CITATION: Walmer Developments v. Tenants of 10 Walmer Road, 2010 ONSC 3789
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 371/09
DATE: 20100630
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, SACHS AND WILTON-SIEGEL JJ.
BETWEEN:
WALMER DEVELOPMENTS c/o BRIARLANE RENTAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.
Landlord/Appellant
– and –
TENANTS OF 10 WALMER ROAD
Tenants/Respondents in Appeal
Joseph Hoffer and
Kristin Ley, for the Landlord/Appellant
Claire Hepburn, for the Tenants/ Respondents in Appeal
Karen Andrews, for the Tenants/ Respondents in Appeal
HEARD at Toronto: June 30, 2010
SACHS j. (ORALLY)
[1] In our view, the Landlord’s appeal is moot.
[2] The sole remedy requested by the tenants before the Landlord & Tenant Board (the “Board”) was an order “to require the landlord to cease its action in transferring hydro payment obligation from the landlord to the tenant”. In its decision the Board granted that remedy.
[3] After the Board released its decision, the Ontario Energy Board (“OEB”) made a finding (that the landlord acknowledges is binding on them) that the landlord’s activities in seeking to transfer hydro payment obligations to the tenants were unauthorized by virtue of s.53.18(1) of the Electricity Act.
[4] The issues before us on this appeal have been overtaken by the OEB decision and there is no live issue that remain to be determined.
[5] The landlord submits that the wording of paragraph 2 of the Board’s order could prevent them from implementing smart sub-metering in accordance with the rules promulgated by the OEB in its decision, particularly Rule 4 at page 22 of that decision.
[6] In our view, if this is a concern, the proper way to deal with this concern is not by way of an appeal on matters of law that have become moot, but to apply before the Board for a variation or clarification of its order given the subsequent development in the law.
[7] As the relief sought by the tenants before the Board has been granted, we do not see that in the circumstances of this case, the landlord will face exposure to a claim for any other relief by these tenants in this building as a result of the findings that the Board made in the decision under appeal.
[8] With respect to the order for interim costs for $150.00, the tenants have indicated that they have no concern about enforcing this order.
JENNINGS J.
[9] I endorse the back of the Record, “This appeal is dismissed as the issue is moot, for the oral reasons of the Court delivered today. Costs payable to the respondent fixed at $2,500.00 inclusive.”
JENNINGS J.
SACHS J.
WILTON-SIEGEL J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 30, 2010
Date of Release: July 21, 2010
CITATION: Walmer Developments v. Tenants of 10 Walmer Road, 2010 ONSC 3789
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 371/09
DATE: 20100630
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, SACHS AND WILTON-SIEGEL JJ.
BETWEEN:
WALMER DEVELOPMENTS c/o BRIARLANE RENTAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.
Landlord/Appellant
– and –
TENANTS OF 10 WALMER ROAD
Tenants/Respondents in Appeal
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 30, 2010
Date of Release: July 21, 2010