Court File and Parties
COURT FILES NO.: CV-20-642070 and CV-20-654036
DATE: 20210414
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ZHUOFEI LI, WONDER HOME STONE LTD., and WONDERHOME GROUP
Applicants
- and -
F.E.D. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD.
Respondent
BEFORE: Justice Edward Belobaba
COUNSEL: Stefan Juzkiw for the Applicant
John Sestito for the Cross-applicant
HEARD: February 23, 2021 via Zoom
ENDORSEMENT
[1] Counsel advised at the start of the Zoom hearing that they were very close to settling this commercial tenancy dispute and asked for a short adjournment. I acceded to this request. Soon thereafter, the matter settled. There was no need to hear the parties’ application and cross-application. There was also no need for a formal Endorsement.
[2] Except for the matter of the false affidavit.
[3] In an attempt to persuade the court that he never received the landlord’s Notice of Termination, the tenant Mr. Li stated in his affidavit that he was out of the country at the relevant time. He swore that he flew on Air Canada from Toronto to Beijing on February 19, 2020 and returned in May. He attached his Air Canada ticket purchase receipt to the affidavit as corroboration. However, as counsel for the landlord pointed out (with supporting documentation) Air Canada had suspended all flights to China effective January 30, 2020. Mr. Li could not have travelled as described in his affidavit.
[4] After reviewing the affidavit and cross-examination transcript, I became concerned that Mr. Li’s false statement was potentially contempt in the face of the court. I considered whether I should convene a “show cause” hearing to pursue this further. Before doing so, however, I asked Mr. Li (through his counsel) for some further proof or explanation.
[5] The following explanation was provided. When Mr. Li’s Air Canada flight was cancelled, he scrambled to make an alternative booking. He was able to get wait-listed and then booked on China Southern flight CZ312 from Toronto to Guangzhou on February 12, 2020. He returned to Toronto via Vancouver in May. The actual travel details set out in his affidavit were false but the affiant did travel to China and was out of the country during the time period in question.
[6] I concluded, on balance, that I would not pursue a contempt of court hearing and so advised counsel.
[7] I set out these details in this Endorsement for two reasons. One, as a reminder that a false statement in a sworn affidavit could well be contempt in the face of the court and will be taken seriously. And two, as a caution to counsel, that in a commercial tenancy dispute where the affiant is asking for relief against forfeiture, evidence of such a falsehood could well preclude the availability of this equitable remedy.
[8] Fortunately, as already noted, the commercial tenancy dispute was resolved.
Signed: Justice Edward P. Belobaba
Notwithstanding Rule 59.05, this Judgment [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, no formal Judgment [Order] need be entered and filed unless an appeal or a motion for leave to appeal is brought to an appellate court. Any party to this Judgment [Order] may nonetheless submit a formal Judgment [Order] for original signing, entry and filing when the Court returns to regular operations.
Date: April 14, 2021