Court File and Parties

Citation: Lynch v. Ross Wilson Holdings Ltd., 2026 ONSC 1222 Divisional Court File No.: DC-25-0000101-0000 Date: 2026-02-27 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Christopher Lynch, Moving Party / Appellant / Tenant And: Ross Wilson Holdings Ltd., Responding Party / Respondent / Landlord And: R.F. Import Group Inc. O/A Royal Flower, Respondent

Before: D.L. Corbett, O’Brien, and Shore JJ.

Counsel: Christopher Lynch, self-represented Spencer Toole, for the Responding Party

Heard: February 27, 2026, In-writing

Endorsement

[1] This is a motion for a stay of the order of a Divisional Court case management judge pending a panel motion to review that order pursuant to s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

[2] The motion was directed to be heard in writing by a panel of the Divisional Court by Emery J., who “adjourned” a motion to enforce the order of the case management judge pending this panel review, indicating that the enforcement motion could be scheduled after our decision if we did not dispose of the enforcement issues.

[3] In our view, no stay should be ordered and the statutory stay of the LTB eviction order should be lifted immediately. This court’s jurisprudence on these issues is clear: tenants are not entitled to obtain a lengthy period of rent-free living at the expense of their landlord through the expedient of bringing an appeal to this court. The tenant has not paid rent in a long time and has said to this court, under oath, that he is unable to pay rent as it falls due, let alone make meaningful payments on account of the substantial arrears. This is a failed tenancy, and the stay should be lifted immediately to limit further losses to the landlord.

[4] This court will provide full reasons explaining this order in detail, to be released in due course.

[5] Accordingly, this court orders:

a. The appellant’s motion for a stay of the order of Trimble J. is dismissed, with costs of $1,000.00, inclusive, payable by the Moving Party to the Responding Party within 30 days;

b. The stay of the eviction order of the LTB is lifted, effective immediately;

c. The Court Enforcement Office is requested to enforce the eviction order of the Landlord Tenant Board as soon as reasonably practicable.

d. Full reasons for this decision shall follow in due course

[6] This court notes as follows, for the benefit of the self-represented Appellant:

a. He may continue with his appeal, and with his motion to review the order of Trimble J., if he wishes to do so, even though he will have been evicted before those matters will be heard by the court.

b. The review motion may well be moot by the time it is heard, which is inherent in many cases where a stay is denied pending the hearing.

c. The appeal will not be moot after eviction if the Appellant sincerely takes the position that he does not owe the arrears and accruing rent, as found by the LTB.

d. There is no further recourse available to the Appellant in the Divisional Court in respect to the stay issue. There is no stay pending appeal proceedings he may seek to bring from this decision to the Court of Appeal unless and until that court orders otherwise.

“D.L. Corbett J.”

“O’Brien J.”

“Shore J.”

Released: February 27, 2026