CITATION: Sabrie v. Starlight Apartments Ltd., 2014 ONSC 3551
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 418/13
DATE: 20140610
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
THEN, ASTON AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
SAIDA SABRIE
Appellant
(Tenant)
– and –
STARLIGHT APARTMENTS LTD. c/o METCAP LIVING MANAGEMENT INC.
Respondent
(Landlord)
In Person
Joe Hoffer, for the Respondent (Landlord)
HEARD at Toronto: June 10, 2014
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HARVISON YOUNG J. (orally)
[1] The appellant, Saida Sabrie, appeals an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated August 15, 2013.
[2] The respondent/landlord, Starlight Apartments Ltd. had applied to the Board under s. 69 of the Residential Tenancies Act, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (the “RTA”) for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the appellant on the grounds that she failed to pay the total amount of rent that she was required to pay. The Board ordered that the appellant must move out of the rental unit on or before August 26, 2013 unless she voids the order by paying the amount of $2,126.78 to the respondent or the Board “In Trust”. This order has been stayed by her appeal to this Court.
[3] The appellant raises two main issues before this Court. First, she alleges that she did not receive a fair hearing before the Board on August 14, 2013. Second, she alleges that she did not owe the amount of $2,126.78 and that this is therefore not the correct amount to void the eviction order.
[4] An appeal lies from the Board’s decision only on a question of law. The applicable standard of review is reasonableness with respect to all issues except procedural fairness and natural justice, which matters are reviewable on the basis of whether or not the rules of natural justice and fairness were violated: First Ontario v. Deng, 2011 54 at paras. 17 and 20.
[5] We find no basis for finding that the Board violated the appellant’s right to natural justice or procedural fairness. At the first two hearings on April 8, 2013 and June 7, 2013 respectively, the appellant sought and was granted adjournments. At the first hearing, she indicated that she wanted to obtain a legal aid certificate. An interim order followed requiring the appellant to disclose any issues she intended to raise prior to May 20, 2013. At the second hearing, the appellant’s lawyer said he could not represent her. The hearing was adjourned and an identical interim order was issued because the appellant had not complied with the first interim order.
[6] At the final hearing on August 14, 2013, the appellant requested a further adjournment because she wanted to summons staff from the City Social Services Department to clarify what was paid to the respondent by direct payment. The Board refused, noting that “the tenant was repeatedly asked for submissions as to whether eviction should be delayed or not granted and no submissions were made. No relief is therefore given.”
[7] In her factum and in paragraph 6 of her Notice of Appeal filed with this Court, the appellant asserts that she paid $1,000 on June 7, 2013 to the landlord. In her oral submissions today she stated that this was mistaken and that she had not made such a submission. She asserts that the landlord has received the money from Social Services because she signed a document that assigned the amounts for the rent to the landlord. Despite two interim orders that she disclosed the evidence upon which she was relying in support of this argument, she produced neither documentation nor any witnesses. At the third hearing, she asked for a further adjournment to summons staff from Social Services to clarify what she said had been paid to the landlord by direct payment. This request was denied.
[8] We note that the Board did invite the appellant relate to it what she thought the witness would say in an attempt to understand her position.
[9] We find no basis for finding any breach of the appellant’s rights to procedural fairness in the course of the August 14, 2013 hearing.
[10] The appellant was granted adjournments at her request on two earlier occasions. The Board had also issued orders to produce the documents or other evidence that she was relying on. Nothing was produced.
[11] Before this Court, she does not explain why she did not provide such documentation or evidence, submitting in effect that it was up to the landlord to show that it had not received such direct payments.
[12] This argument must fail. The respondent/landlord did produce evidence through its ledgers that the rent had not been paid. The appellant provided no evidence to the contrary and on the record, the findings and conclusions reached by the Board that the rent had not been paid, that the amount of $2,126.78 was owing and that the tenancy should be terminated with the effect that the appellant would be evicted unless she voided the order by paying the rent were open to it on the record before it.
[13] In oral argument today, the appellant advanced submissions concerning events in 2008 alleging that the landlord improperly entered her apartment and wrongfully distrained her property. As noted above, she had been ordered on two occasions to give particulars of any claims she wished to advance and did not do so. Even if she had mentioned these claims at the hearing of August 2013, it would have been prejudicial to the landlord at that late hour to consider such submissions.
[14] In conclusion, there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness and no error of law.
[15] The appeal is therefore denied.
THEN J.
[16] The respondent seeks an order lifting the stay directing the Sheriff to enforce the order of the Board within 15 days and an order dispensing with the appellant’s approval of the form and content of the order of this Court. The stay is automatically lifted with the order of this Court. It will be for the respondent to take steps to enforce the order of the Board.
[17] We order that the respondent take out the order of this Court dispensing with the appellant’s approval as to form and content. The landlord seeks $16,936 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.
[18] With respect to the landlord and tenant appeals generally before this Court, this matter presents relatively simple issues. The tenant is of very modest means. The amount of rent arrears in issue was merely $2,100. Subsequent arrears are payable in terms of the original order of the Board. The costs sought are excessive and disproportionate to the issues raised.
[19] In our view, the amount of costs that is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances is $2,500 all inclusive.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
THEN J.
ASTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 10, 2014
Date of Release: June 13, 2014
CITATION: Sabrie v. Starlight Apartments Ltd., 2014 ONSC 3551
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 418/13
DATE: 20140610
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
THEN, ASTON AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
SAIDA SABRIE
Appellant
(Tenant)
– and –
STARLIGHT APARTMENTS LTD. c/o METCAP LIVING MANAGEMENT INC.
Respondent
(Landlord)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 10, 2014
Date of Release: June 13, 2014