Citation and Parties
CITATION: Homesky Properties Inc. v. Sugunan, 2023 ONSC 4623
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 405/23
DATE: 20230714
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: HOMESKY PROPERTIES INC., Landlord / Respondent AND: VELAUTHAPILLAI SUGUNAN, Tenant / Appellant
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
HEARD: at Toronto by teleconference, July 14, 2023
Endorsement
D.L. Corbett J.
[1] The court confirms the case management teleconference held July 14, 2023:
The court concludes that the stay pending appeal should be lifted immediately and the Sheriff directed to enforce the LTB eviction order. The tenant now owes $45,000 in arrears on a tenancy where the monthly rent is $1,900 per month. The tenant is unable to make a meaningful payment towards arrears now, and there is no reasonable prospect of the arrears ever being paid. The LTB made an interim payment order to protect the landlord pending proceedings before the LTB and the tenant did not make those payments. There is no point in making an interim order in this court in all these circumstances: this is a failed tenancy, and the stay will cause continuing damage to the landlord.
If the tenant wishes to pursue the appeal after the eviction has taken place, then the tenant shall obtain and serve transcripts from the LTB hearing(s) by September 22, 2023 and shall serve and upload to CaseLines all of their appeal materials by October 20, 2023, failing which the landlord may ask the court to dismiss the appeal as abandoned, without costs, by email to the court copied to the tenant. If the tenant seeks an extension in these deadlines, they should do so before the deadlines have expired and should provide reasons for the extension they seek.
[2] Counsel for the landlord may prepare a draft order lifting the stay in WORD format and provide it to the court; approval as to form and content of that order is dispensed with.
[3] The tenant did not appear on the teleconference, but a paralegal, Mr Wesley Pang, did call in at about 11:15 am. Mr Pang advised that he had been consulted in this matter this morning, that he is not on the record for this appeal, but that he was trying to help the tenant, who is in difficult personal circumstances, and suffering from illness that makes participating in a court process very stressful. The court had denied multiple requests from the tenant for an adjournment until the tenant "feels better" and the court is grateful to Mr Pang for his efforts on behalf of the tenant today. The court explained the circumstances to Mr Pang - the enormous arrears and the long-term failure to make payments. Mr Pang then consulted with his client and proposed a payment of $5,000 today. The court indicated that this was not a sufficient interim payment, given the quantum of arrears, and advised that an immediate payment of $25,000, plus further payments pending appeal, would be required to maintain the stay. The court also indicated that payments would need to be made by electronic transfer so that there would be no uncertainty as to whether the payments had cleared. Mr Pang then consulted further with his client and indicated that his client would not be able to meet such payment terms.
[4] As the court told Mr Pang - the court understands that the tenant is in very difficult personal circumstances, and the court sympathizes with the tenant's plight. However, the landlord is not responsible for underwriting the tenant's rent, and the current non-payment situation goes well beyond a reasonable short-term indulgence that might be accorded to a tenant facing personal challenges.
Released by Email: July 14, 2023
Formal Endorsement Released: August 10, 2023