|
Homelessness - Residential Tenancies. Starcevic v. Silvercore Properties Inc.
In Starcevic v. Silvercore Properties Inc. (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court, while conducting an RTA case conference, reflects starkly the contrast of modern Ontario residential tenancy law and more fundamental beliefs and needs - something coming in more focus with the homelessness and housing crises:[3] The tenants have delivered a motion to extend the time for them to perfect their appeal based on a number of grounds that they state in constitutional terms.
[4] Ms. Ellison advises that she is a member of a First Nation and she calls on the Prime Minster and the Premier to act as her Guardians in this proceeding. Whatever duties the government may owe to Indigenous Canadians, I am satisfied that the tenants’ landlord and tenant appeal may proceed without the need for the tenants to be represented by government guardians.
[5] Ms. Ellison’s rent is paid by ODSP. Mr. Starcevic pays his rent on receipt of his monthly OAS. But they both insist on paying rent at the initial rate set out in their lease in 2018. They refuse to recognise the lawful rent increases recognized by the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 17. Ms. Ellison is not willing to direct ODSP to pay the increased rent and Mr. Starcevic chooses to forward only his share of the original rent.
[6] The eviction order made by the board allowed the tenants to void the order and stay in their premises if they paid the arrears they had amassed by ignoring rent increases for a number of years. Matheson J. required the tenants to pay their arrears to maintain the stay on the eviction order while this appeal proceeds.
[7] The tenants are simply unwilling to pay. They are offended that the multinational corporation that owns their premises just wants money from them and will not treat them like human beings.
....
[14] It is incongruous to me that the tenants’ alleged notion of a landlord treating them as human beings is not about both sides living up to their promises and legal obligations. Rather, the tenants raise technicalities to try to avoid the topic at hand. They do not want to pay their lawful rent. Perhaps they cannot readily afford to pay increased rent. That if that is so, it may be a question for ODSP and OAS administrators. A landlord is not required to bear the brunt of tenants’ financial issues.
....
[16] In my view, both sides have made out bases for relief.
[17] The tenants have refused to follow the directions of two judges of this court that protected their right to stay at the premises while their appeal is being heard. They are stalling and raising non-sequiturs in relation to the arrears. It is not dehumanizing or unconstitutional to require tenants to pay the lawful rent for their premises. They just cannot or will not pay. In my view the stay pending appeal should be and is hereby lifted. The board’s order dated November 23, 2023 is therefore fully enforceable pending the hearing of the appeal. . Porringa v. Everitt and Lundy
In Porringa v. Everitt and Lundy (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court heard a valiant Charter attempt by an 'unauthorized occupant' to preserve his RTA appeal against the landlord's motion to quash it. The chief tenant had been already ordered terminated and evicted but the appellant 'unauthorized occupant' wanted to preserve his appeal, and the automatic stay on filing an appeal. His case fell on the easiest grounds available to the judge: inadequate evidence to substantiate his Charter grounds. However, but in doing so (IMHO) the judge overstated the law by stating: "His occupancy of the Premises is not covered by the RTA. Mr. Porringa is an “unauthorized occupant” since he did not have a tenancy agreement with the Landlord" [para 28]. Properly, section 104 of the RTA plainly countenances the existence of such unauthorized occupants and gives them 'rights' in some circumstances, essentially a right to become a 'full' tenant if the criteria of s.104(4) are met.
But the case is most compelling for pointing up the reality that older, disabled and otherwise commonly discriminated-again occupants, if they do manage to obtain shelter in this harsh private market, remain perpetually at risk of their 'security of person' in this country:[26] Lastly, Mr. Porringa argues that he occupied the finished lower level of the house living entirely separate and the Landlord was obligated to include Mr. Porringa in his eviction action along with Mr. Everick and he intentionally chose not to do so, which has certainly had major implications for Mr. Porringa’s occupancy. Furthermore, it is Mr. Porringa’s position that it should not have been permitted by the RTA for the Board to exclude him from Mr. Everick’s eviction proceedings because the latter had already decided to consent to the eviction.
[27] A “tenant” is defined in s. 2(1) of the RTA as:a person who pays rent in return for the right to occupy a rental unit and includes the tenant’s heirs, assigns and personal representatives, but “tenant” does not include a person who has the right to occupy a rental unit by virtue of being,
(a) a co-owner of the residential complex in which the rental unit is located, or
(b) a shareholder of a corporation that owns the residential complex; (“locataire”). Mr. Porringa concedes in his Factum and in his evidence that he is not a “tenant” as defined by the RTA. It therefore remains that Mr. Porringa is an “unauthorized occupant” as stated in the Board Order. He adds that he is an elderly man with underlying health conditions and tight finances. Furthermore, he often remarks about the criminality of the Board member, Mr. Lundy, and his colleagues. In his Factum, for example, Mr. Porringa puts forward conspiracy theories that the audio recordings of the hearing have been edited or tampered with, that the Landlord and the Board unethically and illegally interfered with Mr. Porringa’s request for transcripts of the recorded telephone hearing and that there was a disruption of his mail service where one or more local postal employees agreed to assist in the illegal activity. Mr. Porringa states in his Factum that “the [Board] must be stripped of its misused powers in this particular case and a full public inquiry into this rogue government agency is needed by judicial order”. I find that Mr. Porringa has not provided any evidence to support his claims about discrimination due to his age, his health condition and the criminality of the Board and Mr. Lundy. In addition, he has not provided any evidence that the Board misused its powers and is a “rogue government agency”. I find that Mr. Porringa has failed to show that any of his Charter rights or rights in the Code have been breached by the Landlord and/or the Board.
[28] Based on my review of the evidence provided, there is no evidence to support a breach of Mr. Porringa’s rights. His occupancy of the Premises is not covered by the RTA. Mr. Porringa is an “unauthorized occupant” since he did not have a tenancy agreement with the Landlord. It was within the Board’s jurisdiction to make the Order of July 28, 2020. I find that Mr. Porringa’s appeal is devoid of merit and I quash his appeal pursuant to s. 134(3) of the Courts of Justice Act. Given this finding, I need not address the other issues raised by the Landlord.
|
