Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Chagnon v. Ali, 2017 ONSC 1955
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-16-0000019-00
LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD FILE NOS.: CEL-52122-15, CEL-52122-15-AM, and CEL-52122-15-RV
DATE: 20170329
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
KITELEY, SWINTON, M.L.J. EDWARDS JJ.
BETWEEN:
Viviane Chagnon Appellant
– and –
Haroon Ali and Bibi Ali Respondents
Self-Represented Appellant M. S. Brown, for the Respondents, Haroon Ali and Bibi Ali
HEARD at Brampton: March 27, 2017
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SWINTON J. (Orally)
[1] The Appellant appeals from a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) dated December 15, 2015 that ordered her eviction so that the landlords could take possession of the rental unit for personal use. Her request for a review was rejected on January 18, 2016.
[2] The Appellant raises a number of grounds of appeal, none of which have merit.
The Board reasonably rejected her request for an adjournment to obtain counsel, raised on the third appearance in the proceeding and after the evidence had been heard. The Appellant had requested and obtained an adjournment in October 2015, the first date of the proceeding.
The Appellant argues she was denied procedural fairness because she was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses, present evidence and make submissions. Having read the transcripts of November 16 and December 14, 2015, we are not satisfied that the Appellant was denied procedural fairness. She was able to cross-examine the landlords’ daughter on the genuine intention issue, and she had an opportunity to make submissions on s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17.
The Board applied the correct test in s. 48(1) of the Act and found on the evidence that the landlords had a genuine intention to take possession so that their daughter could live in the unit. We see no error of law in the application of s. 48(1).
There was no prejudice to the Appellant in the way the residential unit was identified in the landlords’ application.
The Board made no error in applying s. 83(3), given the Appellant’s failure to prove the landlords were in “serious” breach of their responsibilities. We agree with the analysis in the review order at paragraphs 14 through 17.
[3] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Kiteley J.
Appeal from the Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated December 15, 2015 and the Review Order dated January 18, 2016 is dismissed for oral reasons given this day. Appellant shall pay costs in the amount of $3,500.00 for fees, disbursements and H.S.T.
Swinton J.
I agree _______________________________
Kiteley J.
I agree _______________________________
Edwards J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 27, 2017
Date of Release: March 29, 2017
CITATION: Chagnon v. Ali, 2017 ONSC 1955
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-16-0000019-00
LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD FILE NOS.: CEL-52122-15, CEL-52122-15-AM, and CEL-52122-15-RV
DATE: 20170329
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
KITELEY, SWINTON, M.L.J. EDWARDS JJ.
BETWEEN:
Viviane Chagnon Appellant
– and –
Haroon Ali and Bibi Ali Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Swinton J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 27, 2017
Date of Release: March 29, 2017