Court Information
CITATION: Draxl v. Truevine Investments Ltd., 2023 ONSC 1316
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 22-318
DATE: 20230327
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Backhouse, Lococo and Abrams JJ.
Parties and Counsel
BETWEEN:
JENNIFER DRAXL
Self-represented
Tenant/Appellant
– and –
TRUEVINE INVESTMENTS LTD.
Landlord/Respondent
Spencer F. Toole, for the Landlord/ Respondent
Linda Naidoo, for the Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD at Toronto: February 22, 2023
Oral Reasons for Judgment
abrams j. (Orally)
(1) The Tenant commenced this appeal in respect of an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) made on or about June 8, 2022 (the “Review Order”) which denied the Tenant’s request to review an order of the Board that was made on or about January 12, 2022 (the “Set Aside Order”).
(2) In our view, the grounds of the appeal raised by the Tenant are either not responsive to the record of the proceedings between the parties or are comprised of challenges to the Board’s exercise of its discretion and its findings of fact.
(3) Subsection 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act provides that an appeal to this court of an order of the Board is only available on a question of law. As such, where an appeal raises a question of fact or mixed fact and law, the court does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
(4) The Tenant attended and fully participated in the hearings before the Board in respect of the Set Aside Order and the Review Order. The Board addressed and carefully considered all the issues that were properly before it. The Tenant did not request an adjournment, did not ask for more time to prepare, and did not ask for any accommodations due to illness or disability-related grounds. It is axiomatic in our view that it cannot be a denial of procedural fairness to the Tenant if the Board does not adjourn a hearing when the Tenant never asked for an adjournment.
(5) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The lifting of the stay of the Eviction Order, the Set Aside Order and the Review Order is granted.
(6) No costs shall be payable in respect of the motion heard by Matheson J. as in our view success was divided.
(7) The Appellant shall pay to the Respondent costs fixed in the amount of $2,500 for the appeal.
(8) As requested by the Board, no costs are ordered for or against the Board.
Abrams J.
I agree. ________________________________
Backhouse J.
I agree. ________________________________
Lococo J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: February 22, 2023
Date of Written Release: March 27, 2023
CITATION: Draxl v. Truevine Investments Ltd., 2023 ONSC 1316
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 22-318
DATE: 20230327
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Backhouse, Lococo and Abrams JJ.
BETWEEN:
JENNIFER DRAXL
Tenant/Appellant
– and –
TRUEVINE INVESTMENTS LTD.
Landlord/Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ABRAMS J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: February 22, 2023
Date of Written Release: March 27, 2023