) ) ELIJAH CHARLES M. JOHNSON v. MANDY GOMMLICH, 2023 ONSC 510

CITATION : Johnson v. Jensen, 2023 ONSC 510 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 468/22 DATE: 20230110 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT Sachs, Hackland and Schabas JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) ELIJAH CHARLES M. JOHNSON and MANDY GOMMLICH ) ) Self-represented Tenants ) Tenants/Appellants in Appeal ) ) – and – ) ) FAY ALANNA JENSEN and WALTER JENSEN Landlords/Respondents in Appeal ) ) ) ) ) Megan Mackey , for the Landlords ) ) HEARD at Toronto (by videoconference): January 10, 2023 Sachs J. (Orally) [ 1 ] The Tenants have appealed the order of Vermette J. dated July 22, 2022.

In that order, Vermette J. ordered the Tenants to pay the Landlords $47,300 in rental arrears and ordered them to vacate the unit by August 14, 2022. Both aspects of the order were final. [ 2 ] The appeal was filed with the Divisional Court. The preliminary issue before us is whether the Divisional Court has jurisdiction over this appeal, given the fact that the order in question includes an eviction order. Pursuant to s. 6(1)(

b) of the Courts of Justice Act an appeal of a final order of a judge of the Superior Court lies to the Court of Appeal. Section 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act provides that the Divisional Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the final order of a Superior Court judge involving an amount of less than $50,000. It does not give the Divisional Court jurisdiction over an eviction order. [ 3 ] There is a dispute between the parties as to whether this appeal is an appeal from a portion of Vermette J.s order relating to the payment of arrears or just an appeal from the eviction order.

It is not necessary for us to resolve this dispute as s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act states that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction “to hear and determine an appeal that lies to the Divisional Court… if an appeal in the same proceeding lies to and is taken to the Court of Appeal.” Thus, the Courts of Justice Act is clear; since the order in question includes an eviction order, this appeal lies to the Court of Appeal. [ 4 ] For these reasons, pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act , we are ordering that this appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeal. [ 5 ] As the successful parties on the jurisdiction issue, the Landlords are requesting $1,500, all inclusive, by way of costs. [ 6 ] The Tenants submit that there should be no order as to costs because the issue was a “grey area.” We disagree.

As noted in our endorsement, the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act are clear. Therefore, we order that the Tenants pay the Landlords their costs, fixed in the amount of $1,500, all inclusive. ___________________________ Sachs J. I agree

___________________________ Hackland J. I agree ___________________________ Schabas J. Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: January 10, 2023 Date of Written Release: January 23, 2023 CITATION : Johnson v. Jensen, 2023 ONSC 510 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 468/22 DATE: 20230110 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT Sachs, Hackland and Schabas JJ. BETWEEN: ELIJAH CHARLES M. JOHNSON and MANDY GOMMLICH Tenants/Appellants in Appeal – and – FAY ALANNA JENSEN and WALTER JENSEN Landlord/Respondent in Appeal ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SACHS J. Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: January 10, 2023 Date of Written Release: January 23, 2023