) ) DONATO BRATTY INVESTMENTS LTD. Landlord (Respondent) – v. –, 2023 ONSC 1446

CITATION : Donato Bratty Investments Ltd. v. Bujtor, 2023 ONSC 1446 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 19-219 DATE: 20230303 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT Lococo, Nishikawa and O’Brien JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) DONATO BRATTY INVESTMENTS LTD.

Landlord (Respondent) – and – MARIA BUJTOR and TIBOR BUJTOR Tenants (Appellants) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Richard Payne , for the Landlord (Respondent) Tibor Bujtor , acting in person for the Tenants (Appellants) ) HEARD at Toronto: March 1, 2023 THE COURT (Orally) [ 1 ] The appellants/tenants Tibor Bujtor and Maria Bujtor rent residential premises from the respondent/landlord Donato Bratty Investments Ltd. The appellants appeal from the following decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “Board”): (

i) the Board’s order dated February 19, 2019, terminating the appellants’ tenancy as of March 31, 2019, and (ii) the Board’s review decision dated March 25, 2019, dismissing the appellants’ request for a review of the termination order. [ 2 ] The initial order also provided that the appellants were able to void the termination order and remain in the premises by paying $5,145.86 to the landlord by February 28, 2019 or paying $5,965.81 by March 31, 2019.

Both sides agree that the appellants paid $5,965.81 to the landlord prior to March 31, 2019, thereby voiding the termination order. [ 3 ] The appellants are not represented by counsel. The appellants appeared in person at the appeal hearing. The appeal was scheduled to be heard by video conference on February 2, 2023. The day before the scheduled hearing, Mr. Bujtor requested that the hearing be held in person, since he would be unable to connect to the virtual hearing.

The hearing was therefore adjourned to today’s date, peremptory on the appellants, with or without counsel. [ 4 ] The appellants argue that in the decisions under appeal, the Board erred in the following respects: 1. The Board erred in finding that the appellants owed $4,108.82 through to February 25, 2019, since that amount is not supported by the evidence submitted to the Board nor by the landlord’s rent ledger. 2. The Board erred by failing to accept Mr.

Bujtor’s testimony that the landlord owed money to the appellants under two previous Divisional Court costs awards in 2009 and 2010, each in the amount of $750, that the landlord has not paid. 3. The appellants also allege that the landlord acted in bad faith at a previous hearing of the Board, which predates the decisions under appeal. [ 5 ]

Section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act , 2006 provides a statutory right to appeal a decision of the Board, but only on a question of law. The standard of review is correctness. In our view, the appellants have not demonstrated an error of law on the Board’s

part in the hearings below. [ 6 ] The appellants essentially dispute the evidence the Board accepted at the hearings below. These are factual issues which do

not fall within this court’s jurisdiction. [ 7 ] In the submissions before us, the appellants also cited s. 196 of the Residential Tenancies Act. That provision has no application here because it refers to a fine, fees or costs owed to the Board. The Divisional Court costs awards in this case were owed to the appellants. [ 8 ] With respect to the third issue, the allegation that the landlord acted in bad faith at a previous hearing, those proceedings are not the subject of this appeal.

Therefore, the allegations of bad faith are not relevant and do not form a basis for this court to interfere in the orders under appeal. [ 9 ] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Costs [ 10 ] In all the circumstances, we consider a costs award of $2,000 to be a reasonable and proportionate amount for the appellants to pay to the landlord, who was the successful party on the appeal. Therefore, the landlord’s costs are fixed at $2,000 all inclusive, payable by the appellants. _______________________________ Lococo J. _______________________________ Nishikawa J. _______________________________ O’Brien J.

Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: March 1, 2023 Date of Written Release: March 3, 2023 CITATION : Donato Bratty Investments Ltd. v. Bujtor, 2023 ONSC 1446 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 19-219 DATE: 20230301 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT Lococo, Nishikawa and O’Brien JJ.

BETWEEN: DONATO BRATTY INVESTMENTS LTD. Landlord/Respondent – and – MARIA BUJTOR and TIBOR BUJTOR Tenants/Appellants ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: March 1, 2023 Date of Written Release: March 3, 2023