Court File and Parties
CITATION: 6150 Yonge GP Inc. v. Boxma, 2023 ONSC 2859
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 358/22
LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD FILE NO.: TNL-35973-21
DATE: 20230518
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: 6150 YONGE GP INC. ON BEHALF OF 6150 YONGE LP, Respondent/(Landlord)
AND:
SUSAN BOXMA, Appellant/(Tenant)
BEFORE: Pierce, D.L. Corbett and O’Brien JJ.
COUNSEL: O. Vinton, for the Appellant/(Tenant)
D. Peat, K. Bezprozyannykh, for the Respondent/(Landlord)
HEARD: May 11, 2023
ENDORSEMENT
O’Brien J. (Orally):
[1] The appellant, Ms. Boxma, brings this appeal from an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting her from her residential basement unit. The Board granted the eviction order on the basis that the respondent landlord sought to terminate the tenancy for the purpose of demolishing the rental unit.
[2] On August 10, 2021, the landlord served Ms. Boxma with a notice of termination, with a termination date of December 31, 2021. Section 50(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, C. 17 (the “Act”) authorizes a landlord to give notice of termination of a tenancy where the landlord requires possession of the rental unit to demolish it. The Board found that the landlord intended in good faith to carry out the demolition activity in this case and that vacant possession of the rental unit was required.
[3] Subsection 52(2) of the Act requires the landlord to compensate the tenant in the amount of one month’s rent (or offer another rental unit) where the landlord gives notice under s. 50. Under s. 55.1, the compensation under s. 52 is to be paid to the tenant no later than the termination date specified in the notice of termination.
[4] The landlord in this matter sent the compensation cheque to Ms. Boxma on October 21, 2021, well before the December 31, 2021 termination date. Ms. Boxma acknowledges having received the cheque but did not attempt to cash it until a few days prior to the hearing before the Board in February 2022. At that time, the cheque was returned to her due to insufficient funds in the landlord’s account.
[5] After receiving post-hearing submissions, the Board issued an interim order dated May 24, 2022 requiring the landlord to provide another cheque to the tenant as compensation for the termination. Once the Board was satisfied that the compensation had been paid, it issued the final order evicting Ms. Boxma on June 13, 2022.
[6] Ms. Boxma makes the following submissions on appeal:
The Board erred by extending the time for the landlord to pay the required compensation.
Ms. Boxma was denied natural justice in that she was denied an opportunity to be heard in respect of the interim order.
[7] Pursuant to s. 210(1) of the Act, a person may appeal an order of the Board to this court, but only on a question of law.
[8] We are not persuaded that the Board committed any error of law in this matter. With respect to the extension of time to compensate Ms. Boxma, s. 190(2) of the Act authorizes the Board to extend time requirements with respect to any matter in its proceedings, other than the prescribed time requirements. “Prescribed” in this context means prescribed by Regulation. The time stipulated in s. 55.1 is not a “prescribed time requirement” under s. 56 of the General regulation under the Act, O. Reg. 516/06s.
[9] The Board member exercised his discretion to extend the time requirement in this case taking into account that the landlord clearly attempted to provide compensation prior to the termination date but Ms. Boxma delayed several months in cashing the cheque. He also took into account that Ms. Boxma was still in possession of the rental unit at the time of the hearing. It was open to the Board member and entirely understandable that he extended the time requirements in this case in the exercise of his discretion.
[10] Contrary to her other submission, Ms. Boxma was not denied procedural fairness with respect to the interim order extending time. She attended the February 17, 2022 hearing, where she provided testimony and made submissions before the Board. She was also given the opportunity to provide post-hearing submissions to confirm that she had received the required compensation in accordance with the Board’s interim order. There is no basis for her submission that she was denied an opportunity to be heard. This ground of appeal is without merit.
[11] The appeal is dismissed, with costs payable by the appellant to the respondent in the agreed upon amount of $10,000, inclusive, payable within thirty days.
D.L. Corbett J. (Orally)
[12] This court directs that the stay pending appeal shall expire on June 15, 2023 and the sheriff is requested to expedite eviction as soon as reasonably possible on or after June 16, 2023. Approval as to form and content of our order shall be expedited and we require that a draft order be provided by the landlord’s counsel by email tomorrow and tenant’s counsel provide any comments that he has in respect to the draft order by Monday of next week so that the order may be issued and entered promptly and then provided to the sheriff.
[13] We appreciate the assistance of both counsel in their written submissions and Mr. Vinton in his oral submissions.
[14] This concludes the proceedings before this court today.
D.L. Corbett J.
O’Brien J.
I agree:
Pierce J.
Date Released Orally: May 11, 2023
Date Released: May 18, 2023