CITATION: 235 Grandravine Drive Inc. v. Tereshko, 2017 ONSC 1798
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 524/14
DATE: 20170320
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
KITELEY, NORDHEIMER and LEMAY JJ.
BETWEEN:
235 GRANDRAVINE DRIVE INC.
Plaintiff (Respondent)
– and –
GENNADY TERESHKO
Defendant (Appellant)
An Nguyen, for the Plaintiff (Respondent)
Gennady Tereshko, in person
HEARD at Toronto: March 20, 2017
NORDHEIMER J. (Orally)
[1] Mr. Tereshko appeals from the judgment of Justice C. Brown dated October 15, 2014. The judgment granted the respondent’s claim to enforce a lien against Mr. Tereshko’s co-op unit (the “Unit”) and dismissed Mr. Tereshko’s counterclaim.
[2] The appellant purchased a Co-Ownership Interest in the respondent, a housing co-op, in November 2008. On July 4, 2012, an Inspection Order, issued by the Toronto Fire Services, found too many combustibles in the appellant’s unit which, among other things, obstructed access. Toronto Fire Services deemed the state of the Unit a health and safety risk for fire suppression, emergency responders and any occupant of the Unit. The Inspection Order was delivered to the appellant, but also named the Corporation’s directors and property manager in their personal capacities. The Inspection Order required the Unit to be brought into compliance by August 1, 2012, failing which the Corporation and its individual directors would be prosecuted and/or face fines.
[3] The appellant was given the opportunity to remove the materials and make the necessary repairs himself but failed to do so. The respondent then had the Unit cleared and cleaned and charged the costs against the appellant’s Unit.
[4] The respondent then brought an action to enforce payment of the costs. The appellant defended the action on a variety of grounds. The trial judge found that there was no basis to the appellant’s defence including that there was no evidence that the cleaning company had stolen items belonging to the appellant. The trial judge also rejected claims by the appellant that employees of the cleaning company had assaulted him during the course of the clean-up.
[5] As is apparent from the appellant's factum and his submissions, the appellant essentially challenges the factual findings made by the trial judge. In order to do so, the appellant must show that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at para 10. That standard of review accords a high degree of deference to the findings of the trial judge.
[6] The appellant has failed to show any such errors. He simply repeats the same complaints that he made at trial. I should add that the appellant's efforts to show error are made even more difficult than usual because, as a way of saving his appeal from being dismissed for delay, the appellant agreed to have the appeal heard without the transcript from the trial.
[7] In the end result, there is no merit to this appeal. The respondent acted within its authority, as set out in the co-ownership agreement, under which the appellant acquired his Unit. There is simply no basis upon which this court could interfere with the conclusions reached by the trial judge.
[8] The appeal is dismissed.
costs – Kiteley J.
[9] I have endorsed the Respondent’s Appeal Book & Compendium as follows: “For oral reasons given the appeal is dismissed without costs as counsel for Grandravine not asking for costs.”
___________________________ NORDHEIMER J.
I agree
KITELEY J.
I agree
LEMAY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 20, 2017
Date of Release: March 22, 2017
CITATION: 235 Grandravine Drive Inc. v. Tereshko, 2017 ONSC 1798
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 524/14
DATE: 20170320
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KITELEY, NORDHEIMER and LEMAY JJ.
BETWEEN:
235 GRANDRAVINE DRIVE INC.
Plaintiff (Respondent)
– and –
GENNADY TERESHKO
Defendant (Appellant)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NORDHEIMER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 20, 2017
Date of Release: March 22, 2017