CITATION: Li v. Hu, 2015 ONSC 7144
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 458/13
TNT-47546-13 and TNT-47266-13 DATE: 20151117
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, V. J. MACKINNON AND D. L. CORBETT JJ.
BETWEEN:
QIUYUAN LI
Landlord
(Respondent)
– and –
CHANGGEN HU
Tenant
(Appellant)
Elena E. Mazinani, for the Landlord (Respondent)
Glenroy K. Bastien, for the Tenant (Appellant)
HEARD at Toronto: November 17, 2015
SWINTON J. (ORALLY)
[1] The appellant, Mr. Hu, appeals the order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated July 26, 2013 and a review order dated September 13, 2013. Board Member Watson, in the first decision, found the appellant engaged in vexatious proceedings before the Board and dismissed his application before her without a hearing. His application had claimed that the respondent landlord illegally changed the locks on the rental unit and refused him entry. The Board Member found that the appellant had abandoned the premises around June 28, 2013 and following that abandonment, the respondent changed the locks.
[2] This Court’s jurisdiction is limited to an appeal on a question of law pursuant to s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act. This appeal raises no question of law.
[3] There was ample material before the Board to allow it to find that the two applications launched in July 2013 were vexatious in light of all the information before the Board.
[4] The appellant claims that the Board should have accepted evidence showing that the respondent had received $2,800.00 in past and future rent and $1,100.00 for costs from him on June 15, 2013. This evidence is totally lacking in credibility. Why would the respondent accept future rent when she had agreed to sell the premises with a closing in late June? As well, in an exchange of emails around June 25, the parties spoke of waiving the costs order of $1,100.00, paying outstanding arrears, and whether the appellant would vacate on June 25 or June 27. He left by June 27, the date he had proposed. The proposed new evidence also includes an affidavit from a Mr. Chen who supposedly helped the appellant move out of the unit around June 27.
[5] As the appellant has identified no error of law on the part of the Board, the appeal is dismissed.
COSTS
[6] I have endorsed the Appeal Book, “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered by Swinton J. The appellant’s consent to the form and content of a draft order is dispensed with.
[7] Costs to the respondent landlord are awarded in the amount of $10,000.00 plus HST, on a partial indemnity basis payable forthwith.
[8] The money paid into Court to the credit of Court File 155/13 shall be released to the respondent, without the need for a motion.”
___________________________ SWINTON J.
V. J. MACKINNON J.
D. L. CORBETT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 17, 2015
Date of Release: November 19, 2015
CITATION: Li v. Hu, 2015 ONSC 7144
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 458/13
TNT-47546-13 and TNT-47266-13 DATE: 20151117
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, MACKINNON AND D. L. CORBETT JJ.
BETWEEN:
QIUYUAN LI
Landlord
(Respondent)
– and –
CHANGGEN HU
Tenant
(Appellant)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 17, 2015
Date of Release: November 19, 2015