Superior Court of Justice - Divisional Court
CITATION: Shaltout v. Toronto Housing Corp., 2010 ONSC 1244
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 217/08
DATE: 20100224
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
REILLY, MOLLOY AND DAMBROT JJ.
BETWEEN:
HOSSAM SHALTOUT
Appellant
– and –
TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION
Respondent
In Person
Mary Boushel, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: February 24, 2010
Oral Reasons for Judgment
MOLLOY J. (orally)
[1] The appellant Hossam Shaltout appeals from the order of the Landlord and Tenant Board Member Christina Budweth Mingay, dated April 15, 2008.
[2] The Member found Mr. Shaltout was not an authorized occupant of unit 1003 of 70 Dunfield Avenue in Toronto and was not a tenant of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (“TCHC”) which owns the building.
[3] An appeal lies to this Court from decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board pursuant to s.210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c.17, which provides that a party may appeal an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board to the Divisional Court but only on a question of law.
[4] The Member gave very cogent and detailed reasons for her findings of fact. Her conclusion that Mr. Shaltout had been staying in the unit without the knowledge of the landlord is well-founded on the evidence. She determined that in the circumstances there was no discrimination against Mr. Shaltout on the basis of sexual orientation or spousal status. Again, that finding was fully supported by the evidence and was correct in law.
[5] There is no merit to Mr. Shaltout’s allegations of bias against the Member. Her conduct at the hearing was fair and courteous. Mr. Shaltout took exception to some of her rulings but those rulings were reasonable and made in an even-handed way. There was no actual bias and no basis upon which it could be said there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. Mr. Shaltout had a fair hearing during the course of which the Member was both helpful and patient. While he was not represented by counsel throughout, there is no merit to his argument that this deprived him of a fair hearing. Likewise, there is no merit to his argument that the result in his case was in any way related to alleged incompetence by his counsel.
[6] The Member correctly determined that Mr. Shaltout had no entitlement to possession of the subject premises, in fact or in law. Her reasons for doing so were detailed, coherent and unassailable.
[7] It is regrettable that a full transcript is not available of the hearing before the Member due to the inadequacy of the recording system at the Landlord and Tenant Board. This is a not uncommon problem with respect to this Tribunal. However, in this case, thanks in large measure to the detailed reasons of the Member and the portions of transcripts that are available, it is apparent that there has been no denial of procedural fairness or natural justice and no impairment of Mr. Shaltout’s appeal rights.
[8] There was no evidence to support Mr. Shaltout’s contention that he was discriminated against because of his disability. Likewise, there is no merit to the argument that the alleged disability had any impact on the actions of the landlord or on the fairness of the hearing.
[9] The landlord did not discriminate against Mr. Shaltout on the basis of sexual orientation, spousal status or disability. Indeed, the landlord was prepared to have Mr. Shaltout make an application for supportive housing with the TCHC. The only objection the landlord had to Mr. Shaltout was with respect to his rights to jump ahead of the waiting list by occupying a unit when he had no legal basis to do so. This was a reasonable and appropriate concern for the TCHC.
[10] Most of Mr. Shaltout’s submissions in this appeal related to factual findings and credibility findings from which there is no appeal. The Member’s findings in this case are fully supported by the evidence. She made no errors of law. The hearing was procedurally fair and the reasons provided were thorough in dealing with every relevant issue.
[11] There is no merit to the appeal, it is dismissed.
REILLY J.
[12] The appeal is dismissed for reasons given orally in the record. Costs to the respondent of $1,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and GST, payable forthwith.
[13] There will also be an order dispensing with the necessity of obtaining approval of the draft order.
MOLLOY J.
REILLY J.
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 24, 2010
Date of Release: March 1, 2010
CITATION: Shaltout v. Toronto Housing Corp., 2010 ONSC 1244
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 217/08
DATE: 20100224
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
REILLY, MOLLOY AND DAMBROT JJ.
BETWEEN:
HOSSAM SHALTOUT
Appellant
– and –
TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MOLLOY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 24, 2010
Date of Release: March 1, 2010