Citation

CITATION: Lara v. Veluz, 2020 ONSC 7223

COURT FILE NO.: 250/20

DATE: 20201124

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Lara v. Veluz

COUNSEL: John Jose Lara, self-represented Appellant Tenant Carmyna S’Ad, for the Respondent Landlord No one appearing for the Landlord and Tenant Board

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

DATE: November 24, 2020

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This endorsement arises out of a motion to quash heard by teleconference before me on November 24, 2020. The issue on the motion does not concern the interests of the LTB, which advised in advance that it would not be participating in this motion.

[2] The tenant had sought an adjournment of the motion on November 18, 2020. That request was denied but the tenant was told that he could ask the court for an adjournment today. The tenant advised that he had consulted with a lawyer before the motion and had decided to go ahead without a lawyer: he was not asking for an adjournment. He explained that the cost of a lawyer, in all the circumstances of the case, made him conclude that he was better to proceed today unrepresented than to seek an adjournment and incur the cost of retaining counsel.

[3] Another lockdown because of COVID-19 has just commenced in the City of Toronto (and other places), placing the parties in a difficult position. The tenant is in arrears of his rent, and his appeal appears to lack much merit, but it will be difficult for him to relocate forthwith.

[4] The parties have been in a landlord and tenant relationship for several years and have a history of being reasonable with each other – notwithstanding some difficulties. Currently, there is evident frustration in the relationship, but also some mutual empathy.

[5] The tenant understands that he cannot remain in the premises while defaulting on rent. The landlord understands that the tenant is not able to make immediate payment of all arrears and ongoing rent.

[6] The tenant executed a Form N11 almost a year ago, with a termination date of January 31, 2020, and he is still in the premises – a consequence, in part, of the stay of evictions because of COVID-19. The tenant claims to have bases for not being bound by the executed N11, but his position really devolves to this: he is prepared to leave, and has been prepared to leave for some time, but he has been unable to do so because of COVID-19.

[7] There comes a point when these matters must be resolved on a final basis. Current arrears are substantial, and the landlord is not required to underwrite the tenant’s rent. On the other hand, the tenant cannot be expected to relocate instantly.

[8] Taking all of this into account, and with the consent of the parties, the court orders as follows:

(a) The tenant shall pay the landlord $950 by 12 noon, December 1, 2020, by electronic transfer (as he has paid rent in the past). If this payment is not made as directed, the landlord may schedule a further teleconference with me on short notice to the tenant to obtain an order lifting the stay of eviction immediately.

(b) The stay of the eviction order of the Landlord and Tenant Board is lifted effective 11:50 pm, December 31, 2020.

(c) The parties shall try to negotiate a resolution to all outstanding matters between them, and, if they settle, shall provide the court with their settlement terms by December 18, 2020. If the parties do not settle all issues, then they shall attend a case management teleconference with me on January 4, 2021, at 1:30 pm, for an estimated 30 minutes, to obtain further directions.

[9] Issues that need to be resolved between the parties include:

(a) Although the order today gives the tenant more than five weeks to relocate before the stay is lifted, it will still be difficult for him to do so in the current COVID-19 lockdown. He may seek a further extension from the landlord, as part of an overall settlement. This could be accomplished by the landlord agreeing that his lawyer hold the order lifting the stay in escrow until some later date.

(b) There are arrears that have accumulated since the Board’s last order. The landlord will want a settlement that addresses all outstanding issues so that he will not incur further expense going back to the Board.

[10] Counsel for the landlord asked that I consider ordering an expedited eviction after the stay is lifted. I decline to do that now, without prejudice to such a request at the case management teleconference on January 4, 2021 or thereafter.

[11] Counsel for the landlord shall prepare a draft order for my signature, a copy of which shall be provided to the tenant at the same time as the court. Approval as to form and content is dispensed with (for the tenant’s benefit, this means that I will review the draft order myself to be satisfied that it fairly reflects this endorsement, and only after that review will I direct the court Registrar to issue and enter the order and send it to the parties).

[12] The balance of the motion is adjourned to a date to be scheduled, if required, and to be spoken to at the case management teleconference on January 4, 2021, if the case has not settled by that time.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: November 24, 2020