CITATION: Abdul-Haqq v. Choi, 2013 ONSC 7863
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 393/13
DATE: 20131218
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HIMEL, SACHS AND NOLAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
KHALID ABDUL-HAQQ
Tenant
(Appellant)
– and –
OKBAE CHOI and KYUNGSOOK SEONG
Landlords
(Respondents in Appeal)
In Person
David Strashin, for the Landlords (Respondents in Appeal)
HEARD at Toronto: December 18, 2013
HIMEL J. (orally)
[1] Khalid Abdul-Haqq, the appellant, appeals the order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (“the Board”) and the order of Wilton-Siegel J. and the Registrar regarding the order to evict him from premises owned by the respondents/landlords.
Background
[2] The appellant has been a tenant in a property at 75 East Liberty Street, Suite 1218, Toronto, Ontario, since April 1, 2013 at a monthly rent of $1,750.00. The tenant failed to pay rent almost from the outset and the landlord brought an application to the Board terminating the tenancy for arrears of rent and for authority to evict the tenant.
[3] The tenant did not attend the hearing before Vice-Chair Guy Savoie. The Board granted the application and terminated the tenancy for non-payment of rent. The order authorized the Sheriff to enforce the eviction provision of the order after August 21, 2013. As of August 21, 2013, the arrears owing were $7,000 for rent and $170 for the Board’s filing fees and $60.00 for N.S.F. cheque charges. There was also a provision that if the tenant paid the arrears, the eviction would be void. The tenant did not pay the arrears. The amount owing as of December 31, 2013 will be approximately $14,000.00.
[4] The tenant filed an appeal to the Divisional Court which stayed the enforcement of the eviction order. He alleged that he was not provided with a copy of the application and notice of hearing for the Board’s hearing. He asked that the Board’s order be dismissed.
[5] On October 24, 2013, the landlords brought a motion to quash the appeal. The case came before Wilton-Siegel J. who ordered the tenant to pay $10,500.00 by November 8, 2013 (representing rent from May to October 2013) and failing compliance with the order, the landlords could move ex parte before the Registrar on affidavit evidence of non-compliance and the Registrar “shall dismiss the appeal and lift the stay and the order of the Tribunal shall be enforced.”
[6] The tenant did not comply with the order of Wilton-Siegel J. and the landlords moved before the Registrar on November 5, 2013. The landlords received an order dismissing the appeal, vacating the stay and directing enforcement of the eviction order of the Board. The tenant moved for a stay of eviction in the Court of Appeal which was not the proper forum. The tenant then obtained a stay of the orders of Wilton-Siegel J. and the Registrar from R.S.J. Then on November 25, 2013. He directed that the appeal of those orders and the Board’s order on the merits be heard by a full panel of the Court. He ordered that the parties attend at the Divisional Court office and obtain the first available date in December 2013 and he ordered that the matter was peremptory.
[7] The appellant has filed no documents before us. He appears today requesting an adjournment for two reasons: (i) that he had not received a transcript of the hearing before the Board which he says he has ordered and (ii) that he says he was not able to obtain assistance from an amicus who was with him when he appeared before R.S.J. Then.
[8] We found that the terms of R.S.J. Then’s order were clear; the parties were to attend to get the first hearing date available in December and the date was a peremptory date. In view of this, we declined the request for an adjournment.
[9] We permitted the appellant to make submissions to us, although he filed no materials and we gave him wide latitude in submitting matters related to evidence and personal views about matters which were not properly before us.
[10] Under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 7, an appeal lies to the Divisional Court of an order of the Board but only on a question of law. The standard of review has been held to be reasonableness: (see First Ontario Realty Corp. v. Deng, 2011 ONCA 54).
Result
[11] With respect to the merits of the appeal, the tenant filed absolutely no material, although the case was peremptory. The tenant has continued to live in the premises without paying rent. He has failed to comply with the terms imposed by Wilton-Siegel J.
[12] There was no error in the order made by Wilton-Siegel J. He clearly had the jurisdiction to make the order he did. Accordingly, we dismiss the appellant’s motion to set aside or vary the orders of Wilton-Siegel J. and the Registrar, and we dismiss the appeal. The tenant has requested that the eviction not take effect until after January 15, 2014.
[13] In view of the length of time that the tenant has occupied the premises without paying any rent, this request is denied.
[14] As a result, any stays previously ordered are lifted and the order of the Tribunal is to be enforced.
Costs
[15] I have endorsed the Record as follows, “Mr. Khalid Abdul-Haqq appears representing himself. Mr. Strashin represents the respondents/landlords. For oral reasons given, this Court orders that the appeal be dismissed and that any previous stays ordered are lifted and that the order of the Tribunal is to be enforced forthwith. Approval of this order by the appellant is dispensed with. In light of the fact that the respondents had to retain counsel after November 25, 2013, and counsel filed materials and appeared today, we exercise our discretion and fix costs in the amount of $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the appellant to the respondent.”
HIMEL J.
SACHS J.
NOLAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 18, 2013
Date of Release: December 20, 2013
CITATION: Abdul-Haqq v. Choi, 2013 ONSC 7863
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 393/13
DATE: 20131218
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HIMEL, SACHS AND NOLAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
KHALID ABDUL-HAQQ
Tenant
(Appellant)
– and –
OKBAE CHOI and KYUNGSOOK SEONG
Landlords
(Respondents in Appeal)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIMEL J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 18, 2013
Date of Release: December 20, 2013