Santokie v. Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal
The appeal was dismissed as moot because the underlying landlord and tenant dispute had been resolved, there was no continuing risk of publication of the young person's identity, and the discretionary exceptions to the mootness doctrine did not apply as the issue was not likely to recur between the same parties nor...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C36851
- Parties
- Appellant: Winsome Santokie; Respondent: Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal; Respondent: Toronto Housing Company Inc.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 25 February 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal; Quashed as Moot
- Outcome
- Appeal quashed as moot.
- Legal Topics
- Mootness, Publication of Identity, Young Offenders Act, Judicial Discretion to Hear Moot Appeals, Eviction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Winsome Santokie
Appellant
Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal
Respondent
Toronto Housing Company Inc.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal; Quashed as Moot
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal is moot
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to hear a moot appeal
- 3 Whether there is a continuing risk of publication of the identity of an alleged young offender under the Young Offenders Act
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed as moot because the underlying landlord and tenant dispute had been resolved, there was no continuing risk of publication of the young person's identity, and the discretionary exceptions to the mootness doctrine did not apply as the issue was not likely to recur between the same parties nor was the appellant's interest sufficient to justify the Court hearing a moot appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal quashed as moot.
Orders
- Appeal quashed as moot.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Santokie v. Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2002-02-25 Docket numbers C36851 Judges Catzman, Marvin Adrian; Labrosse, Jean-Marc; Doherty, David H. Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20020225 DOCKET: C36851 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: WINSOME SANTOKIE (Appellant/Applicant in Application) v. ONTARIO RENTAL HOUSING TRIBUNAL and TORONTO HOUSING COMPANY INC. (Responding Parties/Respondents in Application) BEFORE: CATZMAN, LABROSSE and DOHERTY JJ.A. COUNSEL: John Terry for the appellant Karen Andrews for the respondent HEARD: February 21, 2002 On appeal from the order of the Divisional Court (Justice J.G.J. O’Driscoll, Justice J.B.S. Southey and Justice Terrance O’Connor) dated October 18, 2000. ENDORSEMENT [1] This appeal emanates from a purely private landlord and tenant dispute. That dispute no longer exists. The appellant has successfully avoided eviction. [2] While there is a potentially significant public interest component to one of the issues raised in the course of this private litigation (the alleged publication of the identity of an alleged young offender), the appellant’s interests in that issue is limited to the potential publication of the identity of a specific young person in the course of the ongoing landlord and tenant proceedings brought against her. There is no longer any risk that such publication will occur. The appeal is clearly moot. [3] This is not one of those unusual cases where the court should exercise its discretion to hear a moot appeal. Unlike Horseman’s Benevolent and Protective Association v. Ontario Racing Commission (1997), 37 O.R. (3d) 430 (C.A.), this is not a case where the same issue is likely to arise as between the same parties in the future. The appellant can claim no interest in the resolution of the issue concerning the Young Offenders Act beyond that which any interested member of the public might have. Nor is the issue one which is “evasive of judicial review”. The issue has arisen in the past and no doubt will arise again in a variety of circumstances. [4] The appeal is quashed as a moot appeal. “M.A. Catzman J.A.” “J.M. Labrosse J.A.” “Doherty J.A.”