Court File and Parties
CITATION: Sharma v. Gaebel, 2012 ONSC 5922
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-12-006-00
DATE: 2012-10-18
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
TALIANO J., McCARTNEY J., GORDON J.
BETWEEN:
MAMTA SHARMA and PRADEEP SHARMA
Mamta Sharma and Pradeep Sharma, on their own behalf
Landlords (Respondents in Appeal)
- and -
CHRIS GAEBEL
Kenneth Hale, for the Tenant (Appellant)
Tenant (Appellant)
HEARD: October 17, 2012
Endorsement
[1] This is an appeal from the decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated January 12, 2012 evicting the Appellant (Tenant) from the premises of the Respondent (Landlords). The reason given for the eviction was that the basement area was required for family use, i.e. better accommodation for a daughter due to a lack of space elsewhere in the home.
[2] For several months prior to the service of the Notice of Eviction, which was dated October 17, 2011, the parties had been negotiating to have the tenant leave, but when all attempts failed, the landlords proceeded to commence legal proceedings. Regardless of the decision of the Board, the tenant still occupies the premises.
[3] It is clear from the statute that this appeal is strictly on questions of law.
[4] The standard of review is one of reasonableness.
[5] The appellant contends the Board erred as follows:
(1) It failed to require an affidavit from the respondents’ daughter as required by the statute.
(2) It failed to determine good faith on the part of the respondents.
(3) It failed to take into account the tenant’s disabilities; and
(4) It failed to take into account breaches of the landlord’s responsibilities as alleged by the tenants.
[6] Regarding (1) above the affidavit complained of was made by the landlord Mr. Sharma on behalf of his daughter, who was only 15 at the time the affidavit was completed and submitted to the Board. Under the circumstances, we find this acceptable.
[7] Regarding items (2), (3) and (4) above we are satisfied in reading the decision appealed from that all these matters were considered by the Board in coming to its decision to evict.
[8] For all of the above reasons, the appeal is denied.
Costs
[9] Costs were not asked for or argued. No costs are awarded
TALIANO J.
McCARTNEY J.
GORDON J.
Released: October 18, 2012
CITATION: Sharma v. Gaebel, 2012 ONSC 5922
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-12-006-00
DATE: 2012-10-18
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
TALIANO J., McCARTNEY J., GORDON J.
BETWEEN:
MAMTA SHARMA and PRADEEP SHARMA
Landlords (Respondents in Appeal)
- and –
CHRIS GAEBEL
Tenant (Appellant)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Released: October 18, 2012