Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Nicholls v. Wang, 2015 ONSC 6975
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 157/15
TST-59301-15-RV DATE: 20151112
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
KRUZICK, SANDERSON AND SPROAT JJ.
BETWEEN:
PATRICK NICHOLLS and CHARLES NICHOLLS
Appellants
(Tenants)
– and –
HONGWEI WANG and HONG LI
Respondents (Landlords)
Patrick Nicholls, In Person
Jennifer Hunter, Amicus Curiae
Ike Awgu, for the Respondents (Landlords)
HEARD at Toronto: November 12, 2015
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SPROAT J. (ORALLY)
[1] I would like to thank Ms. Hunter for her submissions. I thought your materials were exceptionally well prepared and they were very helpful to us. I would also like to thank Mr. Nicholls. He certainly, as a lay person, has a lot of knowledge respecting landlord and tenant matters. I would also like to thank Mr. Awgu who also provided very helpful submissions to the Court.
[2] The record before us however, is inadequate for us to understand exactly what transpired at the Landlord and Tenant Board. Reference was made to various Landlord and Tenant Board forms that are not before us. As a result, it is not possible or appropriate for us to make a legal ruling that could have far reaching and unintended consequences in terms of Landlord and Tenant Board procedure.
[3] It remains that judicial review is a discretionary and equitable remedy. Mr. Nicholls acknowledged that he settled and agreed to vacate on a specified date, in return for which the landlord waived certain rent arrears and future rent aggregating to $3,500.00. This was a single comprehensive agreement that had two components as mentioned – the tenant agreeing to leave by a certain date and the landlord waiving a total of $3,500.00 in rent.
[4] On the record before us, we determine that it would not be equitable or appropriate to grant any relief to Mr. Nicholls on this application for judicial review on the basis that the consent order in fact does substantially reflect what Mr. Nicholls agreed to. For that reason the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[5] Justice Lederer had made an order April 16, 2015 continuing a stay of the Landlord and Tenant Board Orders in file #TST-59301-15 and #TSL-59725-15, dated February 5, 2015. As a result of our order dismissing the application for judicial review the stay of those orders is vacated. In accordance with the agreement of the parties with respect to costs, we would order that Mr. Nicholls pay $200.00 in costs (on account of disbursements) to the Landlords in relation to this matter.
___________________________ SPROAT J.
KRUZICK J.
SANDERSON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 12, 2015
Date of Release: November 17, 2015
CITATION: Nicholls v. Wang, 2015 ONSC 6975
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 157/15
TST-59301-15-RV DATE: 20151112
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KRUZICK, SANDERSON AND SPROAT JJ.
BETWEEN:
PATRICK NICHOLLS and CHARLES NICHOLLS
Appellants
(Tenants)
– and –
HONGWEI WANG and HONG LI
Respondents (Landlords)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SPROAT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 12, 2015
Date of Release: November 17, 2015