Duan v. Boutros, 2013 ONSC 2451
CITATION: Duan v. Boutros, 2013 ONSC 2451
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 523/12
DATE: 20130424
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, POMERANCE AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
YAN YAN DUAN
Appellant
– and –
FARID BOUTROS
Respondent
In Person
In Person
HEARD at Toronto: April 24, 2013
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LEDERER J. (orally)
[1] This is an appeal brought pursuant to s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17. It is limited to questions of law.
[2] The apartment was the subject of a lease. The tenant gave up possession. It does not matter whether this occurred at the end of the lease or some weeks earlier as alleged by the tenant. When the tenant left, the landlord, the respondent in this appeal, was required to make certain repairs and to replace the kitchen countertop. The landlord brought an application to the Landlord and Tenant Board for damages to the unit and the furnishings claiming $10,439.50. The tenant was not present at the hearing, albeit there was an individual there ostensibly representing his interests. The Board awarded the landlord $10, 439.50. The tenant appeals that ruling.
[3] The appellant questions the evidence of the landlord that the kitchen countertop was “destroyed”. The landlord tendered photographs confirming his observations. There was no evidence to the contrary.
[4] The appellant says that some of the evidence was hearsay. Estimates of the cost of repairing some of the items were presented by the landlord. No representative of the companies or individuals providing the estimates were available to be cross examined. This proceeding was governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22. Hearsay evidence is permitted (see s. 15(1)).
[5] The tenant suggests that the landlord double-counted some of the expenses he claimed. Three estimates were provided in evidence. The repairs to the countertop in the kitchen were unsuccessful. It was reasonable for the Board to determine that the countertop must be replaced. There was no double-counting.
[6] Regardless of whether or not the issues raised by the tenant were errors of law, there is no basis on which the Court can or should intervene.
[7] The appeal is dismissed.
COSTS
SWINTON J.
[8] I have endorsed the Appeal Book on behalf of the panel, “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered today in Court. Given the respondent is not represented by counsel, no costs are awarded.”
LEDERER J.
SWINTON J.
POMERANCE J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 24, 2013
Date of Release: May 1, 2013
CITATION: Duan v. Boutros, 2013 ONSC 2451
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 523/12
DATE: 20130424
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, POMERANCE AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
YAN YAN DUAN
Appellant
– and –
FARID BOUTROS
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LEDERER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 24, 2013
Date of Release: May 1, 2013