CITATION: Wilstar Management Ltd. v. Novotny, 2020 ONSC 134
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 642/18
LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD NO.: TSL-97533-18, TSL-97533-18-RV DATE: 20200107
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, PATTILLO and RAMSAY JJ.
BETWEEN:
WILSTAR MANAGEMENT LTD. and RYAN GIBSON
Spencer Toole, for the Landlord (Respondent)
Landlord (Respondent)
– and –
JAMES NOVOTNY
James Novotny, acting in person
Tenant (Appellant)
HEARD at Toronto: January 7, 2020
SWINTON J. (Orally)
[1] An appeal to this Court from an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board lies only on a question of law (see s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17). The standard of review, given the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, is correctness (see paragraph 37).
[2] The appellant has demonstrated no error of law in the original decision of September 19, 2018 or the refusal to review on September 28, 2018.
[3] The appellant admits that he improperly disconnected the fire alarm in his unit. The Board found that his conduct constituted a substantial interference with the other tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex, seriously impaired the safety of other tenants and was an illegal act, in breach of the Ontario Fire Code.
[4] The appellant argues today that he did not receive a maintenance booklet from the landlord regarding the fire alarm system and did not know that what he did was illegal. This issue was not before the Board at the initial hearing, as the appellant failed to attend that hearing. He did not raise this issue in his request for review, and it is too late to raise it now. In any event, the failure of the landlord to provide the booklet does not undermine the Board’s findings. Moreover, there is evidence in the record that the appellant knew it was wrong to disconnect the fire alarm.
[5] The appellant did not participate in the initial hearing. On the review, he indicated he had arranged for someone to attend as his agent, but the person cancelled with short notice. He chose not to attend because he needed his sleep, given that he worked nights.
[6] On the review hearing, the Board found that the appellant had had notice of the date of the initial hearing, and that there was no record showing that he had tried to contact the Board about rescheduling. Accordingly, the Board concluded that he had a reasonable opportunity to participate in the initial hearing, and it declined to reopen the case. The finding was available to the Board on the record before it. Again, no error of law had been demonstrated.
[7] Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
[8] I have endorsed the Appeal Book and Compendium as follows: “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered today. Costs to the respondent are fixed at $1,500.00. The stay of the Board’s order is lifted, but the Sheriff shall not execute the eviction order before February 28, 2020.
Swinton J.
I agree
Pattillo J.
I agree
Ramsay J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: January 7, 2020
Date of Release: January 9, 2020
CITATION: Wilstar Management Ltd. v. Novotny, 2020 ONSC 134
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 642/18
LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD NO.: TSL-97533-18, TSL-97533-18-RV DATE: 20200107
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, PATTILLO and RAMSAY JJ.
BETWEEN:
WILSTAR MANAGEMENT LTD. and RYAN GIBSON
Landlord (Respondent)
– and –
JAMES NOVOTNY
Tenant (Appellant)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Swinton J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: January 7, 2020
Date of Release: January 9, 2020