Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Begon v. Worrall, 2010 ONCA 50

DATE: 20100122

DOCKET: C49381

Sharpe, MacFarland and Watt JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Donald S. Begon, Linda Begon, Bent Mogensen, Shirley Mogensen, Kevin Moerschfelder, Larry Moerschfelder, Daniel Labelle, Judith Anderson, Frank Makino, Mildred Lambert, Albert Lambert, Marylou Archer, Eilleen Stafford, Gerald Smith, Dorothy Smith, Peter Coughlin, Charles Dennis, Cresenciana Luciano, Kristina Cancilla, Kenneth Goldstone, Garnet Faulkner, Edward Hilton, Joyce Hilton, Michael Killins, Dorothy Killins, Peter Garnett, Bonjemine Labelle, Audrey Barber, Robert Barber, Roseanne Luciano, William Goldsmith and Evelyn Goldsmith

Applicants (Respondents)

and

Darren Worrall

Respondent (Appellant)

Darren Worrall, acting in person

Jeff G. Cowan, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: January 18, 2010

On appeal from the order of Justice Jane A. Milanetti of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 14, 2008.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant sought a declaration of ownership of residential buildings in Cayuga at three locations; 32 Courish Lane, 11 River Front Lane and 10 Courish Lane. The application judge granted the declaration that the appellant had no right to title or interest to those buildings or lands at 32 Courish Lane and 11 River Front Lane. The application judge’s order specifically excluded 10 Courish Lane and the respondents did not cross appeal that exclusion.

[2] The appellant does not dispute the respondents’ ownership of the lands on which the disputed buildings are located and the appellant admits that he has no interest in those lands. Before the application judge, the appellant relied on purported bills of sale and rental leases with respect to 11 River Front Lane and 32 Courish Lane. The application judge considered the evidence surrounding those documents and found that they were not valid. There was ample evidence to support that finding and we see no basis to interfere with it.

[3] Before this court, the appellant asserts month to month tenancies as an alternative argument. That does not appear to have been argued below. In any event, there is no evidence to support a tenancy of any kind, whether month to month or otherwise. We do not accept the submission that a right of tenancy should somehow be implied from a claim of ownership in the buildings, whether under the Tenant Protection Act or otherwise.

[4] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the respondents fixed at $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

“Robert J. Sharpe J.A”

“J. MacFarland J.A.”

“David Watt J.A.”