Court File and Parties
CITATION: Gatien/Brown v. Bombaci, 2019 ONSC 2679
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-2378
LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD FILE NO: EAL-68291-17
DATE: 2019/04/29
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, MACKINNON, DOYLE, JJ.
BETWEEN:
Ashley Gatien and Robert Brown Appellants
– and –
Janis Bombaci and Paul Bombaci Respondents
COUNSEL: William A. Florence, for the Appellants Michael K.E. Thiele for the Respondents Eli Fellman, for the Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD at Ottawa: April 29, 2019
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SWINTON, J. (Orally)
[1] The tenants raise one ground of appeal in this proceeding that seeks to overturn the order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) dated January 24, 2018, which terminated their tenancy and ordered them evicted. They raise a technical argument that the Board had no jurisdiction, because the N5 form that commenced the proceedings was void on its face for non-compliance with the legislation.
[2] Sections 43 and 62 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (the “Act”) set out the notice requirements in a proceeding such as this, where the landlord seeks to terminate a tenancy because the tenant has wilfully or negligently caused undue damage to the rental property.
[3] The tenants argue that the N5 form was defective because under Reason 2 (willful or negligent damage), the landlord failed to fill in the bullet beside the statement that the tenants had 7 days to correct the damage by paying amounts to repair or replace the damaged property. However, the landlord had filled in the amounts payable to repair or replace the property.
[4] The tenants also argue that the Notice was defective because it specified 2 amounts: one for repairs and one for replacement. The tenants argue that the landlord must specify one or the other.
[5] The Board rejected the tenants’ preliminary objection, finding that a reasonable person would have known they had 7 days to void the N5 Notice, because the amounts payable to void the Notice were filled in on the form. There was no evidence from the tenants that they were confused by the form.
[6] A request for reconsideration was rejected by the Board.
[7] An appeal lies to this Court pursuant to section 210 (1) of the Act only on a question of law. The parties are agreed that the standard of review is reasonableness.
[8] The tenants have identified no error of law in this appeal. The Board reasonably concluded that the N5 form was compliant with the Act, because a reasonable person would understand from reading the form that he or she had 7 days to act to repair or pay for the damage.
[9] The purpose of the Notice is to communicate to the tenants the case to be met and the options to void the Notice. When this Notice is read as a whole, including the appendices and page 3 of the form advising the tenant what to do to avoid eviction, it conveyed the necessary information to the tenants and was compliant with the Act.
[10] Moreover, s. 62(2)(c) does not require the landlord to choose between two options: pay to repair or pay to replace. It is in the tenants’ interest to be given all the options: do the repairs themselves, or pay for the repairs, or pay for replacement. Here the landlord had provided detailed information about the tenants’ options to remedy the situation.
[11] In our view the Board’s decision was reasonable. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No party seeks costs.
[12] The stay of the Board’s eviction order is lifted. The Sheriff shall proceed with the enforcement of the eviction order upon providing notice to the tenants to vacate.
Swinton, J.
I agree
MacKinnon, J.
I agree
Doyle, J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 29, 2019
Date of Release:
CITATION: Gatien/Brown v. Bombaci, 2019 ONSC 2679
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-2378
LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD FILE NO: EAL-68291-17
DATE: 2019/04/29
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, MACKINNON, DOYLE, JJ.
BETWEEN:
Ashley Gatien and Robert Brown Appellants
– and –
Janis Bombaci and Paul Bombaci Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON, J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 29, 2019
Date of Release: