Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

(Ontario/Canada)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / Fairness (Administrative)
SMALL CLAIMS / CIVIL LITIGATION / CIVIL APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW / Practice Directives / Civil Portals

home / about / Democracy, Law and Duty / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Civil and Administrative
Litigation Opinions
for Self-Reppers


TOPICS


Abuse of Process - Automatic Stay under the RTA

. Del Condominium Rentals Inc. v. Ahmed

In Del Condominium Rentals Inc. v. Ahmed (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court makes an abuse of process point, here in an RTA context:
[6] An appeal that seeks solely to delay constitutes an abuse of process: Solomon v. Levy, 2015 ONSC 2556, at para. 34; Regan v. Latimer, 2016 ONSC 4132, at para. 25.
. Mubarak v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation

In Mubarak v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court applied the 'gaming the system' abuse of process doctrine under the RTA:
[24] Section 134(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, provides that, on a motion, “a court to which an appeal is taken may, in a proper case, quash the appeal”. One of the grounds on which an appeal from an order of the Board may be quashed is where it is an abuse of process: Oladunjoye v. Jonker, 2021 ONSC 1199 (Div. Ct.), at para. 17.

[25] This Court has repeatedly held that it is an abuse of process for a litigant to commence an appeal from an order of the Board for the purpose of obtaining an automatic stay of an eviction order, otherwise referred to as “gaming the system”: Regan v Latimer, 2016 ONSC 4132 (Div. Ct.), at para. 25; and Wilkinson v. Seritsky, 2020 ONSC 5048 (Div. Ct.) at para. 34. One of the key indicia that a tenant is trying to “game the system” is where the Tenant has failed to pay rent for a persistent and lengthy period of time without a reasonable explanation or any intention to remedy the situation: Wilkinson, at para. 34 and Oladunjoye, at para. 27.
. Zhou v. Rama

In Zhou v. Rama (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court held that a meritless RTA automatic stay was an abuse of process:
[30] This Court has repeatedly held that it is an abuse of process for a litigant to commence an appeal from an order of the Board for the sole purpose of obtaining an automatic stay of an eviction order, otherwise referred to as “gaming the system”: Regan v. Latimer, 2016 ONSC 4132 (Div. Ct.), at para. 25; and Wilkinson v. Seritsky, 2020 ONSC 5048 (Div. Ct.) at para. 34. One of the key indicia that a Tenant is trying to “game the system” is where the Tenant has failed to pay rent for a persistent and lengthy period of time without a reasonable explanation or any intention to remedy the situation: Wilkinson, at para. 34.
. Byfield v. Gill

In Byfield v. Gill (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court applied abuse of process doctrine against a meritless RTA appeal:
The appeal should be dismissed as an abuse of process

[23] This Court has repeatedly held that it is an abuse of process for a litigant to commence an appeal from an order of the Board for the sole purpose of obtaining an automatic stay of an eviction order, otherwise referred to as “gaming the system”: Regan v Latimer, 2016 ONSC 4132 (Div. Ct.), at para. 25; and Wilkinson v. Seritsky, 2020 ONSC 5048 (Div. Ct.) at para. 34. One of the key indicia that a Tenant is trying to “game the system” is where the Tenant has failed to pay rent for a persistent and lengthy period of time without a reasonable explanation or any intention to remedy the situation: Wilkinson, at para. 34.

[24] In this case, the Tenants have persistently failed to pay their rent. At the time of the hearing before the Board, the Board noted that the Tenants had made a $3,500 payment in advance of the hearing, but at that time they still owed almost $7,000 in rent. By the time the Landlord served his motion record in December 2020, the outstanding rent was over $16,000. At the hearing, the Tenant advised me that rent payments had been made since then. The Landlord agreed that some payments were made but contested the amount. In any event, there was no dispute that a significant amount of arrears were still owing. In the circumstances, there is a clear pattern of non-payment of rent.

[25] The tenants commenced the appeal without stating any grounds of appeal and have taken no steps to perfect the appeal since it was commenced almost two years ago. They have a persistent pattern of non-payment of rent, only making payments when threatened by legal proceedings. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the appeal is an abuse of process, brought for the purpose of obtaining an automatic stay of eviction without any intention to pursue the appeal on the merits.
. Bon v. Hutchens

In Bon v. Hutchens (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court held that an RTA appeal should be dismissed as an abuse of process when it is primarily filed for the purpose of getting the automatic stay:
[18] Section 134(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, provides that, on a motion, “a court to which an appeal is taken may, in a proper case, quash the appeal”. One of the grounds on which an appeal from an order of the Board may be quashed is where it is an abuse of process: Oladunjoye v. Jonker, 2021 ONSC 1199 (Div. Ct.), at para. 17.

[19] This Court has repeatedly held that it is an abuse of process for a litigant to commence an appeal from an order of the Board for the purpose of obtaining an automatic stay of an eviction order, otherwise referred to as “gaming the system”: Regan v Latimer, 2016 ONSC 4132 (Div. Ct.), at para. 25; and Wilkinson v. Seritsky, 2020 ONSC 5048 (Div. Ct.) at para. 34. One of the key indicia that a Tenant is trying to “game the system” is where the Tenant has failed to pay rent for a persistent and lengthy period of time without a reasonable explanation or any intention to remedy the situation: Wilkinson, at para. 34 and Oladunjoye, at para. 27.

....

[22] Whether an appeal has merit appears not to be relevant to the issue of whether the appeal is an abuse of process: Jayaraj v. Metcap Living Management Inc., 2021 ONSC 503 (Div. Ct.), at para. 25. ...
. Oladunjoye v. Jonker

In Oladunjoye v. Jonker (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court held that filing an RTA s.210 appeal for the purpose of obtaining an automatic stay of eviction is an abuse of process:
Abuse of Process

[26] I also quash the appeal as an abuse of process. The Jonkers are gaming the system; the purpose of the appeal is to stay the eviction and extend their rent-free existence, which is an abuse of process: Regan v. Latimer, 2016 ONSC 4132 (Div. Ct.) at para. 25 per Patillo, J.

[27] As held by Favreau, J. in Wilkinson v. Seritsky, 2020 ONSC 5048 (Div. Ct.) at para. 34, “one of the key indicia that a party is trying to ‘game the system’ is a circumstance where the Tenant persistently fails to pay rent prior to and through the appeal period without any explanation for the failure to pay rent or any evidence of an intention to remedy the situation.” That is what we have here.

[28] The Jonkers have failed to pay any rent from the outset of the tenancy except for one of the past 14 months; they have not brought any evidence before this court to explain how they will pay the rent they owe; the LTB found that Mr. Jonker received CERB but failed to pay any of that money toward rent. Their rent-free existence has come at a high price for Mr. Oladunjoye who is unable to pay the mortgage and must sell the house as a result.


CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.




Last modified: 24-01-23
By: admin