Kaftroudi v. Ravadgar, 2025 ONSC 5789

CITATION: Kaftroudi v. Ravadgar, 2025 ONSC 5789

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 1409/23 (Oshawa)

DATE: 2025-10-15

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Zahra Feizi Kaftroudi, Moving Party (Tenant)

AND:

Shayan Ravadgar, Responding Party (Landlord)

BEFORE: Lococo, Faieta and L. Bale JJ.

COUNSEL: Jeff Schlemmer and Michelle Sutherland, for the Moving Party (Tenant)

David Strashin, for the Responding Party (Landlord)

Eli Fellman, for the Landlord and Tenant Board

HEARD: September 17, 2025, at Oshawa; additional written submissions October 3, 2025

ENDORSEMENT

BY THE COURT

[1] The moving party Zahra Feizi Kaftroudi (the “Tenant”) brings a motion (the “Variation Motion”) under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (the “CJA”) to set aside or vary the decision dated April 16, 2025 (the “Decision”) of Justice Lisa A. Wannamaker of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting as a single judge of the Divisional Court.

[2] In the Decision, the motion judge dismissed the Tenant’s motion (the “Leave Motion”) for leave to appeal the eviction order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”) dated July 4, 2023 and amended September 20, 2023 (the “Eviction Order”) and the related review order dated August 17, 2023. The Eviction Order provides that it was issued on consent. Both orders (the “Board’s Orders”) were made under the Residential Tenancy Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (the “RTA”).

[3] In the Variation Motion, the Tenant asks the court to set aside the Decision and grant leave to appeal the Board’s Orders. The Tenant also requests that the matter be remitted to the Board for a hearing of her request for review of the Eviction Order. The responding party Shayan Ravadgar (the “Landlord”) seeks dismissal of the Variation Motion.

[4] The threshold to grant a motion under s. 21(5) of the CJA is high: see Bernard Property Maintenance v. Taylor, 2019 ONCA 830, 148 O.R. (3d) 494, at para. 26. As explained below, we conclude that there was an error that met that threshold in this case.

[5] Section 21(3) of the CJA provides that a Divisional Court motion “shall be heard and determined by one judge, unless otherwise provided by the rules of court.” Rule 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.0. 1990, Reg. 194 provides “otherwise”. Under r. 62.02, leave to appeal any order or decision set out in that rule must be obtained from a three-judge panel of the court. The decision of a single judge does not meet that requirement.

[6] Under r. 62.02(1)3, orders that are subject to r. 62.02 include any “order or decision of a tribunal under a statute that provides that the order or decision may be appealed to the Divisional Court with leave of that Court, unless the statute provides for another procedure.” Rule 62.02(1)3 came into effect in July 2024, aligning the procedure for leave motions relating to statutory tribunal orders with the procedure for leave motions relating to court orders. Prior to that time, a leave motion relating to a tribunal order was heard by a single judge under s. 21(3) of the CJA, while a leave motion relating to a court order was heard by a three-judge panel under r. 62.02.

[7] In the matter before us, the Board’s Orders are subject to appeal to the Divisional Court on a question of law: RTA, s. 210(1). Leave of the court is required to appeal an order made with the consent of the parties: CJA, s. 133(a).

[8] We conclude that the Eviction Order falls within the scope of r. 62.02(1)3, by the combined operation of s. 210(1) of the RTA and s. 133(a) of the CJA. Therefore, leave to appeal the Eviction Order must be obtained from a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court. The Decision, having been made by a single judge, does not meet that requirement.

[9] In reaching that conclusion, we considered and rejected the Tenant’s submission that r. 62.02(1)3 does not apply because the right of appeal and the requirement to seek leave do not both arise under the RTA. We do not agree that r. 62.02(1)3 should be construed so narrowly. In our view, the interpretation we are adopting gives effect to the provision’s text, context and purpose.

[10] We also conclude that r. 62.02(1)3 applies in this case from a timing perspective, even though the Tenant filed her motion for leave to appeal in October 2023, several months before r. 62.02(1)3 came into effect in July 2024. It is well established that “new procedural legislation designed to govern only the manner in which rights are asserted or enforced, which does not affect the substance of the rights, applies immediately to pending and future cases”: see R. v. Debassige, 2021 ONCA 484, at para. 49.

[11] Accordingly, we conclude that it was an error for the motion judge to hear and determine the Leave Motion. Rule 62.02(1)3 applies, requiring that the Leave Motion be heard and determined by a panel of the court, not a single judge. However, as Tenant’s counsel notes in their submissions, this panel is able to provide a remedy in this case.

[12] We have heard full argument on the question of whether leave to appeal should be granted and are in the position to address the Leave Motion without further delay. We conclude that leave to appeal should be granted. We provide no reasons for doing so, in accordance with the practice of this court (and appellate courts generally) not to provide reasons for deciding whether to grant leave to appeal: see Westhaver Boutique Residences Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2020 ONSC 3949 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 2-4. Any other remedy that the Tenant is seeking is left to the panel hearing the appeal.

[13] The order of Charney J. dated September 28, 2023 (2023 ONSC 5471, at para. 27) to stay the Eviction Order is continued pending the court’s decision on appeal or other resolution.

[14] Costs of the Leave Motion and the Variation Motion shall be in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal. Counsel has advised that for the Variation Motion, (i) the Tenant is not seeking costs, (ii) the parties have agreed that the Landlord if successful would be entitled to costs of $2,500 from the Tenant, and (iii) no costs would be awarded to or against the Board.

Lococo J.

Faieta J.

L. Bale J.

Date: October 15, 2025