Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-102 DATE: 2020/05/19 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: OLEG (ALEX) NEUMANN, Applicant AND: SHELBY ANDERSON, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice D.A. Broad

COUNSEL: Applicant – self-represented Respondent – self-represented (not in attendance)

HEARD: May 15, 2020 (via teleconference)

Reasons for Decision

[1] The applicant landlord has brought an application for an order lifting the suspension of the eviction of the respondent tenant. By Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “LTB”) dated March 11, 2020, the respondent’s tenancy of a unit in a building owned by the applicant on Dundas Street in the City of Brantford, Ontario (the “Unit”) was terminated and the respondent was required to vacate the Unit on or before March 22, 2020 (the “Eviction Order”).

[2] The suspension of the eviction is in place by virtue of the Order of Chief Justice Morawetz dated March 19, 2020 imposing a province-wide eviction moratorium (the “Eviction Moratorium”), as follows:

THIS COURT ORDERS that during the suspension of regular court operations by the Chief Justice, the eviction of residents from their homes, pursuant to eviction orders issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board or writs of possession, are suspended unless the court orders otherwise upon leave being granted to a party by the court pursuant to the court’s procedures for urgent motions.

[3] The applicant sought leave to bring an urgent application for an order permitting the eviction to proceed, as contemplated by the Eviction Moratorium. By Endorsement dated May 7, 2020, Nightingale J. found that the question of whether the respondent should be able to continue to reside in the Unit is time sensitive and one that is necessary and appropriate for the court to hear urgently; His Honour granted leave to the applicant to bring a motion for directions on short notice to permit the issue to be considered on its merits on May 15, 2020. Further, he gave directions with respect to the service and filing of material and for the conduct of the hearing by teleconference.

[4] In his Endorsement, Nightingale J. confirmed that a motion for leave to evict a tenant despite the Eviction Moratorium is properly a motion for directions under rr. 60.17, 60.03 and 60.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”): see Morguard Corporation v. Corredor, 2020 ONSC 2166, [2020] O.J. No. 1512, at para.12.

[5] Although the applicant brought his proceeding as an application rather than as a motion for directions pursuant to rr. 60.17, 60.03 and 60.10, I find that under the circumstances, including the fact that the applicant is self-represented, it would be inefficient and result in unwarranted delay to require that the proceeding be reconstituted as a motion for directions. I find that the matter is properly before the court pursuant to the Endorsement of Nightingale J.

[6] By brief Endorsement released on May 15, 2020 I granted the application and ordered the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) to enforce the Eviction Order and thereby evict the respondent from the Unit. At the time, I indicated that my reasons would follow. These are my reasons.

Background Facts

[7] The applicant filed an application with the LTB under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (the “RTA”) to terminate the respondent’s tenancy and to evict her for nonpayment of rent and rental arrears. A mediation was conducted by a LTB mediator on January 8, 2020 in which the applicant and the respondent both participated. The applicant and the respondent entered into an agreement in full and final satisfaction of the landlord’s application (the “mediated settlement”), the terms of which provided for the respondent to pay the arrears of $3,975 by way of monthly instalments of $500 commencing on February 1, 2020, with a final payment on September 1, 2020 in the sum of $475. In addition, the respondent agreed to pay the ongoing rent in the sum of $1,350 per month, on the first day of each month, commencing February 1, 2020 and continuing for the duration of the payment plan.

[8] The mediated settlement provided that, if the respondent should fail to make any of the payments provided for, the applicant may apply under s. 78 of the RTA, without notice to the respondent, for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting her.

[9] The landlord brought an ex parte motion based upon default by the tenant and on March 11, 2020 the LTB made the following determinations:

(a) the respondent failed to meet certain conditions specified in the mediated settlement, namely payment of the sum of $500 towards arrears on or before March 1, 2020 and the payment of full lawful rent for March 2020 on or before March 1, 2020; (b) the amount remaining owing for arrears of rent and the costs related to the application fee was $3,475; (c) the applicant collected a rent deposit of $1,350 from the respondent which was still being held by the applicant; and (d) interest on the rent deposit is owing to the respondent for the period from October 1, 2019 to March 11, 2020.

