Court File and Parties
CITATION: Greenwood v. Amexon, 2024 ONSC 6611
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 513/24
DATE: 20241205
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: THOMAS EDWARD GREENWOOD, Appellant/Tenant
AND:
AMEXON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC., Respondent/Landlord
BEFORE: Justice O’Brien
COUNSEL: Self-Represented Appellant Tenant
Inga B. Andriessen, for the Respondent Landlord
HEARD at Toronto: December 4, 2024, by video-conference
Endorsement
[1] In accordance with the case management directions, two motions were scheduled before the Court: (1) the appellant tenant’s motion for an extension of time to appeal; and (2) the respondent landlord’s motion to lift the stay of the eviction order. The landlord filed motion materials. The tenant did not do so although he served a notice of motion for an extension of time.
[2] The underlying appeal sought to challenge the decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) dated June 25, 2024, and the related review order dated July 22, 2024. As set out in the June LTB decision, the LTB ordered that the tenancy was terminated subject to the tenant fulfilling certain terms. At that time, the arrears of rent already exceeded the jurisdiction of the LTB so the order was limited to its jurisdiction of $35,000. The tenant did not fulfill the terms but did seek a review. As set out in the July LTB decision, the review request was dismissed based upon a preliminary review.
[3] The tenant’s notice of appeal is dated August 29, 2024, a bit late, and a notice of motion for an extension of time was served on September 3, 2024. Due to administrative error, a certificate of stay was provided to the tenant even though the notice of appeal was late. This was raised in case management and it was treated as effective subject to these motions and subject to case management directions regarding the ongoing payment of rent pending appeal and payments against what is now arrears well in excess of the amount ordered by the LTB.
[4] With respect to terms, by case management directions arising from a case conference on October 11, 2024 before me, the following payments were required to be made by the tenant, failing which the stay would be lifted:
By October 15, 2024, he shall pay $16,875.
On the 15th of every month thereafter, he shall pay $4,500 in rent plus $16,785 in arrears for a total of $21,375 until the full arrears have been paid. After that, he shall pay $4,500 on the 15th of each month.
All payments shall be made by wire transfer to the landlord’s law firm according to the details attached to these directions.
If Mr. Greenwood fails to make any of these payments, the landlord may file an affidavit attesting to the non-payment and request an expedited in-writing determination of its motion to lift the stay. The landlord should also file a copy of these directions with the affidavit.
If this occurs, Mr. Greenwood shall have 7 days to provide any evidence he has to demonstrate that he has made the payment. The court will then advise whether the motion can be determined in-writing on an expedited basis.
[5] The landlord’s evidence is that the tenant has not made any payments pursuant to those directions. I am advised that the rental arrears as of today total $72,320.90.
[6] On the morning of November 27, 2024, the original date for the hearing of the motions, the tenant e-mailed asking for a one-week adjournment for medical and other reasons. The adjournment was granted by Matheson J. on terms, over the objection of the landlord. The adjournment was peremptory to the tenant. Regarding next steps, the directions were as follows:
The appellant shall provide a doctor’s note in support of this request, setting out the history and nature of the illness. The appellant shall also provide the status of his payments as required by the directions of Oct. 11, 2024. Those responses shall be provided by Dec. 3, 2024. The respondent may also deliver a supplementary affidavit regarding the status of the payments by that date.
[7] The tenant did not comply with those directions and has not provided any evidence to the court regarding his alleged illness. Today, the tenant contacted the court shortly before the start of the hearing to advise he was withdrawing his appeal. Technically, he is withdrawing his motion for an extension of time to file his appeal since his appeal was never properly received in time. He asked that the court give him a reasonable amount of time to vacate since he needs to secure a place to live for himself and his minor child. He did not attend for today’s hearing.
[8] Given the tenant’s withdrawal of his motion, there is no appeal and the landlord may proceed with the eviction of the tenant as set out in the Board’s June 25, 2024 order. The stay of that order is lifted.
[9] The landlord seeks costs of $13,893.92. While these costs are high for an abandoned motion/appeal, I agree they are appropriate. The tenant has not paid rent since June 2023. He was unsuccessful at the LTB and late in seeking to file his appeal. He obtained a stay but then failed to make any of the payments required by this court as terms of the stay. He then sought an adjournment on the first date of the hearing of the motions without providing any documentary evidence to substantiate a medical condition either on that day or since as ordered by the court. He also did not at any time file materials on his own motion or in response to the landlord’s motion. In these circumstances, I conclude he sought to file the appeal solely for the purpose of delay. This has required the landlord to incur legal costs and has resulted in a significant further loss of rental payments. The tenant shall pay costs to the landlord in the amount of $13,893.92.
[10] As requested by the landlord, the tenant shall have until December 15, 2024 to vacate the unit. I do not find it appropriate to allow the tenant any additional time before being required to vacate. He has failed to pay rent for an extended period and has had time to consider finding new premises since the Board initially heard the matter on April 10, 2024 and advised he would be required to vacate by June 30, 2024. I have concluded he filed the appeal for the purpose of delay and therefore no further delay will be tolerated.
O’Brien J.
Date: December 5, 2024