Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-00000850-0000 LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD FILE NO.: 850/25 DATE: 20260610
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: ROMAN BODNARCHUK, Appellant AND: IONA INVESTMENTS, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice L. Brownstone
COUNSEL: Roman Bodnarchuk, Self Represented Julia Wilkes, for Iona Investments Sabrina Fiacco, For Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD at Toronto: June 09, 2026
Endorsement
1The appellant tenant commenced this appeal from an order of the Landlord Tenant Board dated September 23, 2025, and a review order of the Board dated October 9, 2025.
2Following a case conference held on February 12, 2026, the tenant was required to file his materials by April 3, 2026. The stay of eviction was lifted at the case conference.
3The tenant did not file his materials. Instead, on April 2, 2026, his then-counsel advised the landlord’s counsel that the tenant had provided instructions to counsel to take steps to discontinue the appeal forthwith.
4No formal steps to discontinue the appeal were taken.
5Yesterday, the tenant served and filed a notice of intention to act in person.
6The tenant appeared today, as did landlord’s counsel. The tenant does not oppose the appeal being dismissed and an order will go dismissing the appeal.
7The landlord seeks substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $11,255 inclusive. Among other things, the landlord submitted that the paralegal who represented the landlord before the tribunal had no right of appearance in the Divisional Court. Therefore, the landlord had to retain counsel who had to start from the beginning. Based on the intended urgency of these cases due to the stay of the eviction order, counsel acted quickly to consider and prepare responses to the arguments in the Notice of Appeal. The landlord submitted that the tenant’s approach of advancing six broad grounds of appeal increased the complexity of the proceeding and the time required of the landlord’s counsel.
8The landlord also submitted that the appeal was an abuse of process, taken only for the tactical reason of delaying eviction and payment of substantial arrears of rent and utilities (monthly rent was $6,252.50), and out of pocket expenses, that the LTB ordered the tenant pay to the landlord.
9The tenant submitted that costs should be ordered on a partial indemnity scale only. Limited steps in the appeal were required. The tenant submitted that $2,500 is appropriate and proportionate, given that no substantive materials were required to be prepared. The appearances were limited to one case conference attendance and one brief attendance today.
10I decline to find conduct that would warrant substantial indemnity costs on the material before me.
11Considering the factors in r. 57.01, and focusing on reasonableness and proportionality, I order costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $7,500 all inclusive. While no formal appeal materials were required, the landlord had to retain counsel who was required to review the file and engage in prompt and repeated work to advance the matter and bring it to its conclusion today. The amount is reasonable and proportionate, having regard to the issues at stake and the amounts owing. The amount ought to have been in the reasonable contemplation of the respondent.
12Order to go dismissing the appeal and awarding costs of $7,500 inclusive payable by the appellant to the respondent. Approval of the order as to form and content is dispensed with.
Brownstone J.
Date: June 10, 2026