Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A corrigendum reversed the court's original endorsement after the respondent's opposition materials were mistakenly omitted from the record.
   
• Appellants sought an extension of time, leave to appeal, and a stay of enforcement against a Consent Order terminating their tenancy.
   
• Whether the appellants raised a genuine question of law, as required for a statutory appeal under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, was central to the ruling.
   
• No evidence was provided to explain the delay in filing a notice of appeal, with the source citing two different dates for when that intent first arose.
   
• Findings addressed whether the Consent Order was entered into with informed consent, given that both parties were represented by licensed paralegals.
   
• Ultimately, the balance of convenience and lack of irreparable harm favoured dismissal of the motion.
   

Facts of the case

Equitable Bank, described in the decision as the "Mortgagor" and landlord of a rental unit at 133 Wynford Drive, Unit 1106, Toronto [the surrounding facts indicate Equitable Bank held the mortgagee position, as Owner Altaz Hudda is the party identified as in default of the mortgage], served a Notice of Attornment of Rents on the appellants (Milagros Taha, Ahmed Essam Taha, and Sharif Taha) on June 24, 2025, after the owner's default. The appellants continued paying rent to the owner rather than the bank, prompting the bank to serve a Form N4 on October 30, 2025, and subsequently file an L1 Application with the Landlord and Tenant Board. At a hearing on February 26, 2026, the parties reached a consent resolution: the bank waived $31,686.00 in accrued rent and filing fees in exchange for a Consent Order terminating the tenancy, issued by the Board on February 27, 2026. The appellants did not seek review of the Consent Order and gave no indication of an intent to appeal until June 2026 [the decision cites both June 5, 2026, and, per the appellants' own affidavit, June 1, 2026], well past the 30-day statutory window. On August 26, 2026, the court initially granted the appellants' motion for an extension of time, leave to appeal, and a stay of enforcement, treating it as unopposed. A corrigendum released the next day corrected this: the bank had in fact filed opposition materials that were not placed before the court due to a filing error tied to the court's digitization process.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The proceeding turned on the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, which governs the landlord-tenant relationship and sets a 30-day period for appealing Board orders. The court noted that a statutory appeal under the Act is confined to questions of law, meaning the appellants needed to identify a genuine legal error in the Consent Order to obtain leave.

Reasoning and analysis

Having reviewed the respondent's submissions after they were properly placed before her, McWatt A.C.J. found no basis to disturb the Consent Order. The Form N4 and the arrears calculation underlying it were accurate, and the appellants' own affidavit acknowledged rent of $3,500.00 per month. The appellants failed to demonstrate any error of law, and the record showed the Consent Order was negotiated with both sides represented by licensed paralegals, making it an informed agreement. Notably, the appellants offered no reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking to appeal. The court also observed a conflict inherent in the owner funding the appeal, given his self-serving conduct in encouraging the appellants to pay him directly rather than the bank, conduct that had placed the appellants in legal jeopardy. Weighing the soft rental market in Toronto and the absence of any serious triable issue, the court concluded the balance of convenience favoured the respondent and that the proposed appeal lacked merit.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed the appellants' motion for leave to appeal and dismissed, with costs, their motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal [the corrigendum does not expressly address the status of the previously granted stay of enforcement]. Equitable Bank, the successful party, was awarded costs of the motion in the amount of $3,000.00.