Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-91518 DATE: 2024-02-20 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Kweku Kuffuor, Appellant / Moving Party AND: Sanjeev Singal and Pratibha Singal, Respondents
BEFORE: A. Kaufman J.
COUNSEL: Kweku Kuffuor, representing himself Sanjeev Singal and Pratibha Singal, representing themselves
HEARD: February 15, 2024
Endorsement
[1] On August 15, 2023, Justice H. J. Williams extended the appellant’s time to appeal from decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) dated November 10, 2022. She directed the appellant to serve the respondents with a certificate of evidence within 10 days of her order, and to file his notice of appeal and certificate of evidence, with an affidavit of service, within 15 days of her order.
[2] Mr. Kuffuor did not comply with Justice Williams’ order. Instead, he brought various motions that were dismissed or adjourned because the relief requested was inappropriate, or for failure to file the requisite motion materials. In the motion currently before the court, Mr. Kuffuor, seeks an order to “transfer files, submit forms to the Divisional Court, and obtain a Divisional Court number, as directed by Justice H.J. Williams' order dated August 15, 2023”.
[3] The issue on this motion is whether, having failed to comply with Justice William’s explicit directions, Mr. Kuffuor should be granted another extension of time to commence an appeal from the LTB’s decision. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that he should not be granted any further extensions. This motion is accordingly dismissed, with costs.
Background
[4] Justice Williams' endorsement outlines the history of this matter until August 15, 2023.
[5] The respondents, Sanjeev Singal and Pratibha Singal, (the “Singals”), were Mr. Kuffuor’s landlords. They applied to the LTB for an order terminating his tenancy, alleging damage to their rental unit. The LTB ruled in their favour on May 24, 2022.
[6] Mr. Kuffuor requested a review of the LTB’s decision on May 27, 2022. The review hearing took place on September 7, 2022, and on November 10, 2022, the LTB denied Mr. Kuffuor's request, determining that there was no serious error in the initial order.
[7] In accordance with s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, decisions of the LTB can be appealed to the Divisional Court within 30 days on a question of law. Justice Doyle heard Mr. Kuffuor's motion to extend the time to appeal on March 14, 2023. She found that Mr. Kuffuor intended to appeal within the relevant period. She adjourned the hearing to permit him to order transcripts and demonstrate that the appeal had merit.
[8] A subsequent motion before Justice Labrosse, on June 6, 2023, was adjourned due to Mr. Kuffuor filing of voluminous and confusing documents. Labrosse J. permitted Mr. Kuffuor to re-file his materials and limited the scope of the materials to be submitted.
[9] On August 15, 2023, Justice Williams heard Mr. Kuffuor’s motion. Despite the motion being filed in the wrong court, she considered herself to have heard it as a judge of the Divisional Court. She reviewed the test to extend the time to appeal and noted Justice Doyle's findings that Mr. Kuffuor's intended to appeal within the required time and provided an explanation for the delay. Justice Williams determined that Mr. Kuffuor’s notice of appeal was served in time, but its filing was delayed due to an understandable misunderstanding between Mr. Kuffuor and the Divisional Court’s registry clerks.
[10] Justice Williams acknowledged that it was difficult to discern any merit to Mr. Kuffuor’s proposed appeal, especially as appeals are limited to questions of law. Despite expressing sympathy for the Singals, who were distressed by these proceedings, she deemed it unjust to deny Mr. Kuffuor the right to proceed with his appeal in circumstances where his filing was late due to a misunderstanding.
[11] Justice Williams made the following Order:
- Mr. Kuffuor shall serve the respondent with the certificate of evidence required under Rule 61.05(1) within 10 days of the date of this decision;
- Mr. Kuffuor shall file the notice of appeal he served on December 10, 2022 and the certificate of evidence, with proof of service of both, within 15 days of the date of this decision.
- Mr. Kuffuor shall ensure that the notice of appeal is assigned a Divisional Court file number.
[12] Mr. Kuffuor, failed to comply with Justice Williams' order. On August 16, 2023, a registry officer instructed Mr. Kuffuor to follow the detailed instructions provided to him. Instead of adhering to these instructions, Mr. Kuffuor requested that the registry “transfer his file”.
[13] The registry urged Mr. Kuffuor to review Justice Williams' reasons, outlining the necessary steps for obtaining a Divisional Court file number. The registry reiterated these instructions in several emails, emphasizing the need to serve the certificate of evidence, and file it, together with a notice of appeal and a commissioned affidavit of service.
[14] Mr. Kuffuor chose to bring another motion on October 5, 2023. That motion sought to amend paragraphs of Justice Williams' endorsement, a request deemed impossible by Justice Gomery. Mr. Kuffuor also sought an order for costs associated with alleged interference by an LTB lawyer with the legal process. Justice Gomery considered this request improper as well, and Mr. Kuffuor's motion was denied due to the absence of a supporting affidavit.
[15] Undeterred, Mr. Kuffuor brought another motion on January 23, 2024, aiming to move the matter to Divisional Court. Justice Rees denied the motion, citing the absence of filed materials, but he allowed Mr. Kuffuor to secure a new hearing date for the motion.
Analysis
[16] Mr. Kuffuor argues the Court administration should not have required a sworn affidavit of service because the Justice Williams validated the service of his notice of appeal on the Singals’ paralegal on December 10, 2022. He contends that it was unnecessary for him to serve the notice of appeal again. He also cites a “major medical illness” as the reason for the delay in bringing this matter before the Court. However, he provides no evidence of the purported illness, and the remainder of his affidavit addresses factual matters related to the property damage and the reasons why he is not responsible for that damage.
[17] The Court is not persuaded by Mr. Kuffuor's submissions. Justice Williams had issued explicit directions, instructing him to serve the respondent with the certificate of evidence, within 10 days and file the notice of appeal along with the certificate of evidence within 15 days. Instead of complying, Mr. Kuffuor quarreled with court staff’s instructions, and disregarded the order to serve the Singals with the certificate of evidence.
[18] Given Mr. Kuffuor's failure to meet the terms of Justice Williams' order, and the events that followed the order, the Court denies any further extension of time to appeal. The original LTB decision dates to May 24, 2022, almost two years ago, and Justice Williams' order was issued six months ago. Despite being granted ample time, Mr. Kuffuor scheduled three court appearances without filing the required materials. The Court also takes into account the fact that Mr. Kuffuor has not identified any question of law for his appeal.
[19] Mr. Kuffuor’s motion to “transfer the matter to the Divisional Court” is dismissed. In my capacity as a judge of the Divisional Court, I deny any further extensions of time to appeal.
Costs
[20] The Singals seek a costs order that includes unpaid bills, amounts owed under LTB orders, repair costs and legal fees attributable to the LTB proceedings.
[21] The Court lacks jurisdiction to order costs related to LTB proceedings and for damages arising from Mr. Kuffuor’s tenancy in the context of this motion. However, the Singals attended 5 motions before this Court. As this proceeding was finally determined in the Singals’ favour, the Court is of the view that they should be entitled to a nominal costs order to compensate them for their time to prepare for these motions. The Court awards them $1,500 in respect of costs for the motions before Justices Labrosse, Williams, Gomery, Rees, and myself.
Disposition
[22] The Court orders that:
a. Mr. Kuffuor’s motion is denied. b. Mr. Kuffuor is not entitled to any further extension of time to appeal. c. The respondents shall have their costs, fixed in the amount of $1,500, payable by Mr. Kuffuor to the Singals forthwith.
Justice A. Kaufman
Date: February 20, 2024