Court File and Parties

CITATION: Singh v. 260 Wellesley Residences, 2024 ONSC 6928

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 717/24

DATE: 2024-12-11

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Gurdeep Singh, Applicant

-and-

260 Wellesley Residences, Respondent

BEFORE: FL Myers J

COUNSEL: Gurdeep Singh, appearing on his own behalf

Charlie Bobrowsky, counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: December 11, 2024

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Mr. Singh wishes to appeal from the decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting him from his rental unit due to non-payment of rent.

[2] Mr. Singh was evicted by order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated September 12, 2024. Apparently, Mr. Singh signed into the videoconference hearing on September 6, 2024 and told the Moderator that he sought an adjournment. He then left. The presiding member decided to continue with the hearing and made the order sought.

[3] Mr. Singh agrees that he has not paid rent since March of this year. He submits that he has been the subject of a sustained mobilization of Federal Government authorities in conjunction with public and private institutions to cause his personal and professional growth to stagnate. He submits that the governmental actions are akin to state terrorism as they are funded by terrorists abroad. To prove that allegation he notes that steps taken against him often coincide with days on which terrorism has occurred here and elsewhere. He does not understand why the Prime Minister or his office have not responded to his complaints.

[4] Mr. Singh submits that the Federal Government and others in league with it (the University of Toronto and a major Canadian bank for example) have violated his rights. He seeks compensation of $15 billion from the Federal Government for gross violations of his rights and another $15 billion from the Federal Government and from the Canadian Judicial System for delays and for not following the values of the Canadian Judicial System.

[5] Mr. Singh says he would pay his rent gladly if the attacks against him would cease so that he could obtain employment without government interference.

[6] On November 7, 2024, Mr. Singh sought an extension of the 30-day time limit to allow him to seek reconsideration of the Board’s eviction decision. By decision dated November 8, 2024, the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissed the request as Mr. Singh did not explain his delay.

[7] Mr. Singh applied again for reconsideration on November 12, 2024. That request was struck on November 13, 2024 because under the Board’s rules, reconsideration is not available after denial of an extension of time.

[8] Meanwhile, on September 25, 2024, the Sheriff gave notice to Mr. Singh that he would be evicted on or after November 25, 2024.

[9] On November 21, 2024, Mr. Singh applied for an extension of time to appeal the eviction order to this court. That was two days before the proposed eviction became possible. It was too late to hear an extension motion on notice to the landlord before the date of eviction.

[10] I scheduled a case conference for today as my next available date. I also gave explicit direction to Mr. Singh that I would consider the extension motion at the case conference and I told him about the evidence needed to meet the four-part test to obtain an extension of time. I also advised that either party could make submissions about the procedure for an extension motion if they had concerns with dealing with it at a case conference. Neither party raised any procedural concern today. I heard Mr. Singh for over 30 minutes.

[11] On November 26, 2024, the Sheriff evicted Mr. Singh. Mr. Singh says that two people were killed by terrorists in Mumbai that day. This is further evidence of the Federal Government’s complicity with foreign terrorism funders.

[12] Mr. Singh wishes to continue his appeal despite being evicted.

[13] Mr. Singh says that he missed the time limit to appeal to this court because of ongoing Government attacks against him. He says, for example, that on 9/11 of this year, he was locked out of his laptop. That is another act of complicity by the Federal Government with foreign terrorists given the notoriety of the date.

[14] Mr. Singh says that sanctions applied to him by the University fo Toronto interfered with his ability to obtain work. The Federal Government continued to tamper with his devices. It locked him out of his Amazon account just a few days ago. The Government redirects his telephone calls so that he can only call government departments.

[15] I allowed Mr. Singh to give this evidence orally. He was quite critical that I needed to ask him about his grounds for seeking an extension as he had filed material in response to my directions. I have read his material. It is bald and conclusory. He says that the fundamental issue is the alleged violations of his human rights and employment law by the Federal Government, its agencies, and private companies. He writes that when his issues are resolved, his rent issues would also be resolved.

[16] Mr. Singh says that the landlord will not be prejudiced by delay. But the landlord says that it is keeping the rental unit in limbo and not receiving rent while this appeal moves forward. I do not resolve whether the landlord is required to do that in the circumstances.

[17] I told Mr. Singh in the written directions leading up to this hearing that appeals from this Board are limited to questions of law and that the proposed merits of the appeal were likely to be the most important issue in deciding whether to grant an extension fo time.

[18] I have reviewed very carefully Mr. Singh’s written material, his oral submissions, and the relief he seeks listed in his document dealing with Resolution.

[19] It is clear to me that Mr. Singh seeks remedies that are not available to him under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 17. Mr. Singh may want to sue the Federal Government, perhaps in the Federal Court, for the alleged violations of his rights. He has issues dealing with the US and travelling abroad as well. He seeks other relief, none of which is available in this proposed proceeding.

[20] Even if Mr. Singh proves that everything that he says happened to him, none of it is relevant to an appeal from the eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board. Mr. Singh concedes that he stopped paying rent. The landlord does not have to bear the burden of a tenant’s financial embarrassment even if caused by government wrongdoing. Mr. Singh has no right to live in the landlord’s premises rent-free.

[21] Mr. Singh raises no possible error of law in the Board deciding to proceed in his absence when attended the hearing, he had not complied with the Board’s rules about seeking an adjournment, and then he did not even stay long enough to ask the presiding member to adjourn.

[22] Stepping back to consider the interests of justice, I would not exercise my discretion to extend the time for this appeal. Mr. Singh’s claims of fundamental violations of his rights are to be adjudicated elsewhere - not on a residential landlord and tenant appeal.

[23] Mr. Singh is ordered to pay the landlord respondent the sum of $500 all-inclusive to partially indemnify it for the costs incurred in this motion and appeal.

Date: December 11, 2024