COURT FILE NO.: 633/03
DATE: 20040311
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
O’DRISCOLL, KEALEY AND SWINTON JJ.
B E T W E E N:
NADEIRA SINGH and NAROTAM SINGH
Appellants/Tenants
- and -
MERKUR PROPERTIES
Respondents/Landlords
Minipreet Bhatia, for the Appellants/ Tenants
Martin P. Zarnett, for the Respondent/ Landlord
HEARD at Toronto: March 11, 2004
O’DRISCOLL J.: (Orally)
[1] The landlord, Merkur Properties, applied to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (Tribunal) for an order to terminate the tenancy of the appellants on the basis that Mr. Singh had seriously impaired the safety of others. The application was heard before the Tribunal Member, Mr. G. Taylor on September 5, 2003.
[2] Evidence was given by the building’s two superintendents and a police officer that on August 21, 2003, the appellant, Narotam Singh, approached the superintendents and verbally assaulted each of them. At one point, he was holding an axe. He threatened the female superintendent with “You black bitch – I’ll blow your head off.” The male appellant was apparently very drunk. The police were called. Mr. Singh was belligerent with the police and further police back-up was called. Mr. Singh was charged by the police with assault, uttering threats etc.
[3] On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal granted the landlord’s application and ordered the eviction of the appellants on or before September 28, 2003. The appellants requested a review of the order. On review, the Tribunal Member, Ms. Senis did not find that a serious error occurred in the proceedings, and she, in her order of September 8, 2003, denied the request to review and confirmed the eviction order.
[4] The appellants now appeal the orders of Tribunal Members, Taylor and Senis on the ground that the original notice served on the applicants: mentioned a witness but the name of the witness was not disclosed and the witness was not summoned to the hearing. A statement by the witness, Ms. Barnes, was filed as an exhibit at the hearing. Neither appellant asked that the hearing be adjourned to permit the appellants an opportunity to summon and cross-examine the witness on her unsworn statement.
[5] In our view, there was no defect in the Notice of Termination served on the appellants. The unsworn statement of Ms. Barnes was admissible at the discretion of the Tribunal under the provisions of s.15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.S.22 and s.184 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.24 (TPA).
[6] An appeal lies to this Court under s.196 of the TPA on a question of law alone. We find none in this case. For these reasons, this appeal is dismissed.
[7] With the concurrence of my colleagues, the back of the Appeal Book and Compendium have been endorsed as follows: “This appeal is dismissed for the oral reasons given this date. Costs are fixed at $3,000.00, all inclusive, payable forthwith by the Appellants to the Respondent. The Appellants/Tenants to deliver up vacant possession on or before March 31, 2004. The stay remains in place until April 1, 2004.”
O’DRISCOLL J.
KEALEY J.
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 11, 2004
Date of Release: March 16, 2004
COURT FILE NO.: 633/03
DATE: 20040311
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
O’DRISCOLL, KEALEY AND SWINTON JJ.
B E T W E E N:
NADEIRA SINGH and NAROTAM SINGH
Appellants/Tenants
- and -
MERKUR PROPERTIES
Respondents/Landlords
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
O’DRISCOLL J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 11, 2004
Date of Release: March 16, 2004