SPereira Legal Services
Paralegal, Commissioner of Oaths, Notary Public
I've been working with one of my small Landlords to evict a non-paying tenant. Not only has this tenant not paid rent for 25 months (as of March 31, 2021) but the Tenant has assaulted the Landlord, threatened the landlord and another tenant and damaged the Landlord's property. This Tenant moves from one landlord to the next landlord causing problems at each residence. In the meantime, the Tenant does not pay rent. In my opinion, this Tenant is a small Landlord's nightmare. This Tenant has been doing this for several years.
It has taken us about 19 months to evict this tenant due to the delays at the LTB but finally this nightmare will soon be over despite the Tenant's ongoing attempts to stay at the property.
This Tenant is what I call a "professional" tenant. This Tenant knows how to work the Tribunal and the Court system to the Tenant's advantage. This Tenant is a good example of a person who requests an excessive amount of adjournments. This Tenant also files an excessive amount of frivilous, vexatious filings and files an excessive amount of Private Informations, which get dismissed as they are meritless. This Tenant is a prime example of "Abuse of Process"
In my opinion this Tenant presents both a financial and personal hazard/danger to any Landlord. The reign of terror starts the day after this Tenant moves into the property.
On December 29, 2020, we finally received an expedited eviction LTB order for serious impairment of safety (N7). The Tenant managed to file a Notice of Appeal at the Divisional Court by lying to the court clerk and getting a stay on the LTB order. I can say without a doubt that I did not accept service of any documents on behalf of my former client but the Tenant said that I did accept service so the Court filed her documents.
No "Notice of Appeal", "Certificate Respecting Evidence", or a "Certificate of Stay", were provided to the Landlord; however, the Appeal was filed and a Certificate of Stay was issued to the Sheriff. My former client was forced to file a Motion to get the Stay lifted.
I had to attend Court twice, on February 11, 2021 at 2 pm (Tenant claimed her phone was not working = Tenant's Adjournment) and again on February 15, 2021 at 10 am (Family Day) (Peremptory on Tenant). On February 22, 2021 the Stay was lifted by Justice Penny.
I've never participated in a Divisional Court Appeal so my participation was a learning experience. I swore an Affidavit of the facts associated with our attempts to evict this Tenant. I had direct knowledge of the events that took place so I was able to do the Affidavit..I was a potential witness for my former client and I did not represent the Landlord for the Appeal (No conflict of interest)
This Tenant then tried to file an ex parte Appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario but it was quickly denied on February 25, 2021.
On or about March 3, 2021, the Tenant then filed another Motion for a Stay and a Motion for Leave to Appeal, the Divisional Court Order lifting the Stay, with the Court of Appeal for Ontario, This is further efforts to extend the tenancy without paying rent. Today, March 5, 2021, the Motion for a Stay was dismissed.
The Tenant then filed a Review of the Order to dismiss the March 5, 2021 Motion for a Stay to a 3 judge panel.
The Tenant continues to delay the eviction but she has not paid one penny of the outstanding rent arrears which is now well over $12,000.
This is a public interest post. It is a fair and accurate representation of events.
Appeals and cases filed by the Tenant
Per Justice Beth Allen at par.24:
 I was struck by the Plaintiff’s rather glib attitude at the August 31, 2010 attendance. She provided no explanation for her failure to attend on July 9 except to say she had a family emergency. Although she clearly understood the implications of a peremptory date, she felt she need say no more. In the same vein, she took the position she need only state she could not afford to pay the costs award without providing any support for her assertion. Her attitude was that the court should not hold her conduct against her and should just allow her to respond to the motion. She sought a further indulgence notwithstanding the fact she did not extend the courtesy of communicating with the Defendants’ counsel in advance or at any time before August 31 or, as a demonstration of good faith, provide affidavit or other documentary support for her family emergency and financial circumstances. She offered no genuine expression of apology or regret for her non-compliance and the inconvenience and expense caused to the Defendants and the court. The Plaintiff did not seem to appreciate or recognize the indulgences the court had already extended to her.
Website Created & Hosted by Doteasy Web Hosting Canada