CITATION: Sakovets et al. v Hamel, 2023 ONSC 6489
COURT FILE NO.: DC-22-2704
DATE: 2023-11-16
SUPERIOR COURT ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
J.A. RAMSAY, VARPIO AND LEIPER JJ.
BETWEEN:
Vladimir Sakovets and Tatiana Olshanskaya
Appellants
– And –
Audrey Hamel
Respondent
Rebecca Bromwich, for appellants
Self-represented
HEARD: November 16, 2023 at Ottawa by videoconference
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT (orally) :
[1] The tenants appeal under s.210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 from an order under s.87 of the Act requiring them to pay arrears of rent of $2,000. The appeal is limited to a question of law. The standard of review is correctness.
[2] The case is quite simple. The rent was $2,000 a month. At the end of October 2022 the tenants notified the Respondent that they wanted to end the tenancy and assign the lease to a couple whom they knew. At first the Respondent refused, but the next day she reconsidered and asked for information about the proposed tenants’ income and employment. She never got any. Furthermore, the proposed tenants could not occupy the premises before January 1. On December 1, 2022 the appellants vacated the premises. The Respondent, having received 30 days’ notice instead of 60, sought the December 2022 rent, which the Board awarded her. The tenants resisted on the ground that they had assigned the lease. The Board found that the Respondent had not consented to the assignment and that her refusal was reasonable and therefore legal, because she had the right to ask for financial information about the proposed tenants. This decision was available to the Board on the evidence. In the Board’s review hearing, the Board found no error in the decision from the original hearing. The tenants wanted to raise the Respondent’s failure to comply with the Act and the terms of the lease, as contemplated by s.83(3) of the Act, which applies by virtue of s. 87(2), but the Board observed correctly that the Act did not permit them to do so in this proceeding because they had not given the notice required by s.82(2) of the Act and Rule 19 of the Board’s rules. This was a simple application of the provisions of the Act and involved no error or procedural unfairness.
[3] The appeal is dismissed without costs.
J.A Ramsay J.
Varpio J.
Leiper J.
Issued: 17 November 2023 Released: 01 December 2023
CITATION: Vladimir Sakovets et al. v. Audrey Hamel., 2023 ONSC 6489
COURT FILE NO.: DC-22-2704
DATE: 2023-11-16
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
J.A. RAMSAY, VARPIO AND LEIPER JJ.
BETWEEN:
Vladimir Sakovets and Tatiana Olshanskaya
Appellants
– And –
Audrey Hamel
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT
Issued: 17 November 2023 Released: 01 December 2023