Finkler v. Abraham J. Green Ltd.
CITATION: Finkler v. Abraham J. Green Ltd., 2011 ONSC 3770
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 129/11
DATE: 20110615
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
SANDRA FINKLER
Tenant
(Appellant)
– and –
ABRAHAM J. GREEN LIMITED (amended)
Landlord
(Respondent in Appeal)
In Person
David Strashin, for the Landlord (Respondent in Appeal)
HEARD at Toronto: June 15, 2011
LEDERER J. (orally)
[1] Sandra Finkler is a tenant in a building owned by Abraham J. Green Limited. It is her Landlord.
[2] Abraham J. Green Limited made two applications to the Landlord and Tenant Board as it is permitted to do by s.69 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. The section says:
69(1) A landlord may apply to the Board for an order terminating a tenancy and evicting the tenant if the landlord has given notice to terminate the tenancy under this Act or the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, 2006, c. 17, s.69(1).
[3] The first of the complaints concerned the allegation that Sandra Finkler was disrupting the lives of other tenants by making excessive noise. The second concerned the allegation that Sandra Finkler, on several occasions continuously ran the hot water in her apartment until the supply available to her and twenty-one other apartments in two buildings were exhausted.
[4] The Landlord sought an order that her tenancy be terminated and that she be evicted.
[5] The first of the complaints was to be heard beginning in June, 2010. It was adjourned at that time and on several occasions thereafter.
[6] Ultimately, the two complaints were heard together by the Landlord and Tenant Board on January 18, 2011. Its decision was rendered on February 4, 2011.
[7] The Board Member accepted the evidence called on behalf of the Landlord. She summarized her findings as follows:
- I find that the Tenant has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex by other tenants by making excessive noise, particularly at night, and by unreasonably exhausting the supply of hot water so that other tenants do not have hot water available for their normal household needs.
[8] Sandra Finkler saw all of this as a conspiracy brought against her by the Superintendent and other tenants. The Board Member made the following observation:
- The Tenant has filed numerous private complaints in the criminal courts concerning her neighbours and the superintendent of the residential complex. In these Informations, she alleges that individuals talk about her behind her back, follow her in the streets, stare at her, steal her mail, and spread malicious gossip about her. She asserts that these applications by the Landlord are further examples of a conspiracy by the superintendent and the other tenants to get rid of her. While the Tenant may believe these assertions to be true, I do not accept that there is any objective accuracy to her allegations.
[9] The Board Member also found:
- The Tenant’s conduct toward other tenants and the employees of the Landlord is aggressive and confrontational, including screaming and swearing at them. She does not accept responsibility for her conduct, but denies any wrongdoing on her part and seeks to accuse others of conspiring against her. Her behaviour has caused several tenants to move away from the residential complex.
[10] The Landlord and Tenant Board terminated the tenancy and ordered the eviction.
[11] Sandra Finkler appealed to this Court as she is permitted to do by the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s.210 which says:
210(1) Any person affected by an order of the Board may appeal the order to the Divisional Court within 30 days after being given the order, but only on a question of law.
[12] As the section says, an appeal must be on a question of law.
[13] Today, the Landlord brings a motion to quash the appeal and to lift the stay that accompanies it on the basis that no issue of law is properly raised.
[14] Sandra Finkler relies on the conspiracy which she now says has captured the Landlord and Tenant Board.
[15] She says that this is evidenced by the fact that there was information the Board Member had that she could only have obtained through an illegal wiretap Sandra Finkler says is present in her house. When she last appeared in this Court she had asked for an Order that this wiretap be removed.
[16] Sandra Finkler also says her constitutional rights have been transgressed. She says that she has been denied her right to a lawyer. In fact, this proceeding has been delayed twice to allow her the opportunity to retain counsel. She does have a legal aid certificate but it is limited to obtaining an opinion as to the efficacy of her appeal and to two hours of work. For whatever reason, that certificate has not been acted on.
[17] Sandra Finkler also refers to the treatment of her by others. She refers to anti-Semitism. These are issues of fact and not a matter to be dealt with here.
[18] There is one issue raised that may touch on an issue of law. It is the suggestion that Sandra Finkler was denied a proper hearing by the Landlord and Tenant Board. The difficulty is that this is tied to her concern that there is a conspiracy at work. There is nothing in the record to suggest any validity to this concern.
[19] No issue of law has been raised by this appeal.
[20] The appeal is quashed and the stay lifted. The eviction can proceed.
[21] In these circumstances, I also order any requirement that Mr. Strashin show the order to Ms. Finkler to be approved as to form and content is waived.
COSTS
[22] Mr. Strashin seeks $1,500 in costs with respect to both appearances. I find that to be a reasonable request. Ms. Finkler objects to paying any costs on the basis that she believes this has been an inappropriate hearing and that the affidavit relied on, as I understand it, is from her perspective, completely false. None of that in my mind is pertinent to the issue of costs in this matter. Accordingly, because I find that Mr. Strashin’s request is entirely reasonable, I award costs in favour of the landlord against Ms. Finkler in the amount of $1,500.00.
LEDERER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 15, 2011
Date of Release: June 24, 2011
CITATION: Finkler v. Abraham J. Green Ltd., 2011 ONSC 3770
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 129/11
DATE: 20110615
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
LEDERER J.
BETWEEN:
SANDRA FINKLER
Tenant
(Appellant)
– and –
ABRAHAM J. GREEN LIMITED (amended)
Landlord
(Respondent in Appeal)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LEDERER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 15, 2011
Date of Release: June 24, 2011