CITATION: Matechuk v. Raamco International Properties, 2015 ONSC 1196
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 538/12
TSL-21278-11 and TSL-21278-11-RV DATE: 20150223
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, SACHS AND CORBETT JJ.
BETWEEN:
DAYLE MATECHUK
Appellant
(Tenant)
– and –
RAAMCO INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES
Respondent
(Landlord)
In Person
Jane L. Ferguson, for the Respondent (Landlord)
Brian A. Blumenthal, for the Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD at Toronto: February 23, 2015
D. L. CORBETT J. (ORALLY)
[1] The appellant appeals from two orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board. The first, Order TSL-21278-11 dated October 3, 2012, amended October 11, 2013, terminated her tenancy on the grounds that she caused damage to the rental unit and she transferred occupancy of the unit to an unauthorized occupant. The second, Order TSL-21278-11-RV dated November 6, 2012, dismissed her request for reconsideration of the first order.
[2] An appeal lies to this Court only on a question of law (See s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act).
[3] The appellant has included affidavit evidence in her appeal book that was not before the Tribunal. That evidence does not meet the test for fresh evidence, as it was available at the time of the hearing before the Tribunal, so may not be admitted on this appeal.
[4] The appellant argues that the Board Member made a serious error when he found that she negligently caused undue damage to the rental unit by using Murphy’s soap on the parquet flooring, when he found that the appellant transferred occupancy of the unit to an unauthorized occupant, and when he refused to exercise his discretion under s.83 on the grounds that she had other accommodation. None of these grounds of appeal raises an issue of law.
[5] There was evidence on which the Board Member could rely to make the findings of fact that he did with respect to causing damage to the floor, transferring occupancy to Ms. Smith, and having alternative accommodation, given that the appellant testified that she did not regularly reside in the unit for a three year period.
[6] Respecting the appellant’s argument that eviction was retaliatory, assuming this issue was raised before the Board, the Board Member necessarily rejected it given his findings on the other issues.
[7] The appellant also raised an issue about a failure of the Tribunal to accommodate her disabilities to effectively participate in the hearing by permitting her to record the proceedings. The record does not reflect that this request was raised as an accommodation issue and, in any event, it is clear from the record that the appellant was able to participate fully in the hearing.
[8] The appellant also argues that the Board Member failed to consider her disabilities in determining whether to exercise his discretion to refuse eviction. However, the appellant made very little mention of her disability during the hearing and she did not make submissions with respect to her disability, although asked by the Board Member to advise him of her current situation if there was an eviction.
[9] In the circumstances, we see no error of law on the part of the Board.
[10] Finally, the appellant has not demonstrated that the Board Member who refused reconsideration made any error of law. The second Board Member applied the test for a reconsideration and reasonably concluded that the first Board Member made no serious error in his findings of fact and law and reasonably exercised his discretion.
[11] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
[12] The stay of the Board’s order is lifted, saving and excepting that enforcement of the Board’s order shall be stayed until June 1, 2015 to enable Ms. Matechuk to find replacement accommodation. Ms. Matechuk must make her monthly rent payments of $1,067.00 per month on the first of every month, failing which the landlord may move on short notice to the Divisional Court for an order for immediate possession.
SWINTON J.
COSTS
[13] I have endorsed the Appeal Book, “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered by Corbett J. Costs to the respondent fixed at $2,500 all inclusive for the motion and appeal, payable within six months from today’s date. Appellant’s approval of the form and content of the draft order is dispensed with.”
___________________________ D. L. CORBETT J.
___________________________
SWINTON J.
___________________________
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 23, 2015
Date of Release: February 25, 2015
CITATION: Matechuk v. Raamco International Properties, 2015 ONSC 1196
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 538/12
TSL-21278-11 and TSL-21278-11-RV DATE: 20150223
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, SACHS AND CORBETT JJ.
BETWEEN:
DAYLE MATECHUK
Appellant
(Tenant)
– and –
RAAMCO INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES
Respondent
(Landlord)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D. L. CORBETT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 23, 2015
Date of Release: February 25, 2015