Humber Valley Court v. Tufa, 2014 ONSC 5735
CITATION: Humber Valley Court v. Tufa, 2014 ONSC 5735
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 383/12
DATE: 20141001
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, D. BROWN AND RAMSAY JJ.
BETWEEN:
HUMBER VALLEY COURT
Respondent
(Landlord/Employer)
– and –
ABDURRAHMAN TUFA and MIMOZA TUFA
Appellants
(Tenants)
Charles Wagman, for the Respondent, Landlord/Employer
Karen J. Sanchez, for the Appellants (Tenants)
HEARD at Toronto: October 1, 2014
D. BROWN J. (ORALLY)
[1] Abdurrahman Tufa and Mimoza Tufa appeal from the orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board in two applications. In the first application the landlord, Humber Valley Court, sought an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the Tufas from the superintendent’s unit at a small apartment complex, on the ground that the tenants’ employment as the building’s superintendent had ended (the “L2 Application”). In the second, the landlord sought an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenants for arrears of rent (the “L1 Application”).
[2] In a decision issued July 30, 2012, the Landlord and Tenant Board granted both landlord’s applications, terminated the tenancy and ordered the tenants to pay arrears of $8,250.00, subject to certain terms and conditions.
[3] The issue in this appeal is whether the Board erred in finding that arrears were owed from January until July 2011.
[4] No issue has been taken with the issue of the termination of the superintendency so the only issue is with respect to the L1 Application.
[5] The Board found that it was more likely than not that the landlord and the appellants had entered into a verbal agreement under which the rent for the unit would be $750 per month and the appellants would receive $400 per month for the services they provided to the landlord. She concluded that it did not seem reasonable that the landlord would provide a rent-free apartment together with the $1,500 per month for services that the appellants previously had provided.
[6] Under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, an appeal lies from the Board to this Court on a question of law.
[7] The appellants argue that the Board’s reasons were deficient because they failed to consider contradictory evidence or to detail what findings of credibility the Board made.
[8] Adequacy of reasons is not a stand-alone basis for quashing a decision: N.L.N.U. v. Newfoundland & Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, para. 14. A court on an appeal from an administrative tribunal considers the adequacy of reasons in determining the merits of the appeal on the appropriate standard of review, which in this case would be reasonableness.
[9] The appellant also argued that the Board misapprehended or disregarded relevant evidence and made findings that were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. Failure to take relevant and important evidence into account or to completely misapprehend the evidence can constitute an error of law: Shooters Sports Bar Inc. v. The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, para. 38. However, the appellants have not demonstrated such an error. The appellants’ submissions that the Board misapprehended the evidence before it, when taken as a whole, really amount to asking this Court to revisit the factual findings made by the Board.
[10] During the hearing the Board explained why the evidence of Ms. Muniak, the former superintendent, was not helpful to the issue of the scope of the appellants’ duties and their contract with the landlord.
[11] An ample evidentiary record was placed before the Board, and it is clear the Board preferred the evidence filed by the landlord over that given by the appellants. In my view, the arguments about the facts advanced by the appellants do not give rise to a question of law.
[12] In light of the position taken by the appellants’ representative at the hearing, I give no effect to their argument on appeal that the approach taken by the Board Member to the recording and transcript was unfair.
[13] For those reasons, I would dismiss the appellants’ appeal.
SWINTON J.
COSTS
[14] I have endorsed the Appeal Book, “This appeal is dismissed for reasons delivered orally by D. Brown J. today. Costs to the respondent fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.”
D. BROWN J.
SWINTON J.
RAMSAY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 1, 2014
Date of Release: October 6, 2014
CITATION: Humber Valley Court v. Tufa, 2014 ONSC 5735
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 383/12
DATE: 20141001
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, D. BROWN AND RAMSAY JJ.
BETWEEN:
HUMBER VALLEY COURT
Respondent
(Landlord/Employer)
– and –
ABDURRAHMAN TUFA and MIMOZA TUFA
Appellants
(Tenants)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D. BROWN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 1, 2014
Date of Release: October 6, 2014