) ) SAM LAUFER, ELIZABETH WILDER v. BRONIA LAUFER, 2013 ONSC 6605

CITATION : Laufer v. Manulife Realty, 2013 ONSC 6605 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 135/13 DATE: 20131022 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT HIMEL, SACHS AND WARKENTIN JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) SAM LAUFER, ELIZABETH WILDER and BRONIA LAUFER Tenants (Appellants) – and – MANULIFE REALTY Landlord (Respondent in Appeal) )) )) )) )) )))) In Person Martin P.

Zarnett , for the Landlord (Respondent in Appeal) ) ) HEARD at Toronto: October 22, 2013 SACHS J. (ORALLY) [ 1 ] Pursuant to s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, a party may appeal an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board to the Divisional Court, but only on a question of law. [ 2 ] After hearing from six witnesses over three days, the Tribunal wrote detailed and cogent reasons in which it analyzed the evidence that it heard, made findings of fact based on that evidence and drew conclusions by correctly applying the law to those facts.

With one caveat dealt with below, this appeal raises no question of law. The tenant is simply seeking to have this Court re-try the case that was heard by the Tribunal. [ 3 ] During the course of his submissions, the tenant implied that there may have been bias on the part of the Tribunal. However, the only basis for this allegation is the fact that the tenant disagreed with the Tribunal`s conclusions.

The fact that a trier of fact disagrees or does not accept one party`s version of the facts cannot form the basis for an allegation of bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias. [ 4 ] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. COSTS HIMEL J. [ 5 ] I have endorsed the Record as follows, “For oral reasons delivered, the appeal is dismissed. Costs are fixed at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST payable by the appellant/tenant to the respondent/landlord within 30 days. This amount is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this case.”

SACHS J. HIMEL J. WARKENTIN J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 22, 2013 Date of Release: October 25, 2013 CITATION : Laufer v. Manulife Realty, 2013 ONSC 6605 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 135/13 DATE: 20131022 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT HIMEL, SACHS AND WARKENTIN JJ. BETWEEN: SAM LAUFER, ELIZABETH WILDER and BRONIA LAUFER Tenants (Appellants) – and – MANULIFE REALTY Landlord (Respondent in Appeal) ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SACHS J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 22, 2013 Date of Release: October 25, 2013