CITATION: Brajak v. Chen and LTB, 2025 ONSC 6966
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 510/25
DATE: 20251212
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Matheson and Faieta JJ.
BETWEEN:
James Brajak and Melissa Acuna
Applicants
– and –
Bin Chen and the Landlord and Tenant Board
Respondents
James Brajak, Self-Represented
Bin Chen, Self-Represented
Nicola Mulima, on behalf of the Landlord and Tenant Board
HEARD at Toronto: December 11, 2025
Sachs J. (orally)
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) dated April 7, 2025 and related review decision dated June 13, 2025. The LTB granted an eviction order due to non-payment of rent, which had, by then, exceeded $20,000.
[2] The application for judicial review, as amended, sought to quash the eviction order and challenged the jurisdiction of the LTB to exercise judicial process, raising a constitutional question.
[3] The applicants were directed to file all the required court documents for their application for judicial review by Sept. 3, 2025, and did not do so. The applicants were also directed to serve a notice of constitutional question on the Attorney General of Ontario by July 18, 2025, and did not do so.
[4] On July 4, 2025, Justice Shore granted an interim stay of the eviction order on terms, which included rental payments on the 7th day of each month. The first payment, due July 7th, was not made. The eviction was enforced on July 16, 2025.
[5] The applicant who attended in court submitted that he is the private beneficial owner of “James Brajak” and that he is mistakenly being treated as the trustee for the estate. He submitted that he is not the appropriate party to pay the account as ordered by the LTB, referencing the outstanding rental amounts.
[6] The applicants have failed to file the required court documents and failed to serve a notice of constitutional question, as directed. Further, based on all the materials that have been filed and the submissions made today, the applicants have not shown that their application for judicial review should be granted on the merits.
[7] The application is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sachs J.
I agree _______________________________
Matheson J.
I agree _______________________________
Faieta J.
Released: December 12, 2025
CITATION: Brajak v. Chen and LTB, 2025 ONSC 6966
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 510/25
DATE: 2025/12/12
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Matheson and Faieta JJ.
BETWEEN:
James Brajak and Melissa Acuna
Applicants
– and –
Bin Chen and the Landlord and Tenant Board
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Released: December 12, 2025