[10] In accordance with these findings the LTB issued the Eviction Order which provides as follows:

(a) the tenancy between the applicant and the respondent is terminated and the respondent must move out of the unit on or before March 22, 2020; (b) the respondent shall pay to the applicant $2,602.36 representing the rent owing up to March 11, 2020 and the costs related to the application fee for the previous application, less the rent deposit and interest that the applicant owes on the rent deposit; (c) the respondent shall pay to the applicant $44.38 per day for compensation for the use of the unit commencing March 12, 2020 to the date that the respondent moves out of the unit; (d) if the respondent does not pay the applicant the full amount owing on or before March 22, 2020 the respondent will start to owe interest of 3% per annum on the balance outstanding; (e) if the unit is not vacated on or before March 22, 2020 the applicant may file the eviction order with the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) so that the eviction may be enforced; and (f) upon receipt of the eviction order, the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) is directed to give vacant possession of the unit to the applicant on or after March 23, 2020.

[11] The Eviction Order specified that the respondent had until March 21, 2020 to file a motion with the LTB to set aside the order under s. 78(9) of the RTA. In that event, the eviction order would have been stayed, and the LTB would have scheduled a further hearing.

[12] In his affidavit sworn May 8, 2020, the applicant deposed as follows:

(a) “in the meantime” (evidently while the LTB proceeding was pending) the home of the applicant and his spouse was on the market and sold with a closing date of May 21, 2020; (b) the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the sale of the home, appended to the affidavit, disclosed that it was signed by the purchasers on March 30, 2020 and by the vendors on March 31, 2020. The “confirmation of acceptance” confirmed that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale was finally accepted by all parties on March 31, 2020; (c) the intention of the applicant and his spouse is to move into the unit occupied by the respondent while they look for a lot to build a new home; (d) the applicant needs the respondent to vacate the unit by May 15, 2020 as he and his spouse have nowhere else to go. Neither of them has family members who reside in town. The applicant’s parents who are in their 60’s live in Waterloo, and his spouse’s parents who are in their 70’s live in Cambridge. The applicant and his spouse both work at Brantford General Hospital and have not seen their families for over 6 weeks as they have isolated themselves from their families so not to risk exposing them to anything that they may have been exposed to (including presumably COVID-19); (e) on March 31, 2020 the respondent advised that she did have somewhere to go in April, but she could not move due to COVID-19; (f) the applicant is unaware of any current restrictions on people moving, as there are no restrictions on the sale of homes; (g) the respondent owes $8,637.64 in arrears and no longer communicates with the applicant or his spouse; (h) the applicant is paying $250 per month for a storage unit for his and his spouse’s furnishings; (i) the applicant believes that the respondent is taking advantage of the pandemic and using it as an excuse to not pay her rent and not move out of the Unit; (j) the applicant has not received any rent or rental arrears other than $500 which the respondent e-transferred at the end of March.

[13] The respondent filed no material in response to the application.

[14] On May 14, 2020 the trial coordinator emailed to both parties coordinates for the teleconference including the telephone number and conference identification number and by separate email a set of directions prepared by me for the conduct of the teleconference hearing on May 15, 2020. No response was received from the respondent to either of these emails.

[15] The hearing commenced by teleconference as directed by Nightingale J. at 10:00 a.m. on May 15, 2020. The applicant attended by telephone. His spouse, Lucia Vieira-Neumann, was also in attendance but did not participate. A judicial law clerk, Ms. Shelby Odom, was in attendance to assist the court but did not otherwise participate.

[16] The respondent did not come onto the teleconference line at 10:00 a.m. as scheduled. I stood down the hearing to 10:15 a.m. to afford the respondent an opportunity to join the teleconference. She did not do so.

[17] The teleconference was recorded. At the commencement of the hearing I reviewed with the applicant the directions for the conduct of the hearing which had been communicated to the parties.

[18] In response to a question from the court, the applicant advised that he had received no communication from the respondent following service of the Application materials on her. Specifically, he indicated he had received no communication or indication from her as to whether she intended to participate in the teleconference hearing.

[19] The hearing proceeded with submissions by the applicant.

[20] By reason of the failure of the respondent to file any responding material and to attend the hearing by teleconference, the application must be considered to be unopposed by the respondent.

Analysis

(a) The Eviction Moratorium

[21] The Eviction Moratorium is an unprecedented measure implemented to respond to a global, national and regional health crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Eviction Moratorium does not remove or alter the underlying obligation on a residential tenant imposed by the LTB to vacate a residential unit. It simply prevents the enforcement of that obligation on a temporary basis during the suspension of regular court operations. Similarly, the Eviction Moratorium does not remove or alter the obligation of the tenant to pay arrears of rent and other costs imposed by the LTB, and ongoing rent according to the terms of the tenancy.

