i actually spent quite a while over the last few days trying to figure out how to do this in a way that was frivolous, but when i sat down to write it, i realized that i actually have a decent argument.
at the very least, this is going to be hard to actively dismiss.
==
THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Divisional Court from the order of (Landlord and Tenant Board) dated Aug 1, 2018 made at London, Ontario.
THE APPELLANT ASKS that the order be set aside and an order instead be granted for month-to-month tenancy in the unit in question, and at the 25% reduction, until the appellant is able to secure smoke-free housing and consequently vacate the unit.
THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows:
Main Grounds under s. 83(3)(d)
1. The initial application to the board, made in April of 2018, was a T2 and a T6, together, requesting an end to the tenancy and compensation for negligence around non-action in keeping second-hand smoke (SWT-16361-18) out of the unit. The applicant initially thought that it would be relatively easy to secure non-smoking housing, and requested a July 1st move-out date as a result of this. However, the tribunal date was delayed until July 5th, making the initial request impossible. The applicant also learned over May and June that moving would be more difficult than initially thought, as the vacancy rate in Windsor is low and non-smoking housing is scarce. The provincial election also created some uncertainty.
2. At the hearing, the applicant requested that the tenancy be placed month-to-month to ensure that this process did not lead to accidental homelessness, as that appeared to be a potential outcome, in the case that healthy housing could not be found. The adjudicator insisted that the respondent has a right to certainty, and asked for a specific date. Under some duress, the applicant accepted a move-out date of Sept 30, 2018, and hoped it would work out for the best.
3. As of Sept 10, 2018, it appears that this hard exit date is going to lead to the feared condition of homelessness.
4. To use a deprecated term with some poetic license, it is patently unreasonable for a tenant to apply to the board seeking damages for negligence, win the case and then end up homeless because alternative housing arrangements cannot be found. Under s. 83(3)(d), eviction cannot be ordered as a consequence of enforcing a right. Yet, this is essentially what is happening. This agreement to end the tenancy was coerced by the adjudicator, who should have put the tenancy on a month-to-month as was requested, rather than effectively order an eviction on a rights issue.
5. So, the error made by the adjudicator is under s. 83(3)(d), as she ordered an eviction as a consequence of a conflict stemming from an assertion of rights, when the applicant requested a month-to-month agreement, instead. This will be clear in the audio and the transcripts.
THE BASIS OF THE APPELLATE COURT’S JURISDICTION IS: The appeal is from a final order of an adjudicator of an administrative tribunal, namely the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario; see Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 19(1)(c).
The appellant requests that this appeal be heard at 245 Windsor Ave, Windsor, Ontario.
====
the appeal will probably be heard in london, if we get there.
this is actually kind of recursive, isn't it?
i will obviously drop the appeal if i find a way out.