Starcevic v. Silvercore Properties Inc.

CITATION: Starcevic v. Silvercore Properties Inc., 2024 ONSC 2198

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 697/23

DATE: 2024-04-15

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: DRAZENKO GEORGE STARCEVIC and KULA ELLISON, Appellants

-and-

Silvercore Properties Inc., Respondent

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

COUNSEL: Drazenko George Starcevic and Kula Ellison, for themselves Spencer F. Toole, for Silvercore Properties Inc. Eli Fellman, for the Landlord and Tenant Board

HEARD: April 15, 2024

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This case conference was held pursuant to directions made by Matheson J and then Shore J. The judges’ directions required the tenants to pay arrears and ongoing rent while their appeal is pending. The directions also required the tenants to perfect their appeal by March 27, 2024.

[2] The respondent has delivered a motion record seeking to lift the stay on the eviction of the tenants because they have failed to do either of the things that they were directed to do.

[3] The tenants have delivered a motion to extend the time for them to perfect their appeal based on a number of grounds that they state in constitutional terms.

[4] Ms. Ellison advises that she is a member of a First Nation and she calls on the Prime Minster and the Premier to act as her Guardians in this proceeding. Whatever duties the government may owe to Indigenous Canadians, I am satisfied that the tenants’ landlord and tenant appeal may proceed without the need for the tenants to be represented by government guardians.

[5] Ms. Ellison’s rent is paid by ODSP. Mr. Starcevic pays his rent on receipt of his monthly OAS. But they both insist on paying rent at the initial rate set out in their lease in 2018. They refuse to recognise the lawful rent increases recognized by the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 17. Ms. Ellison is not willing to direct ODSP to pay the increased rent and Mr. Starcevic chooses to forward only his share of the original rent.

[6] The eviction order made by the board allowed the tenants to void the order and stay in their premises if they paid the arrears they had amassed by ignoring rent increases for a number of years. Matheson J. required the tenants to pay their arrears to maintain the stay on the eviction order while this appeal proceeds.

[7] The tenants are simply unwilling to pay. They are offended that the multinational corporation that owns their premises just wants money from them and will not treat them like human beings.

[8] Rather, the tenants want to see an original of their lease. They say that they are entitled to see the lease and not the copy submitted to the board. They say the board proceeded “without true lease” and this violated the Canada Evidence Act. They also want to see a forensic accounting of all amounts paid on their behalfs by the government as rent from the time they took possession of the premises in 2018.

[9] Ms. Ellison says she cannot utilize technology well. So she asks for certified copies of all documents filed with the board. The board provides only certification of its own orders.

[10] Although the tenants request for a reconsideration of their eviction order has already been denied, they may have sought a second reconsideration recently. They want to await the outcome of that request before finalizing their appeal record.

[11] The tenants say they need an extension fo time to perfect their appeal so that they can receive the original version of their lease, the certified documents filed with the board, and the forensic accounting they desire. They say without this evidence there was no basis fo the board to proceed against them. They lament that the government acts without evidence nowadays and this is turning Canada into a third world country.

[12] The tenants fear that there were irregularities in the signing of their lease. Whatever those may have been, they did not prevent the tenants from having exclusive possession of the premised from 2018 to date. The tenants also say that the landlord may have obtained last months’ rent from them in cash and from ODSP. Whether that may be the case, last months rent is not an issue in the proceedings that were before the board or in this appeal.

[13] The tenants’ constitutional issue is an amalgam of all of their procedural submissions. They say that the board should not use electronic document management that does not protect document security; the board should use business days rather than calendar days to count time so people do not have to do work on proceedings on weekends; they were denied a mediation; they had no legal counsel or amicus curiae. They seek a constitutional remedy under s. 24 (2) fo the Charter of Rights and a declaration of unconstitutionality under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

[14] It is incongruous to me that the tenants’ alleged notion of a landlord treating them as human beings is not about both sides living up to their promises and legal obligations. Rather, the tenants raise technicalities to try to avoid the topic at hand. They do not want to pay their lawful rent. Perhaps they cannot readily afford to pay increased rent. That if that is so, it may be a question for ODSP and OAS administrators. A landlord is not required to bear the brunt of tenants’ financial issues.

[15] Ms. Ellison told me that she was not willing to have ODSP pay any increased rent without an accounting. Moreover, she said that rent increases require the landlord to do more in the unit. She will not recognize her proper rent without seeing the ”true lease” and understanding what happened to her last months’ rent.

[16] In my view, both sides have made out bases for relief.

[17] The tenants have refused to follow the directions of two judges of this court that protected their right to stay at the premises while their appeal is being heard. They are stalling and raising non-sequiturs in relation to the arrears. It is not dehumanizing or unconstitutional to require tenants to pay the lawful rent for their premises. They just cannot or will not pay. In my view the stay pending appeal should be and is hereby lifted. The board’s order dated November 23, 2023 is therefore fully enforceable pending the hearing of the appeal.

[18] The tenants should be given further time to perfect their appeal if they need it. With the stay lifted, there is no prejudice to the landlord. The tenants shall perfect their appeal by delivering their Appeal Book and their factum on or before June 30, 2024.

[19] If the appeal Is not perfected by July 1, 2024, the registrar is directed to dismiss the appeal with costs.

[20] The landlord is entitled to its costs of this motion but not of the whole appeal as yet. The tenants will pay the landlord costs of $2,500 forthwith.

[21] For clarity, I note that despite extending the time for the tenants to perfect their appeal, I make no finding that the tenants have raised a question of law in the appeal as required by s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Date: April 15, 2024