) ) SIAMAK BARZI Respondent (Landlord) – v. –, 2017 ONSC 3183

CITATION : Barzi v. Maragos, 2017 ONSC 3183 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 341/16 LTB NOS.:TNL-71604-15, TNL-72022-15, TNT-71381-15, TNT-71975-15 DATE: 20170523 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT NORDHEIMER, SMITH and WILTON-SIEGEL JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) SIAMAK BARZI Respondent (Landlord) – and – DEMETRIOS MARAGOS and STEPHANIE SOUSA Appellants (Tenants) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) David S.

Strashin , for the Respondent (Landlord) Demetrios Maragos, acting in person ) HEARD at Toronto: May 23, 2017 NORDHEIMER J. (orally) [ 1 ] Demetrios Maragos and Stephanie Sousa, tenants, appeal from an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated June 13, 2016, and the subsequent review order dated June 24, 2016 that among other things, terminated the tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenants and ordered that the tenants vacate the premises by June 24, 2016. [ 2 ] There were competing applications brought by the tenants and by the landlord that were heard and determined together by the Board.

The Board found certain failings on the part of the landlord and ordered a rent abatement as a remedy for those failings. The Board also found that the tenants had failed to pay all of the rent that was due for the period from February 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016.

The arrears of rent were in excess of $14,000 by the time that the Board dealt with the matter. [ 3 ] An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from an order of the Board restricted, though, to a question of law: Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 , S.O. 2006, c. 17, s. 210 (the “Act” ). [ 4 ] The Board conducted a hearing into the various allegations over six days commencing in August 2015 and concluding in March 2016. The Board rendered its decision in June 2016.

It gave detailed reasons for the various conclusions that it reached. [ 5 ] The essence of the tenants’ position on this appeal is that the Board made factual findings with which the tenants disagree. It is not the role of this court, on an appeal, to revisit findings of fact. Unless it can be shown that the Board made a palpable and overriding error in its factual determinations, this court must not interfere with those factual findings.

The tenants have failed to show any such errors. [ 6 ] The tenants also assert that the reasons of the Board, and the manner in which the hearing was conducted, demonstrate bias. This issue was also raised before the Board and was rejected. It appears to arise principally out of the fact that the Board required the tenants to adduce their evidence first and the manner in which the evidence was received. The Board is entitled to control its own procedure. It is up to the Board to decide the order of evidence when it is hearing a matter.

There is no foundation for the suggestion that the Board’s decision in that regard demonstrates bias. [ 7 ] The tenants also complain that the Board member said that he did not care about certain matters. While the choice of words was unfortunate, essentially the Board member was saying that those matters were not relevant to the issues that he had to determine.

There is nothing in that fact alone, or in the Board’s determination of the issues generally, that rises to the level necessary to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Board member. [ 8 ] The appellants also raise an issue about procedural fairness but it too finds no support in the record. As I have said, this matter proceeded before the Board over six days. Both parties had a full opportunity to present their cases. [ 9 ] Finally, the tenants complain that they have not been credited properly for the rent that they say they have paid.

However, at the same time, the tenants acknowledged that they did not place receipts or other evidence before the Board of rent that they now say that they paid. This court must decide this matter based on the record and on that record I can find no basis to interfere with the Board's calculation of the arrears due. I note in that regard that the issue of the arrears was squarely raised before the Board on the reconsideration and it found no error.

Again no receipts were provided to the Board at that time. [ 10 ] The appeal is dismissed and any stay of the Board's order is vacated. [ 11 ] I have endorsed the Appeal Book and Compendium as follows: “This Appeal is dismissed for oral reasons given. Costs payable by tenants to landlord fixed at $1,500.00. Approval of order is dispensed with.” ___________________________ NORDHEIMER J. I agree ___________________________ SMITH J. I agree ___________________________ WILTON-SIEGEL J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 23, 2017 Date of Release: May 24, 2017 CITATION : Barzi v.

Maragos, 2017 ONSC 3183 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 341/16 LTB NOS.:TNL-71604-15, TNL-72022-15, TNT-71381-15, TNT-71975-15 DATE: 20170523 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT NORDHEIMER, SMITH and WILTON-SIEGEL JJ.

BETWEEN: SIAMAK BARZI Respondent (Landlord) – and – DEMETRIOS MARAGOS and STEPHANIE SOUSA Appellants (Tenants) ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NORDHEIMER J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 23, 2017 Date of Release: May 24, 2017