Navado Fraser v. Califair, 2026 ONSC 3433

Court File and Parties

CITATION: Navado Fraser v. Califair, 2026 ONSC 3433 Divisional Court File No.: 823/25 Date: 2026-06-15

Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Navado Mikhail Fraser, Appellant/Tenant And: Califair Buckes Incorporated, Respondent/Landlord

Before: Matheson J.

Counsel: Self-represented Appellant D. Jafari, for the Respondent

Heard: June 12, 2026

Endorsement

1The appellant/tenant appeals the decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) dated September 16, 2025 (the Eviction Decision). The LTB granted an eviction order because the appellant failed to meet the conditions of a prior LTB order dated May 23, 2025 (the Prior LTB Decision).

2The Prior LTB Decision is not under appeal. As set out in that decision, the LTB found that the appellant had been persistently late in paying rent over a lengthy period of time. The appellant unsuccessfully disputed the jurisdiction of the LTB to require that he make payments. The respondent/landlord requested eviction right away. The LTB granted relief from an eviction on the condition that the appellant ‘pay in full and on time’ for a period of eighteen months commencing June 1, 2025.

3As set out in the Prior LTB Decision, if the appellant did not comply with the terms of the order the landlord could apply for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the appellant under s. 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. Section 78 provides that a landlord may apply without notice to the tenant in certain circumstances, which apply here. The landlord did so.

4As set out in the Eviction Decision, the LTB found that the appellant had “failed to pay the lawful monthly rent in full and due September 1, 2025.” The reasons for decision do not detail the non-compliance. However, the application record before the LTB shows that the non-compliance was two-fold: the payment was on September 2 rather than September 1 and was $72.50 short.

5Since the Eviction Decision was made without notice, the appellant had the right to move to set it aside at the LTB under s. 78(9) of the Act. The Eviction Decision included information about that right and the stay that would apply pending the motion hearing at the LTB. That process may have permitted a broader challenge to the Eviction Decision than an appeal to this Court because appeals are limited to errors of law. However, the appellant did not bring that motion to set aside.

6The appellant commenced this appeal and obtained a stay of the eviction pending the appeal. The landlord submits that I should consider the appellant’s failure to pay rent for a period after the commencement of this appeal. I decline to do so. That is not properly evidence on the merits of the appeal.

7The right of appeal is on questions of law only, which includes issues of procedural fairness. The standard of review is correctness.

8The appellant disputes the finding that he did not comply with the condition that he pay in full and on time.

9Addressing the shortfall first, the record that was before the LTB provided that the rent was the higher amount. The appellant accepts that he had received an email about the rent increase but submits that he was still unaware of it.

10The Prior LTB Decision required that the appellant pay the rent in full. There was no error of law in the finding that the appellant had not done so. This was a failure to meet a condition of the relief from eviction granted in the Prior LTB Decision. The tenancy was therefore terminated.

11The appellant has additional submissions about whether the payment was timely because September 1, 2025 was Labour Day. The appellant relies on LTB rule 1.14 and another LTB decision that permitted payment on the day following the holiday. However, even if these submissions were accepted, they do not displace the failure to meet the condition that the rent be paid in full.

12The appellant submits that there are constitutional dimensions to strictly enforcing payment provisions. However, there is no proper constitutional issue before this Court, nor does the appellant provide any specific provisions relied upon. In addition, it appears that these submissions relate to the Prior LTB Decision. That is the decision that imposed the strict conditions.

13The Prior LTB Decision required strict payment terms because of what the LTB found was an extensive pattern of failure to pay rent when it became due. The LTB gave relief from eviction at that time, providing the appellant with the opportunity to preserve the tenancy if the conditions were met. That Decision, and its conditions, are not under appeal.

14The appellant also challenges the Eviction Decision because it was made without notice. Section 78 expressly provides that the application may be made without notice in circumstances that apply here. That is binding legislation. If the appellant wanted to challenge that statutory provision, the appellant ought to have done so on proper grounds in a motion to set aside the Eviction Decision at the LTB. The LTB ruling on the issue could then be raised in this appeal. As things stand, there is no proper record to challenge the legislation on this appeal.

15The appellant further challenges the Eviction Decision because it did not consider the history between the parties and the pattern of behaviour of the landlord. Again, if the appellant wanted to put additional evidence about the history in front of the LTB, the appellant ought to have brought a motion to set aside. He had the opportunity to do so.

16The appellant has not shown an error in law in the Eviction Decision.

17The appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall have until July 31, 2026, to vacate the premises. The appellant shall pay the respondent costs of this appeal, which I fix at $2,000, all inclusive.

Matheson J.