Court File and Parties
CITATION: Michael v. Castellanos et al. 2026 ONSC 2789
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-00000831-0000
DATE: 20260511
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: JAY MICHAEL, Appellant
AND: RICARDO CAMARENA CASTELLANOS, MARIA NORMA JIMENEZ KAISER, TRIBUNALS ONTARIO, Respondents
BEFORE: Justice Shore
COUNSEL: Jay Michael, Self-Represented Norma Jimenez Kaiser, on his own behalf Nicola Mulima, for the Respondent, Tribunals Ontario
HEARD: In Writing
Reasons for Decision
[1] On January 14, 2024, the Landlord entered the rental unit to conduct an inspection and complete maintenance on the washing machine. This led to an altercation between the Landlord and the Tenant, during which some of the Tenant belongings were damaged.
[2] The Tenant filed a T2 application with the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB), for the alleged interference of their enjoyment with the rental unit and for alleged harassment by the Landlord. In a decision dated January 14, 2025, the application was dismissed (Merits Decision). The LTB found the Tenant has failed to prove its case. At paragraph 31 of the decision the LTB finds as follows:
Based on the evidence and testimony before me, I do not find that the Landlord substantially interfered with the Tenant or harassed them. I do not find that the Landlord was aggressive with the Tenant or that the Landlord purposefully caused damage to the Tenant’s belongings. I find it more likely than not that the Tenant’s behaviour either caused or contributed to the damage to their belongings. The Landlord’s passive defence from further assaultive behaviour from the Tenant was not unreasonable in the circumstances. The Tenant’s T2 application is dismissed.
[3] The Tenant requested a review of the decision by the LTB. The review was dismissed in a decision dated February 14, 2026 (Review Decision).
[4] The Tenant commenced this appeal of the Merits Decision and the Review Decision.
[5] In a direction of this Court, dated February 13, 2026, the Court provided as follows:
The appellant Tenant has failed to perfect their appeal in accordance with the timelines set out in my previous direction. The appellant has missed all deadlines to perfect their appeal as set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure and by this Court.
Further, the Tenant is appealing the LTB decision and review decision, Court file No. LTB-T-007094, but the vast majority of the grounds for appeal seem to relate to a different LTB decision, not before this Court.
As such, I am directing the Registrar to issue a notice pursuant to r. 2.1 that the court is considering dismissing the appeal because the Notice of Appeal appears to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The concern of the court is that:
The Notice of Appeal relates to a decision before the LTB that is not the subject of the appeal.
The Notice of Appeal does not contain any valid grounds for an appeal, as they are limited to an appeal on the finding of facts, not errors of law, contrary to r.210 of the Residential Tenancies Act; and
The Tenant has no other material before the Court, and all deadlines set by the Rules and the Court have passed.
The respondent shall not provide responding submissions in the r. 2.1 process unless this court subsequently directs otherwise.
[6] I have reviewed the submissions by the appellant.
[7] Some of the submissions relate to LTB file No. LTB-L-052014-23-IN, and specifically an application filed by the Landlords. A decision was released in that matter on November 14, 2023. That decision is not the subject of this appeal. I will not address these grounds of appeal as they relate to the other file.
[8] Pursuant to section 210 of the Act, an appeal from an order of the Board lies to this court only on a question of law. Where a tenant seeks to appeal an order of the Board on a question of fact or of mixed fact and law, this court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal: Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17.
[9] Although the appellant’s submissions refer to failures to “apply the law”, I find that the grounds of appeal relate to findings of facts, or the application of the facts to the law by the LTB and therefore are not subject to appeal under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
[10] For example, the Tenants submits that the LTB erred in law with respect to ss. 22 and 23 of the Residential Tenancies Act. These sections provide as follows:
A landlord shall not at any time during a tenant’s occupancy of a rental unit and before the day on which an order evicting the tenant is executed substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or the residential complex in which it is located for all usual purposes by a tenant or members of his or her household.
A landlord shall not harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a tenant.
[11] The Tenant is objecting to findings of fact by the LTB, that the Landlord did not harass the Tenant and the Landlord did not substantially interfere with the Tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit. These are findings of fact, not errors in law.
[12] I find the errors referred to by the application all relate to the findings of fact made by the LTB and do not relate to errors in law. As such, the appeal does not contain any valid grounds for appeal under r. 210 of the Act.
[13] The appeal is dismissed.
Sharon Shore, J.
Released: May 11, 2026