Quality Management Ltd v Stephenson, 2016 MBCA 92

Citation: Quality Management Ltd v Stephenson, 2016 MBCA 92 Date: 20160926 Docket: AI16-30-08661 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA BETWEEN : ) J. B. Stephenson ) on his own behalf QUALITY MANAGEMENT LTD. ) ) No appearance (Landlord) Respondent ) for the Respondent ) ) T. D. Gisser - and - ) for the Residential ) Tenancies Commission ) JAMES BRIAN STEPHENSON ) Chambers motion heard: ) September 15, 2016 (Tenant) Applicant ) ) Decision pronounced: ) September 26, 2016 MICHEL A.

MONNIN JA [ 1 ] The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of the Residential Tenancies Commission (RTC), which granted the respondent an order of possession because of the applicant’s non-payment of rent. [ 2 ] In his notice of motion and in his affidavit in support, the applicant states that the basis on which he seeks to appeal is due to the defamation, false pretenses and crimes against humanity committed by the respondent.

In oral argument, at the hearing of his application, he elaborated on those grounds. [ 3 ] The test to be met on a leave application from an order of the RTC is well known and relatively straight forward. It was recently restated by leMaistre JA in Sarna v Nesha , 2016 MBCA 55 (at para 2 ):

Section 175 of The Residential Tenancies Act , CCSM c R119 (the Act ) establishes that leave to appeal from an order of the Commission may only be granted where there is a question of law or jurisdiction. The test is stringent and was recently explained by Cameron JA in Thompson 28 Company Ltd v McLellan , 2014 MBCA 10 (at para 9 ): Application for leave to appeal to this court is governed by s. 175(2) of The Residential Tenancies Act , C.C.S.M., c. R119 , which states that an appeal may be taken only on a question of jurisdiction or law and only with leave of this court.

Jurisprudence has established that the issue that is attempted to be raised on appeal must warrant the attention of this court in that it will be applicable to other similar disputes. Finally, the court must consider whether there is an arguable chance of success. See Miller v. Baker et al. , 2013 MBCA 77 ; Lafreniere et al. v. Senyk et al. , 2013 MBCA 18 ; J.C. Property Management v. Benard , 2011 MBCA 1 ; and Edison Rental Agency v. Klippenstein , 2011 MBCA 3 . [ 4 ] The applicant has failed to satisfy me that the RTC erred in law or that it acted without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction.

Accordingly, his application for leave to appeal is denied with costs. JA