Ontario Civil


Landlord appeared to be giving selective history

Application by landlord to extend time to file appeal. Board ordered landlord to pay tenant $7,720. Landlord claimed he retained counsel, prepared materials and attempted service but did not attach these materials or affidavit of attempted service. Landlord claimed there was miscommunication with counsel, which led to motion not being booked earlier. Majority of award related to compensation for costs incurred in replacing property destroyed or disposed of by landlord. Landlord claimed to still have certain belongings of tenant. It was important to resolve this matter in timely way. Landlord maintained tenant agreed to vacate and denied tenant’s allegations of substandard living and wrongfully disposing of property. Landlord claimed he was ready to respond to claim but not notified of hearing until after it was held. Application dismissed. Based on postmark, it would have taken notice 24 days to reach landlord if not received until after hearing, which seemed unlikely. In request to review decision, landlord said he received notice late, but not that it arrived after hearing date. Landlord appeared to be giving a selective history. There was real possibility he received notice prior to hearing yet failed to attend. Board was entitled to proceed in landlord’s absence. Evidence of landlord’s intention to appeal and explanation for delay were thin, plus there was some prejudice to tenant and appeal had questionable merit.

Jones v. Matthews (Nov. 14, 2012, Ont. S.C.J. (Div. Ct.), Grace J., File No. 530/12) 222 A.C.W.S. (3d) 514.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?