Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 16/03
DATE: 20030219
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
GLIMJEM HOLDINGS LTD.
Applicant/Landlord
- and -
ROBERT WEIDENFELD
Respondent/Tenant
Counsel:
Martin P. Zarnett, for the Landlord
Robert Weidenfeld, Tenant In Person
HEARD: February 19, 2003
Oral Reasons for Judgment
THEN J.: (Orally)
[1] The landlord moves for an order requiring the tenant to pay the arrears of rent in the amount of $6,932.15 to January 31, 2003 and for a further order that the tenant pay the amount of $1,235.93 representing an amount of $1,301.93 on account of rent, minus $66.00 which represents an abatement of rent ordered by Member Brown commencing on February 1, 2003 and thereafter on the first of each month until the hearing of the appeal which, in the circumstances of this case, is not anticipated until June of 2003 at the earliest.
[2] The tenant who received a 5% abatement has appealed that order and seeks a further abatement of 5%. The tenant concedes that the rent is owing and it is evident from the reasons of the tribunal that the tenant is in a position to pay the arrears. However, the tenant submits that the orders of the tribunal ordering eviction if the rent is not paid were made without jurisdiction and that accordingly, this Court ought not to act as a "collection agency" for the landlord based on invalid orders.
[3] It is in my view, however, unjust for the tenant to remain in possession as arrears of rent accumulate pending the hearing of the appeal when as here the rent is conceded to be owing. It should be noted that the tenant began to withhold rent prior to his abatement application and continues to do so while the issue of abatement is under appeal.
[4] In the circumstances, it is ordered that the tenant pay into Court the amount of $8,168.08 representing the arrears of rent, minus the abatement ordered by the Member on or before February 28, 2003 and thereafter $1,235.93 per month to represent $1,301.93 in rent, minus the abatement of $66.00 per month.
[5] If the tenant does not comply with the order of this Court, then the stay is ordered to be lifted and the appeal quashed and an order will go in terms of paragraphs "A" through "C" of the notice of motion. Further, if the tenant does not comply, approval of the draft order is dispensed with and the order of this Court can be enforced without further notice to the tenant. It is anticipated that the appeal will be perfected no later than April 30th, 2003 but the precise date of perfection cannot readily be ascertained because it is necessary for the tenant to obtain the requisite tapes in order to produce a transcript and thereafter to utilize the 60 days to which he is entitled in order to perfect his appeal.
[6] In the circumstances it will be left to the landlord to take such further steps as are necessary if the tenant fails to perfect his appeal in accordance with the Rules.
[7] Costs: The issue of costs of this motion be left to the panel hearing the appeal.
THEN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 19, 2003
Date of Release: February 27, 2003
COURT FILE NO.: 16/03
DATE: 20030219
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
GLIMJEM HOLDINGS LTD.
Applicant/Landlord
- and -
ROBERT WEIDENFELD
Respondent/Tenant
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THEN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 19, 2003
Date of Release: February 27, 2003