Court File and Parties
Divisional Court File No.: 748/24
Superior Court of Justice – Ontario
Divisional Court
Re: Karin Gill and Pritpal Gill, Landlords
And: Kelsey Williams, Jessica Munday, Logan Fargo, Kyrin Gaudier-Boudreau, Bailey Reinhart, and Jann Klea Santiago, Tenants
Before: Justice Shore
Counsel: Karin Gill and Pritpal Gill, Self-Represented Landlords Mr. Morden, Agent for Andrew Beney, Counsel for the Respondent, Kelsey Williams
Heard: September 8, 2025
Endorsement
1The Landlord Appellant seeks to appeal the decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated March 28, 2024 and the reconsideration decision dated October 3, 2024 requiring the Landlords to pay the Tenant $12,330.30.
2In December 2024, I expressed concerns about the delay in moving this matter forward. On March 26, 2025, a direction was made by this court requiring the Appellants to file their materials by May 30, 2025.
3On May 30, 2025, they requested an extension. Justice O’Brien directed that they Appellants were to provide justification for the request for an extension by July 13 or the Appeal would be dismissed.
4On July 23, 2025, Justice Matheson gave the Appellants yet a further opportunity to proceed with their appeal. The Appellants were given until August 8, 2025 to file their materials and advise that no further extensions would be provided.
5Justice Matheson reminded the Appellants of their obligations to move the Appeal forward. On July 28, the request for a further adjournment in a case conference was denied and the Appellants’ vague responses regarding his medical condition was deemed not sufficient.
6Justice Matheson directed that the appeal be heard as scheduled on September 8, 2025 and that the Tenant Respondent would be permitted to ask that the Appeal be dismissed for delay and for the Appellants’ failure to file material.
7The Direction also stated that if the Appellant was to rely on medical evidence, a general note would not be sufficient.
8The parties attended today (September 8, 2025). There are still no court documents for the Appeal and the Appeal can not proceed. This morning the Appellant e-mailed the letter from his doctor to the court office. The letter was dated September 2, 2025. He waited until this morning to e-mail it to the court and did not provide a copy to the other side.
9To say that the letter is vague is an understatement. It simply states that the Appellant has had appointments over the last few weeks that may have affected their ability to file submissions.
10The Appeal can not proceed. I am not prepared to grant any further adjournments or extensions.
11The Appeal is dismissed and the stay is lifted forthwith.
Shore J.
Released: November 13, 2025