Court File and Parties
CITATION: Thompson v. Homestead Land Holdings Limited., 2024 ONSC 5956
COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-2914
DATE: 20241028
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Morley AC Thompson, Tenant/Appellant
AND
Homestead Land Holdings Limited, Landlord/Respondent
BEFORE: Justice R. Ryan Bell
COUNSEL: Self-represented Tenant/Appellant
Kevin Kok, for the Landlord/Respondent
No one appearing for the Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD: October 10 and 17, 2024
ENDORSEMENT
Overview
[1] The landlord, Homestead Land Holdings Limited, moves to quash this appeal and, in the alternative, for an order lifting the stay of the eviction order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”).
[2] Mr. Thompson’s appeal concerns an order of the LTB in four files: Homestead’s application for termination of the residential tenancy due to Mr. Thompson’s non-payment of rent and three of Mr. Thompson’s applications for alleged violations of his rights as a tenant and alleged maintenance issues in the rental unit.
[3] On August 22, 2024, the LTB issued its final order in the four applications. The order,
(i) granted Homestead’s application for termination of the tenancy;
(ii) found that Mr. Thompson owed Homestead $51,467.83 in arrears up to August 31, 2024;
(iii) determined that if no payments were made, Mr. Thompson would owe Homestead $54,148.70 in arrears up to September 30, 2024;
(iv) required Mr. Thompson to vacate the rental unit on or before September 2, 2024; and
(v) dismissed Mr. Thompson’s application alleging that Homestead had interfered with his rights as a tenant and his application that Homestead had substantially interfered with his reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit. Mr. Thompson withdrew the application in which he alleged Homestead had failed to maintain the rental unit due to alleged pest control issues.
[4] Section 134(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 provides that on motion, a court to which an appeal is taken may, in a proper case, quash the appeal. Section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 permits a person affected by an order of the LTB to appeal to the Divisional Court, but only on a question of law. None of the grounds of appeal raised by Mr. Thompson raises a question of law as required by s. 210(1). The appeal is, therefore, manifestly devoid of merit and should be quashed. The appeal is also quashed because it is an abuse of process.
Factual Background
[5] Mr. Thompson began his tenancy at the rental unit on December 1, 2022. Mr. Thompson failed to pay January’s rent. Homestead served him with a notice of termination.
[6] On July 19, 2023, the parties attended the LTB for the hearing of Homestead’s application. Due to time constraints, however, the application was not heard that day. The LTB issued an interim order requiring Mr. Thompson to pay his rent in full and on time, beginning on August 1, 2023, until Homestead’s application was resolved. The interim order provided that if Mr. Thompson failed to pay his ongoing rent in full and on time, the LTB “may refuse to consider the Tenant’s evidence and submissions.”
[7] Following the issuance of the interim order, Mr. Thompson filed his applications with the LTB. In September 2023, Homestead served a notice of termination on Mr. Thompson for various behavioral issues. In November 2023, Homestead served a notice of termination on Mr. Thompson alleging that he had committed extortion at the residential complex. Applications on these notices were filed with the LTB.
[8] In January 2024, Homestead requested that the six applications be heard together by the LTB. The LTB granted Homestead’s request and the six applications were scheduled for June 4, 2024. On June 4, 2024, Member Ebner heard some of the evidence and became seized of the matters. Due to time constraints, the six applications were adjourned.
[9] A second interim order was issued on June 13, 2024. The second interim order effectively severed Homestead’s second and third applications, leaving them to be scheduled in due course. The remaining four applications were scheduled on an expedited basis. The second interim order also required Mr. Thompson to pay his rent in full and on time, commencing July 1, 2024, until the four applications were resolved.
[10] The four applications were concluded at the hearing on August 1, 2024.
[11] Mr. Thompson wrote to Homestead’s counsel both before and after the August 1, 2024 hearing:
(i) On July 26, 2024: I have already completed and have my appeal papers ready to serve to Homestead and there legal team as well as the LTB I know know I can either file with court of appeals Supreme Court and or divisional court and I will be serving a stay of motion for any order issued so even if the LTB issues a eviction order I will be serving a stay of motion with the higher actual courts since the LTB is not a court and a tribunal! So any eviction order will be held until the appeal courts or divisional courts hear my case which these courts or only held certain times of the year.
even if I am evicted the sheriff will have to serve me and I can still appeal that as well … [sic]
(ii) On August 2, 2024: As I mentioned before I will be filing as well with the Divisional courts in regards to the LTB files and Eviction L1 order. Which will also prevent an eviction or the Ontario Sheriff to evict me. I will remind you that the Divisional courts are only held at certain times of the year in Ottawa as I will be requesting that the hearings be heard in Ottawa as the residence I am appealing is located in Ottawa. With my filing with the Divisional Courts I will be serving Homestead, and their legal team reps as well as the LTB with the following forums. 61A 61C and a stay of motion order.
