Court File and Parties
CITATION: Frastell Property Management Inc. v. Jelley-Kasper, 2013 ONSC 5896
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 556/12
DATE: 20130918
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
LAX, SACHS AND GRACE JJ.
BETWEEN:
FRASTELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.
Respondent
(Landlord)
– and –
KEVIN JELLEY-KASPER
Appellant
(Tenant)
Martin P. Zarnett, for the Respondent
Richard Ferris, for the Appellant
Brian A. Blumenthal, for the Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD at Toronto: September 18, 2013
Oral Reasons for Judgment
GRACE J. (ORALLY)
[1] A June 30, 2012 incident resulted in competing applications before the Landlord and Tenant Board. After hearing six witnesses, the Board Member concluded that the tenant had assaulted the superintendent of 550 Jarvis Street, Toronto and therefore committed an illegal act. He rejected the evidence of the tenant and a third party that the superintendent had initiated a physical confrontation by “body-checking” the tenant.
[2] The Board Member granted the landlord’s application under s. 61 of the Residential Tenancies Act and terminated the tenancy but gave the tenant approximately one month to vacate his unit to allow the tenant to find alternative accommodation due to his health limitations.
[3] The tenant appeals. The Residential Tenancies Act gives this Court limited jurisdiction. An appeal is only permitted on a question of law. The tenant maintains that the Board Member committed such an error because he failed to consider all of the tenant’s circumstances as required by s. 83(1) and (2) of the Act before terminating the tenancy. In particular, the tenant maintains the Board did not consider:
(a) Whether or not there had been any problem with the tenant before;
(b) Whether or not the tenant had a criminal record;
(c) Whether or not the tenant had a history of violence;
(d) The tenant’s financial circumstances; and
(e) Whether it was crucial to the tenant, as a gay man, that he remain in his present unit because it was located in what he described as a safe gay village.
[4] The tenant argues before us that the Board committed an error of law by failing to consider those matters. Regrettably, this submission ignores the fact that either no or very limited evidence was adduced for the Board to consider on any of these factors. The Board considered s. 83 in the context of the evidentiary record before it. There was no error in law.
[5] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
LAX J.
[6] I have endorsed the back of the Appeal Book and Compendium as follows, “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons given and recorded. Costs to the landlord/respondent in the amount requested of $2,500, payable on or before March 18, 2014. The stay is lifted, but the Sheriff shall not enforce the Order of the Board until on or after November 1, 2013.”
LAX J.
SACHS J.
GRACE J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 18, 2013
Date of Release: September 20, 2013
CITATION: Frastell Property Management Inc. v. Jelley-Kasper, 2013 ONSC 5896
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 556/12
DATE: 20130918
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
LAX, SACHS AND GRACE JJ.
BETWEEN:
FRASTELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.
Respondent
(Landlord)
– and –
KEVIN JELLEY-KASPER
Appellant
(Tenant)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GRACE J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 18, 2013
Date of Release: September 20, 2013