CITATION: Di Nunzio v. Lobo, 2018 ONSC 670
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 23/18 LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD FILE NO.: TSL-86662-17
DATE: 2018 01 26
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
FLORA DI NUNZIO Landlord (Respondent)
– and –
LESTER LOBO Tenant (Appellant)
Flora Di Nunzio, acting in person
Lester Lobo, acting in person
HEARD at Toronto: January 26, 2018
MYERS J. (Orally)
[1] Mr. Lobo seeks an extension of time to perfect his appeal from the Landlord Tenant Board. The appeal was late only because of technicalities involving service. Mr. Lobo had difficulties with his paralegal getting the materials prepared on time but the length of the delay was very small.
[2] There is no question of his intention to appeal throughout the appeal.
[3] The place where I am having problems however, is in the question of the overall justice of the case requiring or impairing the exercise of the court’s discretion. Mr. Lobo is clear that he wishes to appeal principally to challenge the member’s finding that the application was not brought as a retaliation for his complaints to governmental authority which would have precluded an eviction under s. 83(3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
[4] In addition, he wants to challenge the member’s finding that the landlord had a bona fide intention to move her husband into the premises. The actual intention Mr. Lobo says was to avoid the outcome of fire regulations being applied to the rooming house designation of the premises.
[5] The difficulty with appealing both of those points is that both of them are findings of fact. That is, the member has found factually that the landlord’s reason for eviction was not retaliation. Similarly, the member found as a fact that the landlord was bona fide in her intention to move her husband in.
[6] Findings of fact simply cannot be appealed to this court. Under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, only errors of law and matters of law can appealed to this court and none of the issues raised by Mr. Lobo in his notice of appeal or before me today raise matters of law that are cognizable by this court.
[7] This court does not sit just to review the correctness of decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Tribunal. We are specifically limited by the statute to hearing cases only where the tribunal has made an error of law. In this case, I have reviewed the tribunal member’s decision as well as the reconsideration decision and there is no palpable error of law; there is no prima facia case to an error of law; there is no case pleaded that is an error of law; and this court does not have jurisdiction to review the errors of fact that are relied upon by Mr. Lobo.
[8] Accordingly, in my view this is not an appropriate case to grant an extension of time because doing so would produce an appeal that the court could not hear in any event. In that case, I am going to deny the motion.
[9] I have endorsed the Responding Motion Record as follows: “For oral reasons dictated, motion dismissed.”
MYERS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 26, 2018
Date of Release: January 30, 2018
CITATION: Di Nunzio v. Lobo, 2018 ONSC 670
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 23/18 LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD FILE NO.: TSL-86662-17
DATE: 2018 01 26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
FLORA DI NUNZIO Landlord (Respondent)
– and –
LESTER LOBO Tenant (Appellant)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MYERS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 26, 2018
Date of Release: January 30, 2018