Faulknor v. Li, 2025 ONSC 4415

CITATION: Faulknor v. Li, 2025 ONSC 4415

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-465/25

DATE: 20250731

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: RACHELLE FAULKNOR and ROHAN FAULKNOR Tenants/Appellants

AND: XUEYAN LI Landlord/Respondent

BEFORE: Shore J.

COUNSEL: Self-represented Tenants/Appellants Milé Komlen, for the Landlord/Respondent Sabrina Fiacco, for the Landlord and Tenant Board

HEARD at Toronto, in writing: July 28, 2025

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Landlord commenced proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “LTB”) to end the tenancy because of the Tenants’ failure to pay rent. The parties subsequently reached an agreement, and obtained a consent order, dated April 2, 2024, with respect to the payment of the arrears of rent.

[2] The Landlord subsequently moved for an eviction order because the Tenants failed to meet the conditions set out in the April 2 order, including the ongoing payment of rent.

[3] On October 16, 2024, the parties reached a further agreement, that the tenancy would end as of May 15, 2025. The agreement was incorporated into a consent order, dated October 16, 2024.

[4] On May 26, 2025, the Tenants filed a request for an extension of time to file a request for a review of the LTB consent orders. The basis for their request for a review was that the Tenants found alternate accommodations, but the plans fell through, and they would not be able to vacate as of May 15.

[5] On May 27, 2025, the request for an extension of time to request a review of the order was dismissed by the LTB. The LTB provided the following reasons:

The reason for the delay in filing the request for review does not relate to these proceedings, but rather to the Tenant’s inability to find new accommodation. As a result, the request to extend time must be denied.

More significantly, the request to review does not identify an error in the consent order or in an ability to participate in the proceedings and would have been denied in any event.

[6] The Tenants filed an appeal of the May 27, 2025 decision with the Divisional Court and obtained an automatic stay of the eviction.

[7] There is no appeal before this court with respect to the underlying consent orders because no leave to appeal has been sought. Section 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, (CJA) provides that leave to appeal is required from a consent order.

[8] Section 133(a) states:

133 No appeal lies without leave of the court to which the appeal is to be taken, (a) from an order made with the consent of the parties;…

[9] Section 133(a) applies to consent orders of the LTB: see Arnold v. Lulu Holdings Inc., 2021 ONSC 8125, at paras. 34-37; Ravadgar v. Kaftroudi, 2023 ONSC 5471, at paras. 11 to 19, and cases cited therein. Therefore, the only issue in this appeal is whether the LTB erred in dismissing the request for an extension of time to bring a request for review.

[10] In a direction from this court, the court expressed concern that the Notice of Appeal did not provide proper grounds for an appeal of the May 27, 2025 order, and advised that the court would consider dismissing the appeal under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.

[11] On June 18, 2025, the Registrar of the Divisional Court issued a Notice that Proceedings May Be Stayed or Dismissed under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules. The Tenants were provided with 15 days to file written submission, no more than 10 pages in length, responding to the notice.

[12] The court did not receive any submissions from the Tenants.

[13] Pursuant to s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, the right to appeal a decision of the LTB to this court is limited to questions of law.

[14] The Tenants list the grounds of appeal as follows:

a. The Appellants’ right to be heard was denied as they could not attend the hearing;

b. The Appellants’ request to review was denied and the Appellants did not have a chance to have their case heard;

c. The Appellants tried and negotiated with the landlord on the eviction date;

d. The Landlord tried to evict the Appellants despite a newly arranged date; and

e. The Appellants will become homeless in the event of an eviction.

[15] The last three grounds relate to facts and compassion, not law. The first two grounds do not relate to the motion under appeal, because there is no right to have a request for an extension of time determined at a hearing. Those matters are determined in writing.

[16] The Tenants have not identified any questions of law arising from the order denying the extension of time to request a review of the consent order in the Notice of Appeal and as such, the appeal is dismissed.

[17] The Tenants were to vacate the property as of May 15. They originally sought an extension to August 15, which is approximately two weeks from the hearing of this motion. The request for two weeks to vacate the property is reasonable in these circumstances.

[18] The Landlord sought costs of the appeal in the sum of $1,500.00. I find this amount to be reasonable.

[19] This court orders that:

a. The appeal is dismissed under r. 2.1.01;

b. The automatic stay of the order of the LTB is lifted. The Tenants shall vacate the rental unit no later than August 15, 2025, failing which the Landlord may instruct Court Enforcement (Sheriff’s Office) to enforce the LTB’s eviction order and grant vacant possession of the rental unit as of August 15, 2025;

c. The requirement for the Tenants to approve the order as to form and content is dispensed with; and

d. The Tenants shall pay the Landlord costs of the appeal in the sum of $1,500.00 (inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST), within 30 days.

Shore J.

Date: July 31, 2025