Courtland Mews Co-Operative Homes Inc. v. Wood, 2011 ONSC 7495
CITATION: Courtland Mews Co-Operative Homes Inc. v. Wood, 2011 ONSC 7495
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 21/11
DATE: 20111214
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, DAMBROT AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
COURTLAND MEWS CO-OPERATIVE HOMES INC.
Applicant
(Respondent in Appeal)
– and –
SUZETTE MICHELLE WOOD
Respondent
(Appellant)
Charles Sinclair, for the Applicant (Respondent)
Joseph H. Kary, for the Respondent (Appellant)
HEARD at Toronto: December 14, 2011
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JENNINGS J. (orally)
[1] Ms. Wood appeals from the order of Frank J. pronounced June 4, 2010 terminating Ms. Wood’s membership and occupancy rights in the applicant Co-Operative, and granting the applicant a writ of possession.
[2] Before Frank J., Ms. Wood submitted, in the words of the motions judge, that the decision of the applicant to evict her was patently unreasonable. Alternatively, she asked Frank J. to exercise her discretion under s. 171.21(1)(a) of the Co-Operatives Corporation Act on the ground that eviction was unfair.
[3] In this Court, Ms. Wood raised an alleged lack of procedural fairness in the proceedings before the Board. She led no evidence on that issue before Frank J. and neither of her two affidavits placed before Frank J. on the motion alluded to the issue.
[4] Ms. Wood received written notice of the allegations against her of by-law breach. She attended a hearing before the Board in response to a Notice of Appeal and made submissions with the assistance of a family member. She did not contest the allegations against her. She made no complaint about lack of procedural fairness. She spoke only to what the Board should do as a consequence of breach.
[5] On the motion before Frank J., she admitted that prior to the Board hearing she was aware of the allegations made against her. The Board considered the submissions of Ms. Wood and decided to terminate. There was nothing unfair about the procedure before the Board. Ms. Wood launched no appeal from that decision. No evidence of unfairness was led before Frank J. There was clearly no denial of natural justice.
[6] Ms. Wood submits in the alternative that Frank J. erred in applying a standard of patently unreasonable in considering the Board’s decision. At page 7 of her reasons, Frank J. states:
The question to be determined is not whether a different decision could have been reached, but rather whether the Board’s decision was patently unreasonable. In my view it was not.
[7] In stating the standard of review of the Board’s decision to be one of patent unreasonableness, Frank J. erred. The standard now is clearly that of reasonableness.
[8] However, two comments must be made:
(i) The impugned standard appears to have been introduced by Ms. Wood who, as stated by Frank J. at p. 3 of her reasons, “…opposed the Board’s application on the basis of its decision to evict her being patently unreasonable …”.
(ii) In her decision, Frank J. went on to find that the Board’s decision was reasonable and indeed “entirely reasonable”. (see Reasons, p. 12, line 13 and line 30; p. 15, lines 26-32).
[9] On a fair reading of her reasons, it is clear that notwithstanding her error in referring to patent unreasonableness, the motions judge applied a reasonableness standard and found the Board’s decision to be reasonable. This cured her misstatement on standard of review (see Fieldstone Co-Operative Homes v. Rodriguez 2011 ONSC 3660 (Div. Ct.)).
[10] The motions judge was unable to accept Ms. Wood’s evidence on the issue of cohabitation with Otis Wood, in light of what she found to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
[11] There was ample evidence to support the motions judge’s conclusion that the Board’s decision was reasonable. The appeal must be dismissed.
COSTS
[12] Costs payable to the respondent forthwith fixed at $3,000.00 inclusive.
JENNINGS J.
DAMBROT J.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 14, 2011
Date of Release: December 21, 2011
CITATION: Courtland Mews Co-Operative Homes Inc. v. Wood, 2011 ONSC 7495
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 21/11
DATE: 20111214
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, DAMBROT AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
COURTLAND MEWS CO-OPERATIVE HOMES INC.
Applicant
(Respondent in Appeal)
– and –
SUZETTE MICHELLE WOOD
Respondent
(Appellant)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JENNINGS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 14, 2011
Date of Release: December 21, 2011