CITATION: Victor et al. v. Vega, 2026 ONSC 234

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-00000420-0000

DATE: 011226

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Motion - Security for Costs

DAVID VICTOR; EMILY SHONA

Appellants

AND:

LUIS VEGA

Respondent

BEFORE:

Justice L. Brownstone

COUNSEL:

David Victor, self-represented appellant

Caitlin Dale, counsel for the respondent

HEARD:

January 12, 2026

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The respondent landlord moves for costs of the tenant’s abandoned appeal.

Procedural History

[2] On April 1, 2025, the Landlord and Tenant Board ordered the applicant’s tenancy terminated as of May 31, 2025, having found the landlord intended to occupy the premises for his own use. The tenants requested a review of that decision which was denied on April 25, 2025.

[3] The tenants appealed to this court. On June 9, 2025, O’Brien J. ordered the following schedule for the tenant’s appeal:

The tenants shall obtain the recording of the LTB hearing from the LTB immediately if they have not already done so.

By July 14, 2025 the appellants shall file all their materials on the appeal.

By August 15, 2025, the landlord shall file responding materials.

[4] The appeal was scheduled for October 20, 2025.

[5] On October 1, 2025, the tenants, then represented, served a notice of abandonment, accompanied by correspondence that stated:

Attached hereto please find a Notice of Abandonment of Appeal duly served. This appeal is not being pursued as events have now rendered the proceedings moot. Specifically, my clients have secured new accommodations and will complete their move out of the Pricefield property by October 31, 2025, the date to which rent is paid by virtue of the last month's rent tendered at the outset of their tenancy. With my clients having procured a new residence, the issue of possession at Pricefield has now become academic, and a live controversy no longer exists that affects the rights of the parties. The criteria established by the Supreme Court in Borowski with respect to hearing moot appeals simply do not exist here.

Upon filing the Notice and Affidavit of Service with the Court office, a request to vacate the hearing date of October 20, 2025 will be made as well.

Positions of the parties

[6] The landlord seeks costs of the abandoned appeal. He argues the appeal was meritless from the outset. It was an abuse of process clearly brought to stall an eviction order. The landlord warned the tenants of costs consequences for pursuing the meritless appeal as early as May 2025. The landlord argues that the tenant, who is a sophisticated party who is trained as, although not working as, a lawyer, knew that the appeal was meritless but proceeded only to gain time to find alternative accommodations. In support of its argument that the appeal was brought only as delay tactic the landlord suggested the court review the recent Law Society of Ontario tribunal decision revoking the tenant’s then-counsel’s license to practice law: Law Society of Ontario v Strashin, 2025 ONLSTH 179.

[7] On August 13, 2025, the landlord made a formal offer to settle. That offer permitted the tenants to stay in the premises until September 30, 2025, and required them to abandon their appeal. If the offer was accepted by August 15, 2025, no costs would be payable. If accepted after that date, costs would be payable.

[8] The landlord seeks full indemnity costs of $11,249.15 or substantial indemnity costs of $8,435.73. In addition to what he states was the abusive nature of the appeal, he emphasizes the importance of the issues for him, as he was delayed in having space for his elderly parents and children to stay, given the stay of the LTB decision.

[9] Mr. Victor appeared without counsel. He argued that the appeal had merit, that the tenants were simply exercising their legal rights to pursue the appeal, that they complied with the court-ordered timetable and did not delay the matter, and promptly advised counsel and the court that the appeal would not be necessary once they found alternative accommodations. Mr. Victor also pointed out that there were never any issues about rent payments. He argues that the relationship between the parties had become toxic and that the tenants moved as quickly as they could. He states that costs are being sought vindictively, and that an award of costs would be disproportionate and unfair. Mr. Victor knew of, but never saw, the August 13, 2025, offer to settle. It was clear from Mr. Victor’s submissions that the tenants found the eviction stressful and difficult, especially since they had a very young child.

[10] He asks that each party bear its own costs.

Analysis and disposition

[11] The landlord is presumptively entitled to costs of the abandoned appeal: r. 61.14(3). Fixing costs is a discretionary matter under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. A non-exhaustive list of factors the court will consider in fixing costs is set out in Rule 57. Ultimately, the court must fix an amount of costs that is proportionate, and that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, 2004 14579 (ONCA) at para. 26.

[12] It was clear from Mr. Victor’s submissions that the tenants wanted more time to secure alternative accommodations. I do not accept his submission that the landlord was being unfair or doing anything improper by seeking an expedited appeal, given the landlord’s own need for the premises, which had been found to be valid and legitimate by the LTB.

[13] Both parties are entitled to access legal processes available to them. That does not mean there are no costs consequences for doing so. I do not find anything Mr. Victor has said rebuts the presumption under r. 61.14(3) that the landlord is entitled to his costs of the abandoned appeal.

[14] I am also unable to find that the tenants’ actions amount to an abuse of process, such that full or substantial indemnity costs should be payable by them. I do not find Mr. Strashin’s disciplinary decision has any relevance to the determination of costs in this case.

[15] I find it fair and reasonable that the tenants pay partial indemnity costs. Mr. Victor emphasized how difficult it was to find new accommodation. He found it unfair that he had to do so. However, the landlord was entitled to seek to convert the residence he had purchased to a single-family dwelling. The LTB found the landlord had a good faith requirement for use of the premises for his children and parents. While difficult for the tenant, the landlord was acting well within his legal entitlements and is not required to forego those entitlements for the sake of the tenant’s interests.

[16] The landlord prepared a responding appeal book, factum, and compendium. The time spent and set out in the bill of costs is reasonable, although I remove or reduce two items. First, the bill of costs contains three hours for anticipated preparation for the appeal. The appeal was not heard, and it would not take the same amount of time to prepare costs submissions. Further, I remove the costs for researching the motion to quash and lifting of the stay. The landlord was entitled to prepare an affidavit that he would seek to have admitted as fresh evidence, and I permit those costs.

[17] I therefore order the tenants to pay the landlord costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Released: January 12, 2026