Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-642432 DATE: 20200623 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Marvon Wilkinson, Applicant
– and –
Precious Iyamu, Respondent
BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.
COUNSEL: Marvon Wilkinson, the Applicant in person No one attending for the Respondent.
HEARD: June 22, 2020
Endorsement
[1] I heard this urgent application by telephone on June 22, 2020 pursuant to my triage endorsement dated June 12, 2020. No one attended for the respondent although the line remained open from 10:00 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.
[2] According to the affidavit of Ashlee Brown sworn June 19, 2020, the applicant served the application, supporting material, and my triage endorsement on the respondent by posting them on the door to her rental unit as I had required.
[3] The issue before me is whether to allow the applicant to enforce the eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board on June 1, 2020 against the respondent. Permission is required because on March 20, 2020, on the application of the Attorney General, the Chief Justice of this court made an order suspending all residential evictions in Ontario as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
[4] The Chief Justice’s order allows exceptions to be made if leave (or permission) is sought under the court’s procedures for hearing urgent matters while the courts are not operating fully as a result of the pandemic. The applicant has followed this procedural path.
[5] The board has already found that grounds exist to justify an urgent eviction. The reason this case is before me is not to review the decision of the board. Rather, it is to decide if the landlord has made out a sufficient case to allow the eviction of the respondent in light of the pandemic. Diaz v Kubinec, 2020 ONSC 3706.
[6] Evicting tenants from the places at which they have been sheltering during the pandemic might expose them to increased risk of catching the virus. In addition, the need for tenants to move may involve significant interactions with others as tenants find and physically move to alternative lodgings. Some tenants may not have places to go. The court is therefore engaging in a balancing process; weighing the risks to the landlord and other tenants if the tenants stay, against the risk to the tenants and to the public if the they are evicted.
[7] In this case, the landlord has adduced evidence about the tenant’s behaviour that the board described as “unpredictable, aggressive, and violent.” The police have been called several times. The landlord has provided evidence of an incident in May in which the respondent made death threats and was physically violent with another tenant. The board concluded that allowing the tenant to remain in the rented premises until the end of the current emergency “puts the health and safety of other tenants at continued risk.”
[8] I have no qualms in finding that the landlord has made out a case that the risks to others in the house support enforcement of the board’s eviction order. However, if all that is necessary to obtain leave to enforce an eviction is to show that the landlord has good grounds to evict, then the Chief Justice’s order would have no content as that assessment is made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.
[9] The point of the moratorium on evictions is to protect tenants and the public during the pandemic. As such, some assessment is required of the effect of the proposed eviction in light of the pandemic.
[10] Unfortunately, Ms. Iyamu did not adduce any evidence for the hearing despite instructions provided in my triage endorsement and an exhortation that she seek legal advice.
[11] However, there is some basis in the evidence to infer from Ms. Iyamu’s behaviour that she may have needs that require accommodation and assistance. Normally, a landlord is not responsible for a tenant’s wellbeing upon eviction. But these are not normal times. The effect of the pandemic on Ms. Iyamu and the public requires further consideration.
[12] In my view, prior to evicting Ms. Iyamu, the landlord should be required to call a social services agency to seek its aid for her during her eviction. I would not stall the eviction for long. But I expect it will take some brief number of days for the sheriff’s office to carry out a residential eviction in any event. That would give a short time for government agencies to contact Ms. Iyamu and try to see to her wellbeing upon eviction. Regardless of whether she accepts any advice or help that might be offered, the court and the public will have some assurance at least that efforts are made to provide emergency assistance to Ms. Iyamu if she needs it and to protect the public during the pandemic by doing so.
[13] It seems to me that the pandemic gives us all an enhanced obligation to care for each other. It is both appropriately compassionate and it is also in everyone’s self-interest to limit the creation of opportunities for the spread of the Covid-19 virus where possible.
[14] Knowing that some effort will be made to provide a resource to Ms. Iyamu in case she needs assistance with the eviction provides the other side of the equation. With this condition, I can conclude that the eviction is appropriate in light of the pandemic.
[15] Therefore, pursuant to the order of Morawetz CJOSCJ dated March 20, 2020, I grant leave to the applicant to enforce the Landlord and Tenant Board’s eviction order dated June 1, 2020. I direct the registrar to issue a writ of possession to the applicant and I direct the sheriff’s office to enforce the writ but not before Friday, June 26, 2020.
[16] As a condition of granting this relief, I order the applicant to contact the Gerstein Crisis Centre at 416-929-5200 forthwith to seek its assistance on an urgent basis on behalf of Ms. Iyamu to provide for her eviction. He shall also provide whatever contact details he has for the respondent to the agency. This condition is satisfied just by making the call to advise the social service agency of the upcoming eviction, the respondent’s contact details, and the possibility that the respondent requires urgent services.
[17] The applicant shall file an affidavit providing the particulars of his fulfilment of this condition on or before June 25, 2020.
[18] The provisions of schedule “A” apply to this decision.
[19] The applicant shall serve this endorsement on the tenant by posting it on the door to her unit forthwith.
F.L. Myers J.
Date: June 23, 2020
Schedule "A"
TERMS INCORPORATED INTO ORDERS
Upon the courthouse reopening to the public, each party shall file with the Civil Motions Office a copy of all the material he, she, or it delivered electronically for this proceeding, with proof of service, and pay the appropriate fees therefor.
Notwithstanding Rule 59.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Order is effective from the date it is made and is enforceable without any need for entry and filing. In accordance with Rules 77.07(6) and 1.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, no formal Order need be entered and filed unless appeal or a motion for leave to appeal is brought to an appellate court. Any party to this Order may nonetheless submit a formal Order for original signing, entry and filing when the Court returns to regular operations.