I will mention that divisional court filings will be filed regardless once I receive Adjudicator Frank Ebner’s signed and dated Final order. [sic]
(iii) On August 9, 2024: So when i serve and file my Appeal with the Divisional Courts homestead can explain to the judge at the Divisional Court hearing why they lied about this and why they harass and interfere with tenants and their rights. [sic]
[12] Mr. Thompson served his appeal materials less than an hour after the LTB’s order of August 22, 2024 was served on the parties.
Analysis
[13] Mr. Thompson’s notice of appeal to this court identifies three grounds of appeal:
(i) The Board/Landlord erred in law by ignoring relevant evidence, relying on irrelevant evidence and making findings in the absence of supporting evidence.
(ii) The Board/Landlord breached procedural fairness by, among other ways, improperly relying upon hearsay evidence in support of an absent landlord’s application with the board.
(iii) The Board/Landlord erred in law by falsifying documents and paperwork to the board in favour of the landlord and the board failed to withdraw said documents and applications.
[14] An appeal may be quashed where it is demonstrated that the appeal is manifestly devoid of merit or where the appeal is an abuse of process because it has been brought solely for the purpose of delay: Regan v. Ennis, 2016 ONSC 7143, at para. 26. I am satisfied that this is a proper case to quash the appeal because (i) the appeal is manifestly devoid of merit, and (ii) the appeal is an abuse of process, brought solely for the purpose of delay.
Mr. Thompson’s appeal is devoid of merit
[15] Mr. Thompson’s appeal is devoid of merit because it does not raise an issue of law.
[16] Questions of law are questions about what the correct legal test is; questions of fact are questions about what actually took place between the parties; and questions of mixed law and fact are questions about whether the facts satisfy the legal tests: Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., at para. 35.
[17] Mr. Thompson’s first ground – that “the Board/Landlord erred in law by ignoring relevant evidence, relying on irrelevant evidence and making findings in the absence of supporting evidence” – is a bald allegation that attacks the LTB’s evidentiary findings. It does not raise a question of law.
[18] Mr. Thompson’s second ground – that “the Board/Landlord breached procedural fairness by among other ways, improperly relying upon hearsay evidence in support of an absent landlord’s application with the board” – does not raise a question of law. The LTB is permitted to rely on hearsay evidence: Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, s. 15(1).
[19] Mr. Thompson’s third ground – that “the Board/Landlord erred in law by falsifying documents and paperwork, to the board in favour of the landlord and the board failed to withdraw said documents and applications” – is a vexatious allegation that attacks the veracity of the evidence at the hearing. Mr. Thompson ought to have raised this allegation at the LTB hearing. This ground, too, does not raise a question of law.
[20] The appeal is quashed because it is devoid of merit.
Mr. Thompson’s appeal is an abuse of process
[21] Mr. Thompson’s appeal is also a transparent attempt to delay his eviction from the rental unit. His email correspondence makes this plain: he threatened an appeal before the final hearing was completed, boasting that his appeal materials were already drafted and that any eviction order would be “held” because “[d]ivisional courts are only held at certain times of the year in Ottawa.” Mr. Thompson has ignored two interim orders of the LTB that he pay his rent in full and on time. He has not paid rent to Homestead in almost two years. His attempt to prolong the situation is an abuse of process. For this reason, too, the appeal is quashed.
Conclusion
[22] Homestead’s motion is granted; Mr. Thompson’s appeal is quashed.
[23] As the successful party, Homestead is entitled to its costs of the motion and the appeal. In my view, this is not a case for substantial indemnity costs as requested by Homestead.
[24] As set out in its costs outline, Homestead’s partial indemnity costs are $3,415.43. While not complex, this matter was of considerable importance to Homestead. Two attendances were required to permit Mr. Thompson to prepare his responding submissions and to file responding materials if he chose to do so. In the end, he did not file any materials. The hourly rates and hours spent by counsel as set out in the costs outline are reasonable.
[25] I find that Homestead’s partial indemnity costs are fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The costs of the motion and the appeal are fixed in the amount of $3,415.43, all inclusive. This amount is to be paid by Mr. Thompson within 30 days.
Justice R. Ryan Bell
Date: October 28, 2024
CITATION: Thompson v. Homestead Land Holdings Limited., 2024 ONSC 5956
COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-2914
DATE: 20241028
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Morley AC Thompson, Tenant/Appellant
AND
Homestead Land Holdings Limited, Landlord/Respondent
COUNSEL: Self-represented Tenant/Appellant
Kevin Kok, for the Landlord/Respondent
No one appearing for the Landlord and Tenant Board
ENDORSEMENT
Justice R. Ryan Bell
Released: October 28, 2024