Court File and Parties

CITATION: Taghva v. MLYM INC., 2026 ONSC 401

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 340/25

DATE: 20260129

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: ALI TAGHVA, Appellant

AND:

MLYM INC. c/o MINTO MANAGEMENT LTD., Respondent

BEFORE: Matheson J.

COUNSEL: Self-represented Appellant

Martin P. Zarnett, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: January 27, 2026, by video-conference

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant/tenant appeals from the decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) dated March 27, 2025 (the “Decision”).

[2] The Decision addresses an application by the respondent/landlord to terminate the tenancy on two grounds: because the tenant committed an illegal act by possessing and pointing what turned out to be a fake gun at two people in the residential premises and because the tenant seriously impaired the safety of those people. Each ground is sufficient to terminate a tenancy.

[3] At the outset of the LTB hearing, the facts as set out in the notices of termination were admitted by the appellant, who was represented by counsel. The admissions included the pointing of what turned out to be a replica gun at a person who was representing the landlord and at another tenant of the building. The tenant testified. He agreed that he was charged with a criminal offence and pled guilty to a lesser offence. The LTB ordered the tenancy terminated and, after considering relief from eviction, postponed the order to vacate to April 30, 2025. As a result of commencing this appeal, the tenant has had an automatic stay of the eviction order until the decision on this appeal.

[4] The right of appeal is limited to questions of law by the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, s. 210. The standard of review for questions of law is correctness.

[5] The tenant submits that the LTB erred in law in two ways:

(1) by finding that he committed an illegal act, without proof that an illegal act had occurred; and,

(2) by concluding that his conduct seriously impaired the safety of others, without proof or witness testimony and based on mischaracterizing his testimony.

[6] The respondent submits that these are not issues of law and therefore not properly grounds of appeal.

[7] At the LTB, the tenant, through counsel, accepted the allegations as true. Those facts cannot be challenged on this appeal. As set out is s. 75 of the Act, a conviction is not required. However, in his testimony, the tenant admitted to pleading guilty to a criminal offence that was a lesser charge, for which he received a conditional discharge including terms that he not possess a firearm.

[8] Section 61(1) of the Act permits the termination of a tenancy if a tenant “commits an illegal act” in the residential complex. There was no legal error finding that there was an “illegal act” in this case.

[9] In addition, s. 66(1) permits the termination of a tenancy if there is an act of a tenant at the residential complex that seriously impairs the safety of any person. This second ground for eviction was found established on the evidence, which included photographs of the tenant holding what appeared to be a gun. The Adjudicator found the circumstances placed those persons in fear for their lives. In his testimony, the tenant confirmed that he was holding the gun in a threatening way that could easily cause a negative impact on those people. As cited by the LTB, relying on a decision of this Court, serious impairment of safety includes both actual impairment and the risk of impairment. Again, no legal error has been shown.

[10] The appellant also submits that his counsel misrepresented the situation to the Adjudicator. However, he has not put forward evidence in support of this submission and in oral argument did not mention any failure by the lawyer that would change the outcome of this appeal.

[11] No errors of law have been shown. The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent fixed at $2,000. The respondent has requested an immediate lifting of the stay, in part because the tenant has stopped paying rent. That is disputed. The tenant requests 30 days.

[12] The stay of the eviction shall be lifted as of February 13, 2026. The respondent shall submit a draft form of order to the court without requiring approval as to form and content.

Matheson J.

Date: January 29, 2026