Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-00607245-0000 DATE: 20190212 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Edward Newman, Applicant AND: Sedrick Glanville, Defendant

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Peter Bawden.

COUNSEL: Edward Newman, Self-represented No One Appearing, for the Defendant

HEARD: December 5 and 14, 2018

Endorsement

[1] Mr. Newman owns a house which is located at 446 Whitmore Avenue in Toronto. Cedric Glanville became a tenant in Mr. Newman’s home in August, 1994. It appears that the two friends never did have a written lease but Mr. Glanville paid his rent weekly and they shared the house for many years.

[2] Mr. Newman now applies under rule 14.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order to evict Mr. Glanville.

[3] Mr. Newman has filed an affidavit in which he indicates that he first gave written notice to Mr. Glanville to leave the house back in 2010. He has repeatedly asked him to leave since then but Mr. Glanville has refused. In the interim, Mr. Glanville has begun to drink heavily and makes no effort to clean up after himself. He has not paid his rent since March 9, 2018 and he refuses to pay his arrears despite repeated requests by Mr. Newman.

[4] Mr. Newman served a written Notice of Eviction on Mr. Glanville on August 8, 2018. The Notice gave Mr. Glanville 60 days to vacate the house. The notice clearly set out the reasons for the eviction including the failure to clean garbage from the home, a refusal to clean the bathroom leaving it in “a disgusting state” and the excessive use of utilities. Notwithstanding a very reasonable notice period, Mr. Glanville has not vacated the house.

[5] Mr. Newman seeks the following orders from the court:

a. An Order that Mr. Glanville pay his arrears in rent which have accumulated since March 9, 2018;

b. An Order enforceable by the Sheriff to evict Mr. Glanville from the property; and

c. An injunction to prevent Mr. Glanville from attending within 100 m of the property after he has finally vacated it.

[6] Mr. Glanville did not appear in court on the Application date of December 5, 2018. Mr. Newman advised the court that Mr. Glanville would be very unlikely to attend on any subsequent day but agreed to provide him with a File Direction signed by this court indicating that an order for eviction would be granted on the return date of December 18, 2018 absent any representation from Mr. Glanville. Mr. Newman attended court again on December 18 and reported that he had personally served Mr. Glanville with the direction but Mr. Glanville told him that he would not attend and, indeed, he did not.

[7] Mr. Newman initially sought to evict Mr. Glanville from the home by applying to the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. The board declined jurisdiction to hear the application citing section 5(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act which excludes jurisdiction in circumstances where the landlord and tenant share either a bathroom or a kitchen. Mr. Newman and Mr. Glanville share both. In those circumstances, the Commercial Tenancies Act applies rather than the Residential Tenancies Act.

[8] Mr. Newman’s grounds to bring this application can be found in section 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act. Under that section, the court has a wide discretion to grant relief where there has been a breach of a lease agreement. The court may:

a. order the payment of rent;

b. make a costs order;

c. award damages: and

d. issue injunctive relief to restrain any future breach of the lease agreement.

[9] Section 20 also permits the court to provide the respondent with an opportunity to remedy the defaults which gave rise to the breach of the leasing agreement.

[10] Under section 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act, an eviction from the property can only be obtained if proper notice has been given. The notice provided to the tenant must specify the breach of the lease that is alleged by the landlord and provide an opportunity to the tenant to remedy that breach. Under section 28 of the Act, a weekly tenancy can be terminated on one week’s notice.

[11] I am satisfied based on the evidence of Mr. Newman that Mr. Glanville has defaulted on the terms of the implied lease. Mr. Newman has appended photographs to his affidavit which demonstrate that the house has fallen into a state of disrepair as a result of the failure of Mr. Glanville to clean up after himself. I am also satisfied that Mr. Glanville has failed to pay rent since March, 2018.

[12] Mr. Glanville has had sufficient opportunity to address the failings that gave rise to his breach of the lease. Mr. Newman served him with a very clear notice in writing on August 8, 2018 and no rent has been paid since that day. Mr. Glanville has done nothing to repair the damage that he has caused.

[13] Mr. Glanville is now wrongfully in possession of the home. I have received no evidence or submissions from him that would dissuade me from issuing an eviction order.

[14] There will be an order declaring that the lease was terminated on October 8, 2018.

[15] There will be a further order granting a writ of possession to Mr. Newman. The writ of possession may be enforced by the Sheriff’s office if Mr. Glanville does not vacate the premises by February 28, 2019.

[16] There will be a further order that Mr. Glanville pay arrears in rent to Mr. Newman in the total amount of $3300. Post judgment interest on that amount will be paid at the rate of 3% per annum.

[17] Mr. Newman has also requested injunctive relief to prevent Mr. Glanville from interfering with his enjoyment of the property once the eviction order has been effected. There is currently insufficient evidence to permit a finding that such relief is justified and that aspect of the application is dismissed without prejudice to Mr. Newman renewing the application if it becomes necessary in the future.

Justice Peter Bawden Date: February 12, 2019