) ) JOHN JOSEPH Appellant (Tenant) – v. –, 2013 ONSC 413

CITATION : Joseph v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2013 ONSC 413 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 424/11 DATE: 20130116 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SWINTON, HARVISON YOUNG AND ROBERTS JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) JOHN JOSEPH Appellant (Tenant) – and – TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION Respondent (Landlord) )) )) )) )) )))) Hugh M.

Evans , for the Appellant (Tenant) Mary Boushel , for the Respondent (Landlord) ) ) ) HEARD at Toronto: January 16, 2013 HARVISON YOUNG J. (orally) [ 1 ] The appellant/tenant appeals from the decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated August 15, 2011, in which it terminated the tenancy because it found that the tenant or an occupant had committed an illegal act or permitted an illegal act in his rental unit. [ 2 ] An appeal lies to this Court only on a matter of law, s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act .

The appellant argued that the Board’s reasons for terminating the tenancy are so defective that they amount to an error of law. [ 3 ] We disagree. It is clear from the Board’s reasons that it considered the evidence before it and applied the applicable standard of proof, that of a balance of probabilities.

Having reviewed the evidence, the Board stated at para. 8: Therefore, I find that on the balance of probabilities, that the Tenant or an occupant in this rental unit have committed an illegal act that includes possession for the purposes of trafficking an illegal drug and that further by doing so have placed the other residents of this rental complex in an unsafe position due to the violent nature of the drug business. [ 4 ] There was ample evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that the tenant permitted illegal activity in his unit.

There was no dispute that crack cocaine, oxycontin, marijuana and multiple safes were found in the apartment. There were also guns, i.e. a pellet gun and an air gun, bear spray and a baseball bat near the front door. The Board clearly rejected the tenant’s innocent explanations for all of the above. The tenant admitted that he knew that Mr. Barton “had something” and that he himself possessed marijuana.

[5] The Reasons of the Board read in the context of the evidence are sufficient to support the Board’s conclusion that theappellant permitted illegal activity in his unit both in the form of possession of illegal drugs and possession for the purposes oftrafficking. [6] The reasons are sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review (see Newfoundland Labrador Nurses’ Union v.Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 , [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708 at para. 9). [7] The appellant also argues that the Board did not consider relief from forfeiture as it was obligated to do pursuant to s. 83(2)of the Residential Tenancies Act.

We disagree. It is clear from para. 8 that the Board found on the evidence that the tenant waspermitting illegal activity in his unit, either through his own actions or those of Mr. Barton. [8] The Board states that in so doing, the tenant had placed the other residents of this rental complex at risk, placing them in anunsafe position due to the violent nature of the drug trade. The Board clearly considered whether eviction would be unfair having regardto all the circumstances.

In particular, the Board considered that the well-being of the community as a whole and the tenants in thatcommunity take precedence over the individual’s rights to ask for relief from forfeiture in the circumstances. The Board was entitled toso conclude (see Metropolitan Housing Authority v. Owusu-Ansah, [1995] O. J. No. 3864). [9] As the appellant has not shown any error of law, the appeal is therefore dismissed. SWINTON J. [10] I have endorsed the Appeal Book, “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered in Court today. The stay of theeviction order is lifted.

The landlord does not seek costs.” HARVISON YOUNG J. SWINTON J. ROBERTS J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 16, 2013 Date of Release: January 22, 2013 CITATION: Joseph v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2013 ONSC 413 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 424/11 DATE: 20130116 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURTSWINTON, HARVISON YOUNG AND ROBERTS JJ. BETWEEN:

JOHN JOSEPH Appellant (Tenant) – and – TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION Respondent (Landlord) ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HARVISON YOUNG J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 16, 2013 Date of Release: January 22, 2013