Lafontaine v. Grant, 2019 ONSC 2321

CITATION: Lafontaine v. Grant, 2019 ONSC 2321

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-41-00 DATE: 20190411

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

GORDON, BACKHOUSE, BALE JJ.

BETWEEN:

LOUIS A. LAFONTAINE

Appellant

• and -

ALANNA GRANT

Respondent

Self-represented

By her agent, Bryan Grant

HEARD at Brampton: April 10, 2019

ENDORSEMENT

r. gORDON J.

[1]

Background

The Appellant is the landlord of 339 Van Kirk Drive in Brampton. The Respondent lived in a room at the property for a period of time. She brought an application under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 for damages arising from what she alleged was an infestation of bed bugs. A hearing date was set before the Landlord and Tenant Board. The Appellant did not attend, but instead sent a letter to the Board in which he submitted, among other things, that the Board had no jurisdiction to consider the application because the property is exempt as a shared accommodation where temporary guests reside and occupy common areas and have only a separate bedroom. He indicated in his letter that the Board had previously determined that his property was exempt.

2At the hearing, the Board questioned the Respondent on the issue of exemption. The Board determined that on the evidence before it, the Respondent was not required to share either the kitchen or the bathroom with the Applicant as required for the exemption in section 5(i) of the Act to apply. The Board found as fact that the Applicant had his own kitchen and bathroom in the basement. Having found that the exemption did not apply, the Board ruled in favour of the Respondent and ordered payment of $4,885.19.

3The Appellant sought a review of the decision. His request to review the order was denied and the order was confirmed. He has appealed to this court.

[4]

Analysis

Under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, an appeal from the Board is restricted to questions of law.

5Although we can certainly understand the Appellant’s concern with the decisions made, what he challenges are the findings of fact made by the Board. That is, he disagrees with the Board’s finding that he has his own kitchen and bathroom in the basement, and he disagrees with the finding that the Respondent was not required to share any such facilities with him. Unfortunately, these are not questions of law and the Appellant therefore has no right of appeal.

[6]

Disposition

Accordingly, we are required to dismiss the appeal. The Respondent did not request costs and there will therefore be no order as to costs.

R. Gordon J.

I agree _______________________________

Backhouse J.

I agree _______________________________

Bale J.