CITATION: Zhang v. Ranson, 2024 ONSC 564
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 584/23
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Yu Ting Zhang and Gang Qiu Landlords/Moving Party
AND:
Robert Ranson and Crystal Richards Tenants/Responding Party
BEFORE: Justice O’Brien
COUNSEL: J. Chen, for the Moving Party
Self-Represented, for the Responding Party
HEARD: In-writing motion
ENDORSEMENT
1The moving party landlords bring this motion in writing seeking a lifting of the stay of the eviction order of the Landlord and Tenant Board pending the tenants’ appeal. By directions released following a case conference on November 30, 2023, I directed the tenants, as a term of the ongoing stay pending appeal, to pay $6,000 on December 4, 2023 and on the first of the month for every month thereafter until the rental arrears had been satisfied. I stated that if the tenants failed to make any of the payments, the landlords could bring a motion in writing seeking the lifting of the stay. The Board had found that rental arrears as of August 31, 2023 were $41,500.
2The landlord’s affidavit on this motion states that the tenants failed to make the $6,000 payment on January 1, 2024 and, as of the date of the affidavit on January 3, 2024, still had not made that payment. The tenant, Mr. Ranson, sent the landlord, Yu Ting Zhang, an e-mail on January 2, 2024 saying that he needed to get to a physical bank branch to make the deposit and that the branch had been closed on January 1. However, when counsel wrote to Mr. Ranson later that day asking if the landlords should be expecting the funds that day, Mr. Ranson did not respond and there has been no further response.
3Mr. Ranson was served with the landlords’ motion materials on January 4, 2024. It has now been over two weeks since he was served, and the tenants have not filed any responding materials. I am satisfied, therefore, that the tenants have breached my directions by failing to make the $6,000 payment on January 1, 2024. As a result of the breach of this term, the absence of any explanation or other response from the tenants, and the very significant arrears of rent that have accumulated, I find it to be in the interests of justice to lift the stay.
4The landlords’ draft order also seeks to have the appeal quashed. However, their material does not address why the appeal should be quashed. Although the tenants may choose not to pursue the appeal once the stay is lifted, it does not necessarily follow that the appeal is quashed automatically once the stay is lifted. If the landlords also seek a quashing of the appeal, they are required to provide brief submissions justifying their position, which may be provided by e-mail to the court, addressed to my attention, and copied to the tenants. In the meantime, I have signed the draft order with the term dismissing the appeal removed. I have also removed the reference to a factum since no factum was filed. As indicated in the order, I order the tenants to pay costs of the motion in the amount of $500.
O’Brien J
Date: January 26, 2024