CITATION: Oxford Properties Group v. Lorenzo, 2015 ONSC 2130
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 468/14
TNL-60624-14 DATE: 20150401
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
LEDERMAN, HACKLAND AND CORBETT JJ.
BETWEEN:
OXFORD PROPERTIES GROUP Appellant/Landlord
– and –
ABIGAIL ANTE LORENZO Respondent/Tenant
Martin P. Zarnett, for the Appellant/ Landlord
In Person
HEARD at Toronto: April 1, 2015
LEDERMAN J. (ORALLY)
[1] The appellant landlord appeals from the order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated September 5, 2014 in which the Board denied its application for an order to terminate the tenancy of and evict the respondent tenant for late payment of rent.
[2] The appellant is a residential landlord of the respondent who has lived in the same rental unit for over ten years.
[3] Under the tenancy agreement, the tenant is required to pay rent on the first day of each month.
[4] The basis for the appellant’s application to the Board was that the tenant paid her rent late eleven times over the preceding twelve month period – the late payments ranging from just two days up to fifteen days.
[5] Notwithstanding these late payments, the Board considered the respondent’s long-standing tenancy, her history of paying rent on time except for the twelve month period in question and her stated commitment to begin paying rent on time henceforth now that her personal issues had resolved. The Board held that it would not be unfair to refuse the landlord’s application, and dismissed it.
[6] The appellant requested that the order be reviewed but the Review Board Member denied the request and held that the decision of the first Board Member was supported by findings of fact; that she exercised her discretion; and was entitled to dismiss the application without the necessity of hearing submissions for conditional relief under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, S.O. 2006, c. 6.
[7] An appeal lies to this Court from the Board decision on a question of law only.
[8] The relevant sections of the Residential Tenancies Act are s. 58(1) and s. 83(1). Section 58(1) reads:
A landlord may give a tenant notice of termination of their tenancy on any of the following grounds:
- The tenant has persistently failed to pay rent on the date it becomes due and payable.
[9] Section 83(1)(a) reads:
Upon an application for an order evicting a tenant, the Board may, despite any other provision of this Act or the tenancy agreement,
(a) refuse to grant the application unless satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances that it would be unfair to refuse.
[10] Section 204 allows the Board discretion to include in its orders “whatever conditions it considers fair in the circumstances.”
[11] As the Board was engaged in the interpretation and application of its home statute, the standard of review is reasonableness.
[12] The appellant submits that the decision was unreasonable because of the Board’s finding that the respondent paid rent late and focused on the extent of lateness as opposed to the fact of lateness. The appellant submits that this was an unreasonable interpretation of the word “persistently” in s. 58 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
[13] Further, although the Board has a wide discretion pursuant to s. 83 to refuse an application to evict, s. 204 allows the Board to include conditions to its order.
[14] The appellant submits that because of the Board’s unreasonable interpretation of s. 58, the Board failed to order conditional relief.
[15] The appellant submits that in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable to rehabilitate the tenancy by imposing the following conditions:
(i) an order that the tenant pay rent on time for the twelve month period following the order; and
(ii) in default of any payment that the appellant may apply pursuant to s. 78 without notice to the respondent, for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the respondent.
[16] The word “persistently” means chronic or prolonged or unrelenting. The Board noted that “for the most part” the tenant paid her rent on time – there were lapses, but that the periods of lateness over the past twelve months were minimal.
[17] On this basis, the Board Member did not find the nature or degree of lateness so egregious or persistent to warrant eviction.
[18] Even if the lateness could be said to be persistent, the Board had the right to refuse to grant the eviction application.
[19] And, given the length of the tenancy, the personal circumstances of the tenant and her stated confidence to the Board that she would hereafter pay on time, it was properly within the Board’s discretion and reasonable for it to decline to impose any conditions.
[20] The appeal is therefore dismissed.
[21] I have endorsed the Record, “The appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered. The respondent will have costs fixed at $500 all inclusive, payable within thirty days.”
___________________________ LEDERMAN J.
HACKLAND J.
D. L. CORBETT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 1, 2015
Date of Release: April 15, 2015
CITATION: Oxford Properties Group v. Lorenzo, 2015 ONSC 2130
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 468/14
TNL-60624-14 DATE: 20150401
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
LEDERMAN, HACKLAND AND CORBETT JJ.
BETWEEN:
OXFORD PROPERTIES GROUP Appellant/Landlord
– and –
ABIGAIL ANTE LORENZO Respondent/Tenant
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LEDERMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 1, 2015
Date of Release: April 15, 2015