CITATION: Vaney v. Capreit, 2020 ONSC 5735
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 173/20
LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD FILE NO.: TSL-04767-19
DATE: 20200916
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Aston and Kristjanson JJ.
BETWEEN:
NATASHA VANEY
Appellant
– and –
CAPREIT
Respondent
Counsel:
Ben Fulton, for the Appellant
Mark W. Melchers, for the Respondent
Linda Naidoo for Tribunals Ontario
HEARD at Toronto (by video conference): September 16, 2020
SACHS J. (Orally)
[1] This is an appeal of a February 6, 2020 Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing the appellant tenant’s request that the Landlord and Tenant Board commence a review of an order made by the Board on December 10, 2019.
[2] The December 10, 2019 order was itself a review of a July 22, 2019 order by the Board that ended the appellant’s tenancy with the respondent landlord and evicted the tenant.
[3] The order of the Board evicting the tenant was carried out on January 21, 2020 and her unit was re-rented on February 2, 2020. The orders of the Board were made as a result of the respondent landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy. There never was a tenant’s application before the Board. Therefore, the Board’s only jurisdiction was to terminate the tenancy or dismiss the landlord’s application.
[4] The appellant acknowledges that she learned of the Board’s December 10, 2019 order on December 25, 2019. In spite of this, she did not appeal that order within the requisite period of time. Had she done so, the enforcement of the eviction order would have been stayed.
[5] On this appeal, the tenant asks us to set aside the Board’s orders and remit the matter to the Board for a new hearing. It is clear that the Board has no jurisdiction on a re-hearing to restore possession of the rental unit to the appellant. It has no jurisdiction to evict the current tenant or to force the respondent landlord to rent another comparable unit to the tenant. Given this, any decision of this court to allow the appeal would have no practical affect on the appellant’s rights.
[6] Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 342, this means that the appeal is moot and unless exceptional circumstances exist, this court should decline to hear it. No such exceptional circumstances exist. Therefore, we are ordering that the appeal be dismissed on the basis of mootness.
[7] The respondent landlord as the successful party is entitled to its costs of this appeal. It has requested $6,542.70 by way of partial indemnity costs. Appellant’s counsel acknowledged that there was nothing unreasonable about this amount. Therefore, we order that the appellant pay the respondent its costs fixed in the amount of $6,542.70, all inclusive.
Sachs J.
I agree _______________________________
Aston J.
I agree _______________________________
Kristjanson J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: September 16, 2020
Date of Release: September 25, 2020
CITATION: Vaney v. Capreit, 2020 ONSC 5735
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 173/20
LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD FILE NO.: TSL-04767-19
DATE: 20200916
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Aston and Kristjanson JJ.
BETWEEN:
NATASHA VANEY
Appellant
– and –
CAPREIT
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: September 16, 2020
Date of Release: September 25, 2020