CITATION: Casiechitty v. Imran, 2024 ONSC 3630

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 133/24

DATE: 20240624

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: LANGSFORD CASIECHITTY, Appellant -and- ANILA IMRAN, ABEER IMRAN, and NABEEL IMRAN, Respondents

BEFORE: FL Myers J

COUNSEL: Marshall Reinhart, for the Appellant Anila and Nabeel Imran, for themselves Nicola Mulima, for the Landlord and Tenant Board

HEARD at Toronto (by videoconference): June 24, 2024

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The parties were on notice that this case conference was convened to consider both the schedule for the appeal as well as the respondents’ motion to lift the stay of the order under appeal.

[2] The Landlord and Tenant Board found that the tenants had made out their claim that the landlord had breached his duty to maintain the rental unit. Although the tenants had inappropriately withheld rent leading up to the hearing, the board granted an abatement of rent of just more than the amount they had withheld. It also ordered that the tenants were entitled to further abatement of $1,000 per month until the landlord completes the required maintenance and repairs.

[3] Some of the required work involves the removal of mould that has grown in the bathroom, the bedroom and elsewhere in the rental unit. Although the tenant has complained about the mould for more than a year, and the board ordered it remediated in January of this year, the landlord has taken no steps to do so.

[4] Mr. Reinhart acknowledges that the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises is an ongoing one. He submits or acknowledges that his client’s duty to repair is not stayed by the stay pending appeal in this appeal. The difficulty has been more with the personalities of the parties. The board held both parties had violated their duties not to harass the other.

[5] Anila Imran submits that the landlord and his adult children should not be performing the repair work in her unit. The board ordered the landlord to hire professional contractors to:

a) Address the mould issue within the rental unit to include a complete inspection and remediation and replacement of all affected areas and materials;

b) Inspect and clean the ventilation in the ensuite to ensure it is working as prescribed by prevailing property standards;

c) Repair the caulking around the fixtures in the bathrooms to include remediation of any mould or moisture; and

d) Inspect, repair or replace the appliances to ensure those provide are in working order according to the prevailing property standards.

[6] This order remains in place and is not stayed pending this appeal. It should have been done by now. In any event, it should be performed forthwith.

[7] Moreover, the City is also involved. I say nothing about the Property Standards Orders that it has made or may make against the landlord. Should he fail to comply, the City has its remedies.

[8] Ms. Imran and her children are entitled to 24 hours’ notice before the landlord makes entry to her unit. She should not be barged in on while in casual clothes or otherwise.

[9] I would like to think that with Mr. Reinhart engaged, the landlord and his children will understand better the nature of their obligations and the benefits of avoiding further confrontation. Ms. Imran also seems to understand her rights and how to bring proceedings to enforce them.

[10] Both parties need to behave in a manner that is not harassing of the other. If Ms. Imran does not think she can be comfortable while work is being performed, perhaps she should leave and send someone in her place who can watch over her unit while workers are there.

[11] Mr. Reinhart submits that the stay pending appeal applies to the board’s order allowing Ms. Imran to deduct $1,000 per month until the landlord complies with his obligations. The landlord is concerned that a prospective abatement in rent is beyond the board’s authority. Moreover, he fears that it is subject to abuse as it leaves the tenant to judge the adequacy of repairs. A further board hearing would be a long way off.

[12] The landlord has brought a fresh L-1 application to require Ms. Imran to pay the $1,000 per month that she has been withholding despite the stay of the order allowing her to do so. That proceeding ostensibly could result in the landlord seeking an eviction order before the appeal is heard.

[13] Mr. Reinhart advises that the tenant has also brought a new T-6 application to require the landlord to perform the repairs already ordered.

[14] As a result of these competing proceedings, as Mr. Reinhart puts it, the “parties are right back where they started.” That is obviously in no one’s interest.

[15] The landlord was ordered to perform repairs on December 11, 2023. Reconsideration was denied January 29, 2024. The landlord commenced this appeal February 22, 2024.

[16] It is now four months later and instead of perfecting his appeal and performing repairs as ordered (and not stayed), the landlord has brought a new eviction proceeding before the board. The tenants are living in mould. I do not make any finding on the severity of the mould or whether it is to blame for the ills alleged by the tenants. But that the landlord has chosen not to clean up the unit or to get on with the appeal speaks volumes.

[17] I disagree with Mr. Reinhart’s submission that the tenant is engaging in self-help withholding the $1,000 per month. She is simply living under the board’s order as adjudicated. Neither am I concerned today about who will get to decide when the landlord has completed his repairs. Maybe once the landlord decides to comply with the law and protect his tenants and building from invasive mould, someone will be concerned with the theoretical question.

[18] The landlord concedes he has yet to perform the ordered repairs, I can see no basis for his appeal to remain protected by a stay. The tenants are continuing to live in a sub-standard unit as found. The four months that have passed are no longer “prospective.” The landlord could have taken steps to have the appeal heard quickly. Instead, he proposes perfecting the appeal in August with a hearing no sooner than towards the end of the year. The fact that he is now moving before the board as a result of the tenants’ following the order while he remains in breach of it provides no equity or weight on the landlord’s side of the scales of justice.

[19] I therefore lift the stay of proceedings on the portion of the board’s order allowing the tenants an abatement of $1,000 for each month that the landlord remains in breach of his duty to repair. Once the landlord can prove that he is in compliance with all his legal maintenance and repair obligations, he may bring a case conference to seek to reinstate the stay pending appeal. The court will decide compliance for now in the context of a stay motion and it can do so in fairly short order.

[20] On consent the landlord shall perfect the appeal by no later than August 17, 2024. The tenants shall deliver their appeal book (if any) and factum by no later than October 6, 2024. The board may deliver a factum by no later than November 7, 2024.

[21] The Registrar is requested to schedule a hearing of the appeal before a single judge as soon as practicable after November 30, 2024.

FL Myers J

Date: June 24, 2024