Edison Rental Agency Date:, 2011 MBCA 3

Citation: Edison Rental Agency Date: 20110110 v. Klippenstein, 2011 MBCA 3 Dockets: AI 10-30-07481; AI 10-30-07487 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) L. P. Klippenstein ) on his own behalfEDISON RENTAL AGENCY ) ) J. M. Woolley (Landlord) Respondent ) for the Respondent ) ) T. D. Gisser- and - ) for The Residential Tenancies ) Commission ) LARRY PETER KLIPPENSTEIN ) Chambers motions heard: ) January 6, 2011 (Tenant) Applicant ) ) Decision pronounced: ) January 10, 2011 MONNIN J.A. 1 The applicant seeks leave to appeal from two orders of the Residential Tenancies Commission (the Commission).

The firstis from an order of possession granted on December 6, 2010, and the second is from an award of costs and compensation grantedpursuant to the order of possession that the applicant wishes to appeal. 2 The order granted by the Commission arises from the applicant’s refusal to sign and return a renewal of his tenancyagreement for the period of October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2011.

The applicant took the position that he was not required to executethe renewal as the respondent had changed the conditions of the lease and therefore he was not being asked to sign a lease with identicalconditions as provided for in The Residential Tenancies Act, C.C.S.M., c. R119 (the Act). 3 In dismissing the applicant’s appeal, the Commission found that it had no merit.

It found that the applicant had notestablished that the terms of the lease had changed in any material way contrary to the Act. 4 These applications are the latest salvo in a long-standing and litigious dispute between the applicant, the respondent and, Idare say, the Commission itself, dating back to early 2008 and dealing with the premises in issue before me. 5 The applicant presently has two other active leave applications from orders of the Commission before this court. Thosematters are scheduled to be heard in chambers on January 20, 2011.

Those applications for leave to appeal are from an order made onOctober 1, 2010, allowing the respondent an increase in rent for the leased premises and an order dated August 6, 2010, denying theapplicant’s request for rent, loss of personal property and costs. 6 Before me, the applicant argued that the Commission should not have granted the order of possession because its ordersdescribed in the previous paragraph had yet to be dealt with by this court and the disposition of those appeals could have an impact onthe validity of the order of possession being appealed.

As to the issue of costs, he argues that they should not have been granted becausehe has always, according to him, attempted to fulfill his obligations under the term of the leases. 7 The test that an applicant must meet in order to be granted leave to appeal from a decision of the Commission is wellsettled and has been set out in numerous decisions of this court. See 4469667 Manitoba Ltd. v. Thomas, 2009 MBCA 20 (in chambers);Manitoba Housing Authority v. Bertram, 2006 MBCA 49, 205 Man.R. (2d) 61 (in chambers); Procak v. Hayward, 2006 MBCA 84, 205Man.R. (2d) 150 (in chambers); and 3391397 Manitoba Ltd. v.

Winnipeg City Assessor (1998), (MB CA), 126 Man.R.(2d) 63 (in chambers). A recent enunciation of the test is to be found in the reasons of Freedman J.A. in Manitoba Housing Authority v.Horvat, 2010 MBCA 43, 255 Man.R. (2d) 42 (in chambers), where he wrote (at para. 3): The Act provides the applicant with a very limited opportunity to appeal a decision or order of the Commission to this court. Appealsare limited to questions of jurisdiction or law, and an applicant needs leave to appeal. Three factors are considered by a judge in

determining whether to grant leave. See Pelchat v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. et al. … [(2006)], 2006 MBCA 90 , 40C.C.L.I. (4th) 46; 2006 MBCA 90 (at para. 2): 1. The question must be truly one only of jurisdiction or of law, and not one which “involve[s] the court in an assessment or analysis ofconflicting factual issues” (Shersty v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (2002), 2002 MBCA 108 , 43 C.C.L.I. (3d) 35; 2002MBCA 108 (Man. C.A. [In Chambers]), at para. 2; Fillion v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (2004), 2004 MBCA 61 , 10C.C.L.I. (4th) 182; 2004 MBCA 61 (Man. C.A.), and cases cited therein). 2.

The case must be one that warrants the attention of the court. “The issue must be one of importance; not just for the immediate case,but in determining other similar disputes which are apt to arise in [the] future” (Wuziuk v. Manitoba (Director of Social Services) (No.2) (1979), (MB CA), 3 Man.R. (2d) 81 (Man. C.A.), at para. 7). 3. There must be an arguable case of substance; i.e., one with a reasonable prospect of success (see Lejins v. Manitoba PublicInsurance Corp. (2003), 2003 MBCA 95 , 50 C.C.L.I. (3d) 1; 2003 MBCA 95 (Man.

C.A. [In Chambers])). 8 I have taken the opportunity of reviewing the court files with respect to the matters scheduled to be heard on January 20,2011. Contrary to the applicant’s argument, I fail to see the linkage, if any, between those matters and the ones presently before me.

Even if the applicant was successful in obtaining leave and then having the orders overturned, such a ruling would, in my view, notimpact what the Commission ordered in the matters before me. 9 And on those matters, the applicant has failed to convince me that he advances an issue of jurisdiction or a point of law, letalone that he has an arguable case of substance or one that warrants the attention of this court. 10 Accordingly, both leave applications are denied. J.A.