3 total
The court granted a commercial landlord a writ of possession, finding the month-to-month tenancy was validly terminated and no new tenancy was created by post-termination rent payments.
The Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) applied for an order requiring the respondent tenant, Bryant Didier, to vacate a rental unit (Unit B3) and for related relief.
The court determined that Unit B3 was a commercial tenancy governed by the Commercial Tenancies Act, not the Residential Tenancies Act, as previously affirmed by the Landlord and Tenant Board and the Divisional Court.
The TCHC had served valid Notices to Quit, and the tenant's subsequent "Agreement to Vacate" was found to be valid and not entered into under duress.
The court also found that the TCHC's acceptance of rent payments after the termination date did not create a new tenancy due to a lack of mutual intent.
The application for possession was granted, and the tenant was ordered to pay costs.
Appeal allowed and matter remitted to LTB for a review hearing due to natural justice breach.
The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his request for a review of an eviction order.
The tenant had failed to attend the initial hearing and requested a review, citing a substance abuse problem as the potential reason for his absence.
The Board dismissed the review without holding a hearing.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached the principles of natural justice by failing to conduct a further inquiry or hearing into the tenant's reasons for non-attendance, particularly given the quasi-constitutional status of the Human Rights Code.
The matter was remitted to the Board for a new review hearing.
Court refuses late service on contractor but declines to dismiss action for delay.
The plaintiffs sought an extension of time to serve a statement of claim on a contractor nearly nine years after the action was commenced, and the defendants moved to dismiss the entire action for delay.
The court found the plaintiffs’ efforts to locate and serve the contractor were lackadaisical and that significant prejudice resulted from the lengthy delay, including loss of records, faded memory, and the death of a witness.
Accordingly, the court refused to extend time for service on that defendant.
However, although the court found a period