[22] The Eviction Moratorium may be seen by its nature to result in unfairness as between the landlord and the tenant, measured by conventional standards, in most situations where a final order has been issued terminating a residential tenancy and requiring the tenant to vacate. The landlord is left to shoulder all of the ongoing expenses of maintaining the unit occupied by a person or persons where there is no subsisting tenancy, including mortgage payments, municipal taxes, insurance, maintenance and repairs, and utilities, if applicable. These expenses remain payable by the landlord without any means, during the moratorium, to offset or recoup those costs by obtaining vacant possession from the former tenant and renting the unit to a new paying tenant or, as in the case at bar, occupying the unit him or herself.

[23] The Eviction Moratorium is broad and applies to all evictions pursuant to eviction orders issued by the LTB without limitation. An eviction may only proceed if leave is granted by the court pursuant to a motion deemed by the court to be urgent.

(b) Relevant Case-law

[24] Given the newness of the Eviction Moratorium there have been few reported cases touching on the principles which should guide the court in considering an urgent motion to permit an eviction (ordered by the LTB) to proceed.

[25] The case of Young v. CRC Self-Help, 2020 ONSC 1874, [2020] O.J. No. 1309 (Div. Ct.) did not involve an urgent motion by a landlord to permit an eviction pursuant to a final eviction order of the LTB to be carried out, but rather concerned a motion brought by a former tenant to reinstate his tenancy pending the hearing of his appeal to the Divisional Court from an eviction order made by the LTB.

[26] The facts in Young v. CRC Self-Help may be summarized as follows.

[27] The landlord provided affordable alternative housing for individuals who are hard to house. In 2016 the landlord brought an application to the LTB to evict the tenant on the ground that he had substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex by the landlord or another tenant and an order was made, pursuant to a mediated settlement, requiring the tenant to modify his behaviour in order to address the interference. In 2019 the landlord applied ex parte, as permitted by the mediated settlement order, to evict the tenant for noncompliance. The LTB made an order evicting the tenant. The tenant requested a review of the eviction order resulting in a stay of the eviction. The LTB subsequently confirmed the eviction and lifted the stay.

[28] The tenant filed a second request for review of the eviction order. The LTB denied the second request for review and the Sheriff executed the eviction.

[29] The tenant thereupon commenced an appeal to the Divisional Court and obtained a certificate from the court staying the eviction order. Although the unit had not yet been rented to another tenant, the landlord refused to allow the tenant back into the unit.

[30] As agreed by counsel for the parties, Favreau J. held at para. 44 that the three-part test for injunctive relief set out in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, applied to the tenant’s motion for reinstatement, namely:

(a) is there a serious issue to be tried? (b) will the tenant suffer irreparable harm if the motion is refused? and (c) does the balance of convenience favour granting the motion?

[31] In consideration of the issue of irreparable harm, Favreau J. made the following important observations at para. 57:

It is important to emphasize that this motion was brought in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 20, 2020, Chief Justice Morawetz made an order suspending the eviction of all tenants from their homes in Ontario unless an order is obtained from the Court allowing the eviction. In addition, the Board itself has suspended all eviction hearings, except for hearings dealing with urgent issues such as illegal acts or matters of impairment of health. On their own, these two initiatives make clear that these are not ordinary times and that everyone has an interest in having a home that allows them to stay healthy and assist in preventing the spread of the virus.

[32] Favreau J. found that the three-part test in RJR-MacDonald had been satisfied and reinstated the tenant’s occupancy of his unit pending determination of his appeal from the LTB eviction order. However, at para. 67, she concluded with the following observation:

The Chief Justice’s order and the Board’s direction do allow for urgent eviction hearings or the enforcement of eviction orders in appropriate circumstances. Therefore, while I was not persuaded that [the landlord’s] evidence was sufficient to prevent [the tenant] from returning to his unit, if [the tenant] does engage in unlawful behaviour or behaviour that endangers other tenants, his right to remain in his unit may be revisited.

[33] The case of Chalich v. Alhatam, 2020 ONSC 2569, [2020] O.J. No. 1797 (Div. Ct.) did involve an urgent motion brought by a landlord to permit a LTB eviction order to be carried out by the Sheriff despite the Eviction Moratorium.

