CITATION: 560779 Ontario Inc. v. Steven Carey, 2014 ONSC 1228
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC 12420
DATE: 2014/02/26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
MARROCCO, WHITAKER, ELLIES J.J.
B E T W E E N:
Steven Carey
N.J. Tourgis , for the Plaintiff/Appellant
Plaintiff/Appellant
- and -
560779 Ontario Inc. Operating as Carey Industries
Defendant/Respondent
Michael Valente, for the Defendant/Respondent
HEARD: February 24, 2014
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] Following a hearing, the Member of the Board made findings of fact including:
there was a landlord;
there was a tenant;
a tenancy was provided as part of a compensation package for employment;
-the tenancy ended when the employment relationship ended.
[2] The applicant requested a review which was held and dismissed.
[3] The applicant continues to occupy the premises.
[4] No rent has been paid since the end of the tenancy.
[5] Rent continues to accrue.
[6] The Member’s findings of fact are fundamental and go to the heart of the Board’s jurisdiction and expertise.
[7] The Member’s factual findings were required in order to appropriately adjudicate the dispute before him.
[8] The standard of review is reasonableness.
[9] There has been no error of law and an appeal to this court is only permitted on a question of law.
[10] The findings of fact made by the Board are within the realm of reasonable expectations and the jurisdiction of the Board.
[11] To be clear, the member has not otherwise determined the terms of the lease. The validity of the lease is presumed.
[12] Conclusions made by the Member in the course of the proceedings concerning any title to property or indeed, whether there is in fact a lease, are not binding on any Judge of this court who may who may be obliged to deal with this matter subsequently ( see Kaiman v. Graham 2009 ONCA 77).
[13] At the outset of this hearing, we were asked in the alterative, to stay the eviction order pending the outcome of the outstanding litigation in our court between these parties. We decline to do so. An application for a stay may be brought upon proper materials being filed which address the test for injunction relief.
[14] The appeal is dismissed.
[15] Costs submissions if any are to be made in writing, and less than two pages within two weeks.
Marrocco J.
Whitaker J.
Ellies J.
Released: February 26, 2014
CITATION: 560779 Ontario Inc. v. Steven Carey, 2014 ONSC 1228
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC 12420
DATE: 2014/02/26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
MARROCCO, WHITAKER, ELLIES J.J.
B E T W E E N:
Steven Carey
Plaintiff/Appellant
- and -
560779 Ontario Inc. Operating as Carey Industries
Defendant/Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Released: February 26, 2014