COURT FILE NO.: 396/03
DATE: 20041004
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
FERRIER, GROUND AND PITT JJ.
B E T W E E N:
METCAP LIVING MANAGEMENT INC. Landlord (Respondent in Appeal)
- and -
RAMONA NEPAUL Tenant (Appellant in Appeal)
David S. Strashin, for the Landlord (Respondent in Appeal)
Toby G. Young, for the Tenant, Appellant in Appeal
HEARD: October 4, 2004
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FERRIER J.: (Orally)
[1] This case is moot. Nevertheless, we have considered the factors required to be considered in Borowski v. Canada (A.G.) (1989), 92 N.R., as set down by the Supreme Court of Canada. Clearly the matter could be vigorously argued on both sides. Mootness would not, in our view, deter a full review of the issues.
[2] The issue as framed by the appellant’s counsel, appears to be the basis on which the Tribunal made its determination as to the tenant being able to reasonably participate in the proceeding. It may be that that issue arises frequently on a motion to set aside a default order and a subsequent motion as in the present case. However, in the factual circumstances of this case, we are not satisfied that the issue is of public importance which needs to be resolved promptly. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as being moot.
[3] Costs fixed at $1,500.00, payable by the appellant. The appeal book reads as follows: “For oral reasons delivered, appeal is dismissed as moot. Costs fixed at $1,500.00, payable by the appellant.”
FERRIER J.
GROUND J.
PITT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 4, 2004
Date of Release: October 6, 2004
COURT FILE NO.: 396/03
DATE: 20041004
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
FERRIER, GROUND AND PITT JJ.
B E T W E E N:
METCAP LIVING MANAGEMENT INC. Landlord (Respondent in Appeal)
- and -
RAMONA NEPAUL Tenant (Appellant in Appeal)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FERRIER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 4, 2004
Date of Release: October 6, 2004