Court File and Parties
CITATION: Wigley v. Lau, 2017 ONSC 1098
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 148/16
LTB NO.: TSL-70497-16
DATE: 20170214
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, NORDHEIMER and SPIES JJ.
BETWEEN:
NIGEL EMMANUEL WIGLEY Appellant (Tenant)
– and –
NIXON LAU Respondent (Landlord)
Counsel: Matthew Tubie, for the Appellant (Tenant) Greg Temelini, for the Respondent (Landlord)
HEARD at Toronto: February 14, 2017
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SACHS J. (Orally)
[1] This is an appeal from the Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) dated March 1, 2016. In that Order, the Board determined that the Appellant tenant owed $24,410.00 in rent and additional costs that he had to pay by a certain date if he wished to continue his tenancy.
[2] Since the Order of the Board, the Appellant failed to pay that amount and has not paid his monthly rent of $1,780.00 while this appeal has been pending.
[3] This appeal can only succeed if we are satisfied that the Board committed an error of law.
[4] On this appeal, the appellant raises two issues:
(1) The Board erred in failing to make an explicit determination that the Respondent was the landlord of the property rented by the Appellant.
(2) The Board erred in failing to adjourn the hearing so as to give the Appellant, who did not appear at the hearing, an opportunity to raise the above issue.
[5] The issue as to whether the Respondent was the Appellant’s landlord was never raised before the Board nor was it raised in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal. Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest otherwise and the Appellant’s counsel advised us that he did not seek to bring a fresh evidence application on this appeal because the Appellant still has no evidence that would suggest that the Respondent is not his landlord.
[6] Thus, the principle argument being advanced by the Appellant on this appeal is entirely devoid of merit as is his suggestion that the Board should have adjourned the hearing when the Appellant did not appear at that hearing and when the representative that he sent to appear on his behalf made no request for an adjournment.
[7] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed and the stay resulting from the filing of the appeal is hereby vacated.
Costs
[8] I have endorsed the back of the Appellant’s Appeal Book and Compendium as follows: “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons given orally. The stay resulting from the filing of the appeal is hereby vacated. The Respondent is entitled to his costs of this appeal which he request be fixed in the amount of $1,000.00. It is so ordered. The Respondent shall provide the Appellant’s counsel with an order reflecting this endorsement on or before the 15th of February 2017. If that order is not approved by the Appellant’s counsel as to form and content by February 21st, 2017, the order may be issued and entered without the Appellant’s approval.”
SACHS J.
I agree
NORDHEIMER J.
I agree
SPIES J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 14, 2017
Date of Release: February 15, 2017
CITATION: Wigley v. Lau, 2017 ONSC 1098
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 148/16
LTB NO.: TSL-70497-16
DATE: 20170214
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, NORDHEIMER and SPIES JJ.
BETWEEN:
NIGEL EMMANUEL WIGLEY Appellant (Tenant)
– and –
NIXON LAU Respondent (Landlord)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 14, 2017
Date of Release: February 15, 2017