Moniz v. Williams, 2014 ONSC 6631
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 124/14
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
ANTONIO MONIZ and MARIA MONIZ
Landlords
(Respondents in Appeal)
– and –
STEPHEN WILLIAMS
Tenant
(Appellant)
David. S. Strashin, for the Landlords/ Respondents in Appeal
In Person
HEARD at Toronto: November 14, 2014
HARVISON YOUNG J. (orally)
1The landlords (“respondents”) bring this motion to quash the appeal of the tenant Stephen Williams (“appellant”). The landlords’ earlier motion was heard by Corbett J. on July 15, 2014. He dismissed the motion to quash but noted, “This matter has been outstanding too long.” He made a number of orders, including that Mr. Williams order the transcripts by July 31, 2014. The order for eviction was made October 23, 2013, though the eviction was to be postponed until February 28, 2013.
2The appellant, Mr. Williams filed a request to the Landlord and Tenant Board to review the order on December 3, 2013, which request was denied on December 4, 2013. He also wrote a letter requesting a further review which was denied on February 17, 2014.
3The landlords moved to enforce the eviction order on March 3, 2014. On March 12, 2014, the appellant tenant’s motion to extend time for filing an appeal was granted and the tenant filed the appeal.
4Mr. Williams, who is now unrepresented, has filed no materials in response to the landlords’ motion to quash. The appellant has ordered and received some transcripts but advises the Court today that he cannot afford to order the rest of them. He has also advised the Court that he has been refused legal aid and cannot afford a lawyer. In short, Corbett J.’s order, which was made on consent and with legal representation for the respondent present has not been complied with, and Mr. Williams has clearly been advised both by Whitaker J. and Corbett J. that the Court will expect him to perfect the appeal promptly in light of the lengthy delays which have marked this case.
5The landlord, Mr. Moniz, has stage IV cancer and has now suffered a relapse. This was the basis for the original application to the Landlord and Tenant Board to have his son move into the unit. It is clear that there is hardship on the part of the landlord that is continuing in light of this delay.
6It is also clear on the basis of Mr. Williams’ own submissions that the appeal cannot and will not be perfected, albeit it because of his inability to afford the transcripts. The delays to-date have been very significant and have, as I have indicated in the circumstances, created hardship for the landlords.
7I am satisfied that the appeal will not be perfected. I am also satisfied, given the pattern of delays in this case, including the fact that the appeal was not promptly filed to begin with, that this appeal was motivated by a wish to delay the eviction and not on its merits. The motion is granted, the appeal is quashed and the stay is lifted.
8I have endorsed the Motion Record, “Motion to quash allowed for reasons delivered orally. No costs.”
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 14, 2014
Date of Release: November 26, 2014
CITATION: Moniz v. Williams, 2014 ONSC 6631
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 124/14
DATE: 20141114
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HARVISON YOUNG J.
BETWEEN:
ANTONIO MONIZ and MARIA MONIZ
Landlords
(Respondents in Appeal)
– and –
STEPHEN WILLIAMS
Tenant
(Appellant)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 14, 2014
Date of Release: November 26, 2014