being the subject property of the lease in the materials he has filed with the Divisional Court. There is no reference to the purported “Gartner Foundation”.
9It is apparent that the Tribunal made a finding of fact that Mr. Gartner was the tenant. The Tenant fails to raise in his Notice of Appeal any legitimate question of law, as required pursuant to s. 196 of the Tenant Protection Act.
Disposition
10In my view, the Tenant’s purported appeal is manifestly devoid of merit and is an abuse of the process of the Court. The Tenant’s Appeal fails to raise any legitimate question of law. The Tribunal’s decision is correct on the finding as to who is the legal tenant.
11Mr. Gartner does not deny in his Notice of Appeal that the rent has not been paid. He continues to be in default of the Tribunal’s Order. One infers his apparent motive is to obtain the automatic stay of the Order of eviction, pursuant to s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and to remain in possession of the rented premises without paying rent for as long a time as possible.
12For the reasons given, the Motion is granted, quashing the Tenant’s appeal and affirming the Order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal issued January 22, 2007. An Order will issue in accordance with this Endorsement.
CUMMING J.
DATE: March 8, 2007