[34] Prior to the matter reaching the Divisional Court, the landlord in Chalich had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale (the “APS”) providing for the sale of the condominium unit occupied by the tenant. Pursuant to the APS the landlord was to deliver vacant possession to the purchaser and he therefore sought to evict the tenant.

[35] The LTB terminated the tenancy and ordered the tenant to vacate the unit. At the tenant’s behest, the LTB reviewed the order and upheld the eviction. The tenant further appealed to the Divisional Court which resulted in a stay of the eviction pending the appeal hearing.

[36] The tenant subsequently made plans to vacate the unit in question and entered into a lease agreement with a new landlord for an apartment commencing May 1, 2020. On March 18, 2020 a Consent Order was issued dismissing the appeal, vacating the stay, and permitting the original eviction order to be enforced. On the next day, March 19, 2020, the Eviction Moratorium came into effect.

[37] While the LTB proceedings were ongoing, the closing of the sale of the unit was extended several times. During that period the landlord paid the purchaser’s monthly rent, additional moving costs, additional legal costs and paid both the property taxes and common expenses for the condominium unit. The sale was extended to April 30, 2020 to permit the tenant to vacate and to move to his newly leased apartment. On April 17, 2020 the new landlord advised the tenant that the rental unit would not be available until June 1, 2020 as there was a tenant in the unit who could not immediately move out. The new landlord advised that he was unable to evict the tenant occupying the unit because of COVID-19 and the potential health risk to the tenant’s family if evicted.

[38] At para. 18, Kristjanson J. rejected the landlord’s submission that the Eviction Moratorium should apply only to tenants who would otherwise be evicted for non-payment of rent to protect those who have lost income due to COVID-19. She noted that there are no limiting terms in the Chief Justice’s order except for urgent motions. Accordingly, it is neither limited to those cases where eviction is due to COVID-19 related non-payment of rent, nor new evictions arising after March 17, 2020.

[39] Kristjanson J. continued at para. 18 as follows:

Given its breadth, the clear intent of the Chief Justice's eviction moratorium was, during the pandemic, to prevent evictions even though the moratorium could be expected to cause significant economic disruption and adverse financial effects. The Landlord and Tenant Board has also suspended eviction hearings except for those dealing with urgent issues such as illegal acts or threats to health: Young v. CRC Self-Help, 2020 ONSC 1874 (Ont. Div. Ct.), para. 57. True emergencies will be dealt with. But the primary interest protected is ensuring that everyone stays home and stays healthy during the lockdown period.

[40] At para. 19, Kristjanson J. stated as follows:

The burden is on the landlord, as moving party, to establish that this is an urgent situation which requires eviction of the tenant in the middle of the pandemic. The landlord has not identified a truly urgent situation such as illegal acts by the tenant or threats to health caused by the tenant.

[41] The landlord relied upon the loss of a real estate closing as supporting its claim of urgency. In the result Kristjanson J. found that the landlord, on the facts, had not met his burden of establishing irreparable harm or urgent and compelling circumstances. The landlord’s evidence was found to be speculative and not definite.

[42] Kristjanson J. carried out a balancing of the concerns of the tenant who was at risk, along with his family, of being put on the street, with the landlord’s speculative evidence of harm.

[43] At para. 28 Kristjanson J. observed as follows:

The clear intent of the moratorium is to protect tenants in exactly the kind of situation [the tenant] is in. He has been paying the money ordered by the Landlord and Tenant Board. He signed a lease for May 1, which the new landlord defaulted on. The new landlord stated he could not evict the existing tenant but has clarified that the apartment will be available June 1.

[44] As noted by Favreau J. in Young v. CRC Self-Help, the LTB itself has suspended all eviction hearings, except for hearings dealing with urgent issues such as illegal acts or matters of impairment of health. I can take judicial notice that on March 19, 2020 Tribunals Ontario issued a news release in reference to the LTB, giving notice to the public, inter alia, of the following:

As the COVID-19 situation continues to evolve, Tribunals Ontario is taking action to safeguard the health and well-being of all Ontarians, while continuing to ensure access to justice. The Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) has reviewed the appropriate approach to conducting hearings and until further notice the LTB is suspending:

• All hearings related to eviction applications, unless the matter relates to an urgent issue such as an illegal act or serious impairment of safety; and • The issuance of eviction orders, unless the matter relates to an urgent issue such as an illegal act or serious impairment of safety.

