Court Information and Parties
CITATION: Plunkett v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2013 ONSC 2001
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 436/12
DATE: 20130404
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, HERMAN AND SPROAT JJ.
BETWEEN:
ESTHER PLUNKETT Appellant (Tenant)
– and –
TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION Respondent (Landlord)
In Person
Orna Raubfogel, for the Respondent (Landlord)
HEARD at Toronto: April 4, 2013
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SWINTON J. (orally)
[1] The tenant appeals from a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated July 24, 2012, which held that her tenancy should be terminated because of illegal activity carried out in the residential premises by two of her sons who were both occupants of the rental unit. The activity was possession of stolen property by one son and a threat to kill and an attack on a security officer by another. A request for reconsideration of the decision was rejected by the Board.
[2] An appeal lies to this Court only on a question of law (see s.210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17).
[3] We have looked carefully at the appellant’s arguments to see if there is any error of law. We do not find any error of law by the Board.
[4] There was ample evidence before the Board to support its finding of illegal activity in the residential premises. Its conclusion that the tenancy should be terminated pursuant to s.61(1) of the Act is supported by the evidence.
[5] The Board exercised its discretion pursuant to s. 83 to postpone eviction until August 31, 2012. While the tenant argues in her factum that the Board erred in not imposing a condition that D.B. be barred from the premises, she has not demonstrated any error of law by the Board. Moreover, the Board made a finding that the tenant would not be able to keep D.B. away. It was therefore reasonable for the Board to refuse to impose the requested condition.
[6] While the tenant argues that D.B. is a special needs child, there was no evidence led to prove any intellectual disability on his part.
[7] The tenant argues in her factum that there was late disclosure at the hearing, contrary to the Board’s rules. She did not raise this as a ground of appeal. We are not satisfied that she was prejudiced in any way by this disclosure, which consisted mainly of photos of seized goods and money.
[8] Finally, the reasons of the Board, while brief, are sufficient to permit appellate review, especially when read in the context of the transcripts and the submissions of her counsel.
[9] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the stay of the eviction is lifted.
COSTS
[10] On behalf of the panel, I have endorsed the Appeal Book and Compendium, “For oral reasons delivered in Court today, the appeal is dismissed. Costs fixed at $500, payable in 60 days. Order to go in the form of the draft on which I placed my fiat.”
SWINTON J.
HERMAN J.
SPROAT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 4, 2013
Date of Release: April 8, 2013
CITATION: Plunkett v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2013 ONSC 2001
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 436/12
DATE: 20130404
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, HERMAN AND SPROAT JJ.
BETWEEN:
ESTHER PLUNKETT Appellant (Tenant)
– and –
TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION Respondent (Landlord)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 4, 2013
Date of Release: April 8, 2013