Citation and Court Information

CITATION: Renée v. 10887609 Canada Inc., 2024 ONSC 1345

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: Court File No.: 462/23
DATE: 20240306

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

BETWEEN:

D!ONNE RENÉE, Respondent, Tenant/Appellant in Appeal

AND

10887609 CANADA INC, Applicant, Landlord/Respondent in Appeal

BEFORE: Leiper J.

HEARD: In writing

COUNSEL:

D!onne Renée, self-represented

Ian P. Katchin and Teodora Obradovic, for the Landlord/Respondent in Appeal

Date of Decision: HEARD at Toronto in writing: March 5, 2024

ENDORSEMENT

[1] 10887609 Canada Inc., the landlord/respondent in this appeal, moved to quash the tenant, Ms. Renée’s appeal on the basis that it does not raise a question of law, and alternatively in the basis that it is an abuse of process.

[2] For reasons released in Renée v. 10887609 CANADA INC., 2024 ONSC 917, I granted the landlord’s motion.

[3] The landlord seeks its costs on appeal and in accordance with a schedule provided to the parties, made written submissions. Ms. Renée made no submissions on costs, nor did she acknowledge the communications from the court about the timetable or format for costs submissions.

[4] Based on its success on the motion, the landlord seeks its costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,264.74.

[5] In granting the motion, I found that the appeal was devoid of merit and was an abuse of process. The tenant benefited from a stay of the eviction order. She failed to abide by orders of the court to pay rent on a without prejudice basis, to the detriment of the landlord. On argument of the appeal, the tenant refused to state her position on what the monthly rent was for the unit. She took the same position at a case conference.

[6] The tenant’s actions during the hearing of the motion lengthened the time required for the hearing, including not responding to questions and interrupting counsel for the landlord during their time for submissions, despite being requested to let counsel have their opportunity to make argument.

[7] The tenant contributed to the time required to schedule the hearing by failing to abide by timelines set by the court during case management.

[8] However, some of the procedural time required, and the longer than usual motion time for a motion of this nature, was related to the tenant’s requests for accommodation. Although the landlord did not make submissions on who should bear the costs of additional time related to accommodation, I am inclined to reduce the costs payable to reflect the added time caused by circumstances that were not in the control of the tenant. It is not disputed that she has mobility issues or that she needed additional time during in-person case conference and motion that she attended.

[9] Accordingly, I order costs in favour of the landlord, payable by the tenant within 60 days of this order in the amount of $13,000.00.

___________________________ Leiper J.

Date: March 6, 2024