DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-703/21
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: ALEX DOBRYDNEV/Appellant
AND:
REMON MEEKHAIL/Respondent
BEFORE: Backhouse, Lederer and Davies JJ.
COUNSEL: Alex Dobrydnev on his own behalf
Remon Meekhail on his own behalf
Eli Fellman, for the Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD at Toronto by Videoconference: April 21, 2022
ENDORSEMENT
[1]
Background
Mr. Meekhail moved into a rental unit at 2798 Weston Road on March 15, 2019. The unit was owned by Mr. Dobrydnev. Mr. Meekhail paid Mr. Dobrydnev $1400 for first and last month’s rent.
2Problems arose between Mr. Meekhail and Mr. Dobrydnev shortly after Mr. Meekhail moved in. Mr. Meekhail complained about mold and pests in the unit. Mr. Dobrydnev threatened to evict Mr. Meekhail. In mid-April 2019, Mr. Dobrydnev started to show Mr. Meekhail’s unit to other potential tenants. Mr. Dobrydnev removed all Mr. Meekhail’s belongings from the unit and locked him out on May 26, 2019.
3Mr. Meekhail filed an application with the Landlord and Tenant Board seeking a $1400 rent abatement. Mr. Meekhail also sought $15,000 in general damages for lost property, and for pain and suffering.
[4]
The Board's Decision
As a preliminary matter, Mr. Dobrydnev objected to the jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board. He argued the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c.17 (“the Act”) did not apply to his arrangement with Mr. Meekhail because they were roommates. Mr. Dobrydnev argued he was living in the unit when Mr. Meekhail moved in and he was, therefore, not a landlord as defined in the Act. The Board rejected Mr. Dobrydnev’s argument. The Board found Mr. Dobrydnev was not living in the house when Mr. Meekhail moved in. The Board found that Mr.
Dobrydnev moved into the unit in an attempt to avoid the jurisdiction of the Act. They found that Mr. Dobrydnev was a landlord and the Act applies.
5The Board also found that Mr. Dobrydnev violated the Act by illegally entering Mr. Meekhail’s unit and by interfering with Mr. Meekhail’s reasonable enjoyment of his unit. Finally, the Board found that Mr. Dobrydnev “set on a campaign of harassment and interference with the Tenant.” The Board granted Mr. Meekhail a rent abatement of $1400 plus $3,600 in damages and
$100 in costs.
6Mr. Dobrydnev requested a review of the Board’s decision. Mr. Dobrydnev’s review was dismissed without a hearing.
[7]
The Appeal
Mr. Dobrydnev now appeals the order of the Landlord Tenant Board dated July 27, 2021 upholding the June 21, 2021 order granting Mr. Meekhail a rent abatement and damages. Mr. Dobrydnev argues the Board erred in finding that he was Mr. Meekhail’s landlord. Mr. Dobrydnev argued that the Board failed to consider all the evidence. Finally, Mr. Dobrydnev takes the position that Mr. Meekhail gave false information to the Board and the Board erred in accepting Mr. Meekhail’s evidence.
[8]
Analysis
A decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board can only be appealed on a question of law: Residential Tenancies Act, s. 210. The issues raised by Mr. Dobrydnev are not questions of law. The issues he raised are attacks on the Board’s findings of fact. The Board heard from Mr. Meekhail and Mr. Dobrydnev. The Board accepted Mr. Meekhail’s evidence and rejected Mr. Dobrydnev’s evidence. The Board explained why it rejected Mr. Dobrydnev’s evidence. The Board found Mr. Dobrydnev’s evidence to be inconsistent and incoherent.
[9]
Fresh Evidence
Mr. Dobrydnev filed with this court two letters to support his position that he and Mr. Meekhail were roommates. The letters purport to be from two other tenants at 2798 Weston Road. The letters say Mr. Dobrydnev was living at 2798 Weston Road when Mr. Meekhail moved in in March 2019. Both letters are dated July 21, 2021 – after the Landlord and Tenant Board rendered its decision and after Mr. Dobrydnev filed his request for a review of the Board’s original order.
10We are not prepared to consider the letters as part of Mr. Dobrydnev’s appeal. Parties must adduce all the evidence they want to rely on (and that is available to them) at the first hearing. Parties cannot adduce new evidence on appeal without good reason. Mr. Dobrydnev did not explain why he did not obtain the letters from the other tenants earlier and file them with the Landlord and Tenant Board back in 2019. I find that Mr. Dobrydnev could have called the other tenants (or filed their letters) at the hearing before the Landlord and Tenant Board and the letters are not admissible on the appeal.
[11]
Conclusion
This court cannot reconsider the factual findings made by the Board and Mr. Dobrydnev’s appeal is dismissed.
[12]
Costs
Mr. Meekhail requested $320 in costs to cover the wages he lost attending the hearing of Mr. Dobrydnev’s appeal. A successful self-represented litigant is not automatically entitled to costs. The court will sometimes award costs to a self-represented litigant who can demonstrate they lost the opportunity to make money because they had to devote time to the litigation. But the decision whether to grant costs to a self-represented litigant is highly discretionary.
13All litigants must spend some time on their case. Self-represented litigants are not entitled to costs for the time and effort any litigant would have to spend on their case: Fong v. Chan, [1999]
O.J. No. 4600 at paras. 23 - 26. Mr. Meekhail did not file a factum or any written response on the appeal. He attended the hearing but was not called on to make submissions. In my view, Mr. Meekhail did not spend any more time on this appeal than he would have spent if he had a lawyer. As a result, it is not appropriate to award him costs.
J.
I agree
Backhouse J.
I agree
Lederer J.
Date: May 31, 2022