Talk:N12 Affidavit Requirements: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "==Sertic v Mergarten, 2017 ONSC 263 (CanLII)<ref name="Sertic"/>== [7] While the tenant raises issues regarding the bona fides of the landlord’s desire to occupy the premises for her own purposes, the Vice-Chair heard the evidence on this point, and was satisfied that was the intention of the landlord. <span style=background:yellow>The tenant submits that that finding was not open to the Board because the landlord’s affidavit did not so state. <b><u>I am unaware o...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<ref name="Sertic">Sertic v Mergarten, 2017 ONSC 263 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gwv8p>, retrieved on 2023-08-16</ref> | <ref name="Sertic">Sertic v Mergarten, 2017 ONSC 263 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gwv8p>, retrieved on 2023-08-16</ref> | ||
==References== |
Latest revision as of 14:55, 18 July 2024
Sertic v Mergarten, 2017 ONSC 263 (CanLII)[1]
[7] While the tenant raises issues regarding the bona fides of the landlord’s desire to occupy the premises for her own purposes, the Vice-Chair heard the evidence on this point, and was satisfied that was the intention of the landlord. The tenant submits that that finding was not open to the Board because the landlord’s affidavit did not so state. I am unaware of any legal principle that provides that the contents of an affidavit overrules the viva voce evidence heard. While conflicts between the two are always a matter of concern, it is ultimately up to the trier of fact to decide what evidence they accept and what they do not. The Board accepted the viva voce evidence of the landlord. There is no basis for this court to interfere with his conclusion on the evidence that he heard.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Sertic v Mergarten, 2017 ONSC 263 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gwv8p>, retrieved on 2023-08-16