CITATION: Roper v. Mian, 2017 ONSC 1541
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 2/17
LTB No.: CEL-59013-16 DATE: 20170303
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER J. ROPER
Appellant (Tenant)
– and –
MOHAMMAD MIAN
Respondent (Landlord)
Stefan Juzkiw, for the Appellant (Tenant) and Christopher Roper acting in person
Tristen Audet, for the Respondent (Landlord)
HEARD at Toronto: March 3, 2017
Kiteley J. (Orally)
adjournment issue
[1] As Mr. Roper points out, the title of proceedings is probably inaccurate because it should reflect the same style of cause as was before the Landlord and Tenant Board. At any rate, we can overlook that for today.
[2] I have a request by Mr. Roper to adjourn this motion to “the earliest possible date” but extensive correspondence between Mr. Roper’s recently retained lawyer and counsel for the landlord has not succeeded in arriving at terms of an adjournment. As a result of that, Mr. Roper made a formal request for an adjournment and counsel for the landlord has resisted and is opposed to any adjournment.
[3] The motion that is before me today has been brought by the landlord for various orders including dismissing the appeal, lifting the stay, security for costs.
[4] The notice of motion and affidavit were served on Mr. Roper on January 31, 2017 by courier so he has had the motion record in his hands for a month, today being Friday, March 3, 2017. The factum and book of authorities were served more recently but within the time required by the Rules namely, by courier on February 21, 2017.
[5] In order to arrive at a conclusion about whether to grant the adjournment or not, I need to review how it is that this matter came before this court.
[6] On July 25, 2016, the landlord’s application was heard by the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict the appellant. The Board made an order that the appellant pay the respondent $13,310.00 on or before July 31, 2016 in order to continue the tenancy and made an order that if the appellant failed to make that payment by that deadline, the tenancy would be terminated and the appellant would vacate on or before August 9, 2016. That is referred to as the “first arrears order”.
[7] On August 29, 2016, the appellant requested that the Board review the first arrears order and as a result of that request, the first arrears order was stayed.
[8] On September 16, 2016, the Board heard the review of the first arrears order and concluded that the payment made by the appellant on July 25, 2016 in the amount of $10,710 was insufficient to satisfy the arrears. As of the date of the hearing of the review, the arrears were $7,800 and the first arrears order was vacated and replaced with a new order that included a timetable for payment of rent, specifically the tenant was to pay on or before the first of the month and was to make payments to rectify the arrears on October 15, November 15 and December 15, 2016. That is referred to as the “final arrears order”. There is no appeal from that order.
[9] The tenant did not pay the rent as ordered on October 15, 2016 and did not pay the arrears by October 15, 2016. As a result, the landlord applied to the Board for an eviction order which was issued and dated October 21, 2016. There is no appeal from that order.
[10] On October 31, 2016, the tenant requested that the October 21, 2016 order be reviewed. The request for review provoked the stay of the eviction until the review was resolved. On November 24, 2016, the Board heard the motion to set aside and issued an order dated December 5, 2016 dismissing the motion to set aside and lifting the stay immediately. This is referred to as the final eviction order.
[11] On about December 23, 2016, the tenant filed a notice of appeal of the December 5, 2016 order.
[12] As I mentioned, on January 31, 2017, the landlord served the notice of motion that is before me today. According to the tenant, he recently retained a lawyer and the correspondence which is before me indicates that the first letter by his lawyer was dated February 24, 2017, so roughly 10 days ago and roughly 20 days after service of the notice of motion. As of this date, the tenant has filed no responding material to the motion. His lawyer in the correspondence and according to Mr. Roper today wants to exercise what is described as the “right” to cross-examine the two deponents on the affidavits in support of the motion.
[13] Mr. Roper has no lawyer today and asked that the matter be adjourned. Up until this point, there has been some attempt to arrive at a timetable but as of the hearing of this motion there was no success in reaching a timetable for how the matter might move forward quickly.
[14] I decline to adjourn the motion. The material indicates that Mr. Roper has represented himself before the Board. The review of the steps taken there indicate that he has mastered the processes before the Board. He is articulate as I could tell from listening to him today and I can see that his written work is equally as articulate. For example, looking at Tab B of the motion record, there is a three page extensive letter to the Board dated August 28, 2016 attached to which is almost a five page Schedule A and Schedule B. He is able to make representation on the landlord’s motion. There are significant arrears. In response to my question as to when he last paid rent, he said “oh July or August”. The issue of the amount of rent is not the subject matter of this appeal.
[15] After serving and filing his notice of appeal, Mr. Roper did what he was required to do. He ordered the transcript. He received it on February 1 or February 2 and he therefore has 60 days from February 1 to prefect his appeal.
[16] One aspect of the motion before me today is that I dismiss the appeal. I will not hear submissions on dismissal of the appeal. I will hear submissions on the other relief sought in the notice of motion.
[17] The tenant’s motion to adjourn this motion is dismissed.
EXTENDED recess
[18] Earlier this morning, I declined to give Mr. Roper an adjournment of the motion