Hearings related to eviction applications will not be scheduled at this time.

[45] In my view, the notice issued by the LTB on March 19, 2020 and the Eviction Moratorium represented by the Chief Justice’s Order, made on the same day, work in tandem and are directed to the same societal interest of reducing the spread of COVID-19.

(c) Guiding Principles

[46] I find that the following principles may be drawn from the foregoing review of the Eviction Moratorium and the relevant case law:

(a) the intent of the Eviction Moratorium is to prevent evictions during the pandemic even though it could be expected to cause significant economic disruption and adverse financial effects. Thus, evidence of significant economic hardship to the landlord and resulting unfairness, viewed conventionally, will not by itself support an order that an eviction proceed; (b) the interests served by the Eviction Moratorium are societal and directed towards the maintenance of existing shelter arrangements for individuals to assist in preventing the spread of COVID-19 during the pandemic; (c) the Eviction Moratorium is not restricted to tenants who would otherwise be evicted for non-payment of rent in order to protect those who have lost income due to COVID-19 but applies to all evictions without limitation; (d) on a motion to permit an eviction to proceed notwithstanding the Eviction Moratorium, the onus is on the landlord, as the moving party, to establish the existence of truly urgent and compelling circumstances which would justify overriding the societal interest that persons continue to shelter in place in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19, in the particular circumstances of the case; (e) although the categories of urgent and compelling circumstances which may justify an order permitting an eviction to proceed are not closed, ordinarily they will involve illegal acts by the tenant or threats to health caused by the tenant; and (f) a balancing of the concerns of the tenant and the landlord will be carried out primarily in the context of the societal objectives of the Eviction Moratorium directed towards the prevention of the spread of COVID-19 rather than focussing on economic disruption or economic hardship to the landlord, or conventional understandings of unfairness from a financial perspective.

(d) Application of the Guiding Principles

[47] As indicated, the respondent filed no material in response to the application notwithstanding service on her on May 8, 2020 at 3:30 p.m., as evidenced by the Affidavit of Service of Lucia Vieira-Neumann. The respondent was served with the Notice of Application, the applicant’s supporting affidavit, copies of the documentary evidence referred to, and a copy of the Endorsement of Nightingale J., by posting a sealed envelope containing the materials on the front door of the Unit and by email as directed in the Endorsement.

[48] Nightingale J.’s Endorsement required that, if the respondent wished to provide any evidence or legal argument to the court in answer to the application, she must serve her responding record, including sworn affidavits containing all evidence upon which she relies, by email to the landlord by 4:00 p.m. on May 13, 2020. The Endorsement directed that all evidence be filed immediately by delivery to the trial coordinator.

[49] The trial coordinator sent an email to the respondent on May 14, 2020 at 9:06 a.m. advising as follows:

Pursuant to the direction of Justice Nightingale, you as respondent were to serve any responding material to the applicant by 4 p.m. May 13, 2020. If you did, could you please forward all your documentation to me by noon today.

[50] The respondent did not respond to this email.

[51] As noted above, in the face of the Eviction Moratorium, the burden is on the landlord to establish that this is an urgent situation which requires eviction of the tenant in the middle of the pandemic.

[52] In my view, although the applicant landlord bears the ultimate or legal burden to show the existence of truly urgent, compelling, and non-speculative circumstances justifying the overriding of the societal interests represented by the Eviction Moratorium, there is a balancing exercise in the context of those interests which must be carried out by the court. Thus, the evidence of the landlord may cast an evidential burden on the tenant to show circumstances that the societal interests of the Eviction Moratorium would be impacted adversely by the eviction in a way which may override the impact on the societal interests by continuance of the stay of the eviction.

[53] It has been stated that “the evidential burden of proof rests on the party who must show that there is evidence before the trier of fact which is capable of establishing or disproving a fact in issue” and that “the party bearing the evidential burden on a particular issue does not necessarily bear the persuasive burden on that issue”: Halsbury’s Laws of Canada – Evidence, 1st ed., “Burden and Quantum of Proof” (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2010), at HEV-61 cited in British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia, 2012 BCCA 326, 352 D.L.R. (4th) 662, at para. 62.

