Court File and Parties

Citation: Mao v. Liao, 2024 ONSC 6730 Divisional Court File No.: 050/24 Date: 2024-12-06 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Yucheng Mao, Appellant/Respondent on Motion And: Pi-Yun Liao, Respondent on Appeal/Moving Party

Before: Davies J.

Counsel: Yucheng Mao, self-represented Pi-Yun Liao, self-represented

Heard: In chambers, in writing

Endorsement

[1] The Landlord and Tenant Board terminated Mr. Mao’s tenancy for non-payment of rent. The Board ordered Mr. Mao to vacate his rental premises (which is owned by Ms. Liao) by October 16, 2023. The Board found Mr. Mao owed more than $62,000 in rental arrears. Mr. Mao appealed the Board’s decision to this Court and the Board’s decision was stayed pending his appeal.

[2] On February 21, 2024, I ordered Mr. Mao to pay his monthly rent of $1,350 pending his appeal. I also ordered Mr. Mao to pay $1,350 towards the arrears on the first day of each month until his appeal was decided. I originally ordered Mr. Mao to make the rent and arrears payments to Ms. Liao’s counsel electronically. In my endorsement, I said that Ms. Liao could bring a motion to lift the stay of the Board’s order if Mr. Mao failed to make any of the required payments.

[3] On March 3, 2024, Ms. Liao brought a motion to lift the stay of the Board’s order because Mr. Mao did not make the March 1, 2024 payment towards the arrears. I dismissed Ms. Liao’s motion because she did not comply with my direction. Mr. Mao was given information to deposit the rent and arrears payments into Ms. Liao’s personal account, not her lawyer’s trust account. To avoid any ongoing disputes about whether the payments had been made, I ordered Mr. Mao to make the required payments to the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice to the credit of this proceeding.

[4] Mr. Mao made one payment of $1,350 to the Accountant of the Court then claimed that the Accountant would not accept any other payments.

[5] On April 16, 2024, I lifted the stay of the Board’s order because Mr. Mao did not pay his March rent when required: Mao v. Liao, 2024 ONSC 2175. When I lifted the stay, I made it clear that Mr. Mao was entitled to continue his appeal even if he was evicted before the appeal was heard. However, I also ordered Mr. Mao to “advise the landlord and the court, by email, no later than 5:00 pm April 29, 2024, if he intends to continue with this appeal.” Mr. Mao did not communicate an intention to proceed with his appeal and on May 1, 2024 his appeal was dismissed: Mao v. Liao, 2024 ONSC 2551.

[6] Mr. Mao now seeks the return of the $1,350 that he deposited with the Accountant of the Court.

[7] Mr. Mao argues the Board erred in finding that he owed $62,000 in arrears. He argues he was never required to pay rent because the landlord never gave him a written lease agreement. That is an argument Mr. Mao could have made on his appeal. Because Mr. Mao did not continue with his appeal after the stay of the Board’s order was lifted, the Board’s order that Mr. Mao owes substantial arrears remains in force.

[8] Mr. Mao also argues the proceedings before this Court were tainted from the beginning because Francesco Alfano, who held himself out as a paralegal and an articling student at the first case conference, was not qualified to be an articling student. Mr. Mao raised his concerns about Mr. Alfano after the first case conference. Mr. Mao took the position that Mr. Alfano’s paralegal license was suspended and he was not an articling student. To address Mr. Mao’s concerns, I required counsel for Ms. Liao, Alvin Ross, to appear at the second case conference. Mr. Ross confirmed that he was acting for Ms. Liao and he was directly supervising Mr. Alfano’s work on this matter.

[9] Mr. Mao has filed a complaint about Mr. Alfano with the Law Society of Ontario. The Law Society has initiated disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Alfano. On July 30, 2024 – after Mr. Mao’s appeal was dismissed – the Law Society suspended Mr. Alfano’s paralegal license pending his discipline hearing: Law Society of Ontario v. Alfano, 2024 ONLSTH 84.

[10] Whether Mr. Alfano misrepresented his status before the Court during the first case conference on February 21, 2024 is a matter for the Law Society of Ontario to address. That issue does not undermine the integrity of this Court’s order requiring Mr. Mao to pay his monthly rent and to make monthly payments towards the outstanding arrears. Nor does Mr. Alfano’s status with the Law Society undermine the integrity of this Court’s orders lifting the stay of the Board’s order and dismissing Mr. Mao’s appeal, both of which were based on Mr. Mao’s failure to make the required payments.

[11] While I am sympathetic to Mr. Mao’s circumstances and the devastating impact of his eviction, the payments I ordered him to make were payments for ongoing rent, which he was legally obliged to pay, and payments towards the arrears that the Board found he owed. The $1,350 being held by the Accountant should have been paid directly Ms. Liao’s lawyer in trust for Ms. Liao. The only reason I ordered Mr. Mao to make the payments to the Accountant was to avoid any dispute between Mr. Mao and Ms. Liao about whether a payment was made or received.

[12] Mr. Mao has also raised a concern that Ms. Liao’s son is “acting” for her contrary to the Rules of Civil Procedure. Ms. Liao’s son is not a lawyer. He helped her prepare a response to Mr. Mao’s request to release the funds and translated her response for the Court. The fact that Ms. Liao’s son sent her response to the Court by email does not mean he is “acting” for her. Ms. Liao is self-represented. Mr. Ross confirmed he is no longer acting for Ms. Liao. The court has a discretion to allow a litigant to be assisted in communicating with the court, particularly when there is a language barrier. I find nothing improper in the actions of Ms. Liao’ son in this appeal.

[13] I, hereby, order that the $1,350 paid by Mr. Mao to the Accountant on account of this matter be paid, plus any accrued interest, to Ms. Liao.

Davies J.

Date: December 6, 2024