COURT FILE NO.: DC-08-36
DATE: 20080808
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
LEAH BUTT
Ms. Leah Butt, Self-Represented
Applicant
- and -
DEANNA PHILLIPS and ROBERT PHILLIPS
Mr. Phillip D. Kennedy, counsel for the Defendant
Defendant
HEARD: August 8, 2008
ARRELL J.
INTRODUCTION
[1] Ms. Butt has been a tenant of the Phillips’ since September 2003. The respondents bring this motion to quash Ms. Butt’s Notices of Appeal from the Residential Tenancy Tribunal dated May 23, 2008 and June 16, 2009 as an abuse of process and having no merit. As well, the appeals have not been perfected.
FACTS
[2] The respondents made application to the Residential Tenancy Tribunal in October 2005 for payment of rent and eviction. A hearing was held whereby both parties were heard, a determination of the facts were made and an Order issued dated October 24, 2007.
[3] There is no evidence before me of any error in law regarding that hearing or the Order made.
[4] The Order of October 24, 2007 was reviewed by the Tribunal on April 2, 2008 at the request of Ms. Butt; she was fully heard and determinations were made and a new Order issued dated April 8, 2008.
[5] There is no indication before me to allow me to conclude that there was any error in law by that Tribunal. Pursuant to the Order the respondent requested an eviction Order as Ms. Butt had not complied with the terms of that Order. Ms. Butt brought a further motion to set aside this Order and again there is no evidence before this court that she was not able to make full answer to the Tribunal. Her motion was denied and the eviction Order issued April 24, 2008 to be effective May 31, 2008.
[6] Ms. Butt states her ground for this appeal are as follows:
- The Tribunal imposed unreasonable conditions for payment of rent;
- The Tribunal exceeded its’ jurisdiction in granting the ex-parte eviction Order;
- The Tribunal member failed to recuse herself from issuing the eviction Order since she made the original Order.
[7] There is no material before this court to substantiate any of the grounds of appeal. Nor, is there any material before this court to justify why the member should have recused herself. There is no material to indicate any bias or perceived bias. Further, there is no material whatsoever before me to indicate in any way that there was an error of law committed by the Tribunal at any time.
[8] At all times it appears to this court that Ms. Butt received a full hearing, made whatever submissions she wished, and findings of fact were made by the Tribunal which are fully justified by the evidence. Ms. Butt appears to have had a very fair hearing. Regrettably, she does not agree with the result.
[9] Ms. Butt has filed a further Notice of Appeal dated June 16, 2008 which again seeks to appeal the eviction Order dated April 24, 2008. Ms. Butt had obtained a stay of that Order and a further hearing was held. The Tribunal issued an Order dated May 23, 2008 lifting the stay of its’ Order effective May 31, 2008 and further Ordered that its’ Order of April 24, 2008 was in full force and effect and could be enforced effective May 31, 2008.
[10] Ms. Butt’s grounds for appeal of that Order are as follows:
- The member erred in hearing a review of her own decision;
- The member erred in hearing a motion to set aside her own decision;
- The member erred in treating the review application as a hearing and demanding to hear testimony instead of submissions.
[11] A review of the decision of the Tribunal does not indicate this was a review to set aside the member’s earlier decision. In fact, it clearly states that the hearing on April 21, 2008 at the request of the tenant was a review of the Order issued October 24, 2007 of R. Votta. That review was then heard by K. Bugby. The hearing of April 2, 2008 was adjourned and a final decision was not issued, although interim conditions for payment of rent were Ordered. Those conditions were not met and the Order dated April 24, 2008 issued. On April 30, 2008 Ms. Butt filed a motion to set aside the April 24, 2008 Order. That was heard May 15, 1008 and a decision issued May 23, 2008 denying the motion, lifting the stay and making the Order of April 24, 2008 final.
[12] There is no evidence before me that this appeal has any merit. There is no evidence nor has any submission been made that there was any error in law. Clearly, the member was not reviewing her own decision but, was deciding whether it should be made final, which is well within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. There is no evidence before me that Ms. Butt was not given every opportunity to argue and present her case as she deemed appropriate.
[13] Based on the material before me she received a very fair hearing and there are no errors in law by the Tribunal.
[14] The law is clear that an appeal lies to a single judge of the Divisional Court pursuant to s.210(1) of the Residential Tenancy Act on a question of law only.
[15] I find there has been no error in law by the Tribunal. The appeals are therefore dismissed and the Order of the Tribunal dated April 24, 2008 is given full force and effect.
[16] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, I may be spoken to on a date fixed through the trial coordinator.
Mr. Justice H. Arrell
Released: August 8, 2008
Court File No.: DC-08-36
Date: 20080808
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: LEAH BUTT v. DEANNA PHILLIPS and ROBERT PHILLIPS
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice H. Arrell
COUNSEL: Ms. Leah Butt, Self-Represented
Mr. Phillip D. Kennedy, counsel for
the Defendant
REASONS
Released: August 8, 2008 The Honourable Mr. Justice H. Arrell