CITATION: Rezvani v. DU, 2024 ONSC 5417
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 1521/24
DATE: 2024/10/02
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Lococo and Howard JJ.
BETWEEN:
Susan Rezvani
Moving Party/Tenant
– and –
Heping Du and Lizhen Chen
Responding Parties/Landlords
Susan Rezvani, on her own behalf
Dan Rosman, for the Responding Parties
HEARD at Oshawa: In writing
H. Sachs J.
[1] On September 17, 2024, this court issued a direction converting this hearing into a hearing in writing. We did so for the reasons set out at paras.1, 2, 3 and 4 of this court’s endorsement dated September 17, 2024, and released September 19, 2024, which read as follows:
[1] The moving party, Ms. Susan Rezvani, was assisted today by Mr. Loghman Safee-Basir, her agent and son, who required accommodation in order to communicate with the court due to his hearing impairment.
[2] Ms. Rezvani had not uploaded any material to Case Center in advance of the hearing today.
[3] However, she presented in court today with a considerable volume of printed material, which she wished to file in support of her requests. Ms. Rezvani had not made copies of the material for the panel or Mr. Rosman, counsel for the responding parties, rather, she had with her only her original set of materials.
[4] Given the deficiencies in the material presented and in order to provide Ms. Rezvani and Mr. Safee-Bashir with a fair opportunity to present their argument to the court, we directed that the motions before the court would be dealt with in writing….
[2] Our direction to Ms. Rezvani was that Ms. Rezvani was to provide written argument limited to ten pages. As noted in our September 17, 2024, endorsement, Ms. Rezvani agreed that this was a fair way of hearing her motions in the circumstances. We also note that Ms. Rezvani’s son, who was not a party to the proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “LTB”), had been assisting Ms. Rezvani in her interactions with the Divisional Court and its staff in this appeal.
[3] We have now received Ms. Rezvani’s written submissions. Suffice it to say that our direction was not complied with. Instead, she has continued to submit voluminous unsworn evidence and no written argument that was directed at the issues in dispute.
[4] On September 17, 2024, in order to assist Ms. Rezvani, we again outlined to her that there were two issues that we had to decide – (1) Should the two orders made by Charney J. be set aside? and (2) Should the court grant an extension of time to appeal the order of the LTB?
Should the orders of Charney J. be set aside?
[5] On March 27, 2024, Charney J. held a case conference relating to Ms. Rezvani’s appeal of the LTB decision dated December 13, 2024. Ms. Rezvani did not appear at that case conference, which was held down for 15 minutes when she did not appear at the scheduled time. In spite of this Charney J. granted Ms. Rezvani an extension of 15 days to file her appeal of the LTB order (she had not filed that appeal within the prescribed period), but only on the condition that she made a rental payment and an additional payment towards the arrears owing. The endorsement also provided that if Ms. Rezvani did not comply with these conditions, the Landlords could move to lift the Certificate of Stay of the LTB eviction order.
[6] Ms. Rezvani did not comply with the conditions and on April 8, 2024, Charney J. made an order lifting the stay of the eviction order and ordering the Sheriff to provide the Landlords with vacant possession of the premises. This order has been carried out and the premises have now been rented to a new tenant.
[7] It is these two orders that Ms. Rezvani seeks to have set aside.
[8] Ms. Rezvani has provided no basis for setting aside the orders of Charney J. She was given notice of the case conference and did not appear. She was also given notice of the order made by Charney J. at that case conference. The orders were not the result of an error of law, a palpable or overriding error of fact or a breach of procedural fairness.
[9] The result of the orders was to provide the Landlords with vacant possession of the premises. The premises have now been rented out to a new tenant. As Corbett J. found in Tataw v. Minto Apartments, 2023 ONSC 4238 (Div. Ct.), it is now too late for Ms. Rezvani to regain possession of the premises.
[10] We note that in his case management endorsement of August 19, 2024, Emery J. considered a motion by Ms. Rezvani for a mandatory order giving her interim possession of the rental premises. Having previously directed the parties to review the Divisional Court’s decision in Tatav v. Minto Apartments, which Emery J. described as one of the most recent pronouncements on the availability of a tenant’s right to seek possession of a rental unit after eviction, Emery J. denied Ms. Rezvani’s motion. In doing so, Emery J. stated that any “interim order for possession or for an order precluding the landlord from re-renting the unit must be obtained before the landlord rents to a new tenant” (emphasis in original).
Should the tenant’s request for an extension of time to file her appeal be granted?
[11] As this court explained to Ms. Rezvani on September 17, 2024, in considering this aspect of her motion, we would be looking at the following factors:
(a) Whether she formed the intention to appeal within the relevant period.
(b) The length of the delay and the explanation for the delay.
(c) Any prejudice to the Landlords.
(d) The merits of the appeal; and
(e) Whether the “justice of the case” requires granting the extension: Krawczynski v. Ralph Culp and Associates Inc., 2019 ONCA 399, 69 C.B.R. (6th) 163, at para. 9.
[12] In this case, the prejudice to the Landlords is obvious. Ms. Rezvani has made no effort to pay any of the outstanding rent, which is considerable. More importantly, Ms. Rezvani has not put forward any proper material to satisfy this court that there is any merit to her appeal. She filed no factum, she filed no written argument and she put forward no sworn evidence. In view of this, the justice of the case demands that the extension sought should be denied.
Conclusion
[13] For these reasons, the motion to set aside the orders of Charney J. is dismissed and the motion for an extension to file an appeal from the LTB Order is denied.
[14] The Landlords sought their costs of these motions in the amount of $2,000, which is a very reasonable amount. Ms. Rezvani shall pay the Landlords their costs of these motions, fixed in the amount of $2,000, payable within 30 days.
Sachs J
I agree _______________________________
Lococo J
I agree _______________________________
Howard J
Released: 2024/10/02
CITATION: Rezvani v. DU, 2024 ONSC 5417
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 1521/24
DATE: 2024/10/xx
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
Susan Rezvani
Moving Party/Tenant
– and –
Heping Du and Lizhen Chen
Responding Parties/Landlords
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Released: 202410XX