Medeiros v. Cinelli, 2012 ONSC 3777
CITATION: Medeiros v. Cinelli, 2012 ONSC 3777
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 315/12
DATE: 20120625
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
GABRIEL MEDEIROS Plaintiff
– and –
CARMEN CINELLI Defendant
In Person
In Person
HEARD at Toronto: June 26, 2012
CORBETT J. (orally)
[1] Mr. Medeiros was aware of the appeal dates and deadlines shortly after the decision of the Member of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated April 10, 2012. He sought a review of that order which was dismissed by another Member of the Board dated April 19, 2012. He received that decision some time around April 26, 2012.
[2] The deadline for commencing an appeal to the Divisional Court is thirty days from the eviction order. Assuming, without deciding, that the time period commences when the tenant receives the review order, then the latest time that the time to appeal commenced was April 26, 2012. It expired May 26, 2012.
[3] Mr. Medeiros is about a month out of time on the best view of the time line. I am satisfied from the materials he has put before me that he was aware of the deadline and of the appropriate route to appeal in April 2012.
[4] The issue before the Board concerned Mr. Medeiros’ conduct and its impact on the tenants in the other three residential units in the premises and the commercial tenant on the ground floor. Thus the dispute turns on findings of fact and credibility and the Member’s conclusion in respect of those issues will be entitled to a high degree of deference on an appeal.
[5] In simple turns, the appeal appears to have very little merit and very little chance of success.
[6] I am unable to secure the interests of the landlord and the tenants pending an appeal from this case. It is not a case like many we see for non-payment of rent where the respondent’s position may be fully secured pending an appeal. There is obviously a situation of significant tension within the building, including for Mr. Medeiros, and permitting it to continue for many more months while an appeal is pending would be difficult on everyone, including Mr. Medeiros. However, in particular at this stage I am concerned about the other three tenants who are living in the circumstances where their quiet enjoyment of their premises is being disrupted on a consistent basis by Mr. Medeiros, based on the findings of the Board.
[7] In these circumstances, I am not prepared to exercise my discretion to extend the time to appeal to this Court. The motion is dismissed.
COSTS
[8] The responding parties are unrepresented and there is no order as to costs.
CORBETT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 26, 2012
Date of Release: June 29, 2012
CITATION: Medeiros v. Cinelli, 2012 ONSC 3777
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 315/12
DATE: 20120625
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
CORBETT J.
BETWEEN:
MARIO GABRIEL MEDEIROS Plaintiff
– and –
CARMEN CINELLI Defendant
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CORBETT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 26, 2012
Date of Release: June 29, 2012