Court File and Parties

CITATION: Liliefeldt v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2017 ONSC 6818

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 492/17

LTB NO.: TNL-95413-17

DATE: 20171114

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: DAVID LILIEFELDT, Appellant/Tenant (Responding Party)

AND:

TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION, Respondent/Landlord (Moving Party)

BEFORE: Lederman J.

COUNSEL: David Liliefeldt, acting in person for the Appellant/Tenant

Orna Raubfogel, for the Respondent/Landlord

HEARD at Toronto: November 14, 2017

Transcribed Handwritten Endorsement

[1] This is a motion by the Respondent, Toronto Community Housing Corporation (“TCHC”) to quash the appeal from the Orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”). The LTB ordered the Appellant to pay rental arrears and costs by a certain date and when he failed to do so, ordered that the tenancy agreement be terminated and that the Appellant vacate the premises by July 19, 2017 and also ordered the payment of new arrears.

[2] The total arrears now are just under $10,000.00.

[3] An appeal lies to this Court from the final Order of the LTB but only on a question of law. The Appellant submits that the LTB erred in law in misinterpreting and misapplying s. 7(1)2 and s. 120 of the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”). He argued that his “market rent” agreement to lease implied that the landlord TCHC would adhere to the same rules as to rent increases applicable to other residential landlords and that the TCHC had a duty to perform his lease agreement in good faith.

[4] There is no doubt that s. 7(1)2 of the RTA applies to the complex in which the Appellant resides and the TCHC qualifies for the exemption from the guideline rent increases imposed by s. 120 of the RTA.

[5] The LTB found as a fact that the TCHC did not mislead the Appellant and that the documents provided to the Appellant made it clear that his rental unit was exempt from the rules governing rent increases.

[6] The LTB found as a fact that the market rent lease agreement was therefore not in conflict with the RTA. The Appellant takes issue with such finding, but they do not raise questions of law.

[7] In any event, as the LTB found, a provision in a lease agreement cannot be inconsistent with the RTA (s. 4 of the RTA). There is therefore no bona fide question of law raised and the appeal on this ground is without merit.

[8] The Appellant also appealed on the application of s. 83 of the RTA. That section engages the discretion of the LTB and raises no question of law.

[9] The Appellant has failed to pay to pay rental arrears and has chosen not to comply with the LTB’s orders. The LTB was entitled to make the order terminating the tenancy and the order for eviction.

[10] This appeal is without merit and raises no bona fide questions of law and must be quashed.

[11] The TCHC will have its costs of this motion fixed at $1,786.29, payable by the Appellant within 30 days.

[12] Approval of the Appellant as to form and content of the Order is dispensed with.

LEDERMAN J.

Date of Endorsement: November 14, 2017

Date of Release: November 15, 2017