Apartments For Living For Physically Handicapped Association v. Meloche, (1989) 34 O.A.C. 325 (DC)

• Judge: Van Camp, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: April 27, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1989), 34 O.A.C. 325 (DC)

Apts. For Living v. Meloche (1989), 34 O.A.C. 325 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Apartments For Living For Physically Handicapped Association (applicant/respondent in appeal) v. Guy Meloche (respondent/appellant)

Indexed As: Apartments For Living For Physically Handicapped Association v. Meloche

Ontario Divisional Court

London, Ontario

Van Camp, J.

May 5, 1989.

Summary:

A nonprofit charitable organization owned and operated an apartment building with support care assistance for young adults with physical disabilities. The organization, as landlord, gave one of its tenants a notice of termination and applied for a writ of possession.

The Ontario District Court allowed the application. The tenant appealed. An automatic stay of proceedings resulted under Civil Procedure Rule 63.01. The issue in this case was the effect of the stay, i.e., whether the support care services and laundry facilities available to the tenant prior to the appeal should remain until the appeal was heard.

The Ontario Divisional Court answered the issue in the negative.

Practice - Topic 8961

Appeals - Stay of proceedings pending appeal - Effect of - A nonprofit charitable organization owned an apartment building with support care assistance for physically- disabled young adults - In 1986 a tenant was given a two bedroom unit as none other was available; he now refused to move - The organization obtained a writ of possession - The tenant filed an appeal, resulting in an automatic stay of proceedings under rule 63.01 - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the stay did not mean that the landlord must provide support care services until the appeal was heard if the tenant did not accept the unit offered.

Cases Noticed:

Toronto Non-profit Housing Corp. v. Welbanks (1986), 13 O.A.C. 306; 53 O.R.(2d) 696, consd. [para. 5].

Clifton Securities Ltd. v. Huntley and Others, [1948] 2 All E.R. 283, dist. [para. 7].

Royal Bank of Canada et al. v. Paletta et al. (1984), 6 O.A.C. 396, dist. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 63.01(1) [paras. 1, 6, 7].

Counsel:

Charles R. Gascoyne, for the applicant/respondent in appeal;

Jacques Chartrand, for the respondent/appellant.

This case was heard before Van Camp, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court, London, Ontario, on April 27, 1989, and whose decision was released on May 5, 1989.