[54] The applicant has led evidence that he and his spouse require the Unit for their own occupation, that they have nowhere else to go on the closing of the sale of their current residence, that they both work at Brantford General Hospital and have isolated themselves to avoid exposing their families to infection, and they are unable to reside to with either of their parents as they are in their 60’s and 70’s respectively and live out of town. He also led evidence that the respondent advised on March 31, 2020 that she had somewhere else to reside in April but was unable to move due to COVID-19. This evidence has not been disputed by the respondent and she has led no evidence suggesting that the societal interest in permitting her to shelter in place would be impacted by requiring her to vacate the Unit and find alternate accommodation.

[55] Parenthetically, it is noted that the calculation by the applicant of the amount owing by the respondent in the sum of $8,637.64 appears to be overstated. The Eviction Order directed the respondent to pay the applicant $44.38 per day as compensation for the use of the Unit from March 12, 2020 to the date that she vacates. The Summary of Calculations provided by the applicant erroneously includes the ongoing rent payments in the sum of $1,350.00 due on the first day of each of March, April and May in addition to the per diem occupation rent ordered by the LTB. For the purpose of my analysis I do not rely upon the Summary of Calculations provided by the applicant. It is sufficient to note that the respondent remains in substantial arrears in payment of rent and costs.

[56] In answer to a question from the court, the applicant advised that he and his spouse both work in the maintenance department of Brantford General Hospital and, in the course of their duties, they are routinely required to access spaces occupied by patients. They may therefore be considered to be front-line workers in the hospital, with an elevated risk of contracting COVID-19 during the pandemic, and a corresponding need to self-isolate as they have been doing. The applicant also responded that he is not aware that any persons other than the respondent reside in or occupy the Unit.

[57] Although these facts were not contained in the applicant’s supporting affidavit, in my view, it was necessary that the court be provided with this information to carry out an informed review of the relevant circumstances.

[58] It is noted that the applicant entered into the APS for the sale of his and his spouse’s residence after the imposition of the Eviction Moratorium and did not lead evidence that he made any efforts to seek an extension of the closing date of May 21, 2020 from the purchaser. On the authority of Chalich v. Alhatam these factors may suggest that the applicant’s position is speculative. However, it is noted that the loss which the landlord sought to avoid in Chalich was purely economic and the landlord did not seek the premises for his own occupation. Moreover, the tenant in Chalich led evidence of the impact of his eviction on the societal interests supported by the Eviction Moratorium and the court carried out a balancing exercise between the landlord’s evidence and the tenant’s concerns. In contrast to the present case, Kristjanson J. noted at para. 28 that the tenant had been paying the money ordered by the LTB and had actively sought alternative accommodation. She concluded that “the clear intent of the moratorium is to protect tenants in exactly the kind of situation [the tenant] is in.”

[59] In the case at bar, the respondent, by leading no evidence, has, in my view, failed to discharge the evidential burden on her as described above; hence, no balancing of the relative impacts on societal interests is possible.

[60] It can be inferred that the respondent wishes to remain in the Unit. However, there is no evidence that she needs to reside in the Unit to further the societal objectives of the Eviction Moratorium. There is also no evidence that the respondent would experience any specific difficulty in finding alternate accommodation. Although I can take judicial notice that the pandemic presents challenges to those seeking housing generally, there is no basis on the evidence to infer that it would be more difficult for the respondent to find alternate housing than for the applicant and his spouse. There is also no basis to infer, in the absence of evidence from her, that the respondent’s failure to pay the arrears of rent and ongoing rent is as a result of economic hardship.

[61] On the basis of the foregoing I find, after considering the evidence before the court, that it is appropriate in the unique circumstances of this case to permit the eviction to proceed pursuant to the Eviction Order of the LTB.

Disposition

[62] It is therefore ordered as follows:

(a) The Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) is directed to proceed with the eviction of the respondent from the residential premises described in the Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated March 11, 2020, pursuant to the said Order, notwithstanding the Order of Chief Justice Morawetz dated March 19, 2020 suspending eviction orders; (b) Upon receipt of this order, the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) is directed to expedite the eviction process and give vacant possession of the unit to the applicant on or after May 19, 2020.

[63] The applicant did not seek costs and accordingly there shall be no costs in respect of this matter.

[64] The brief Endorsement released on May 15, 2020 and this Endorsement are both effective when made. No formal order is required.

[65] I have signed the original of the Endorsement.

D.A. Broad Date: May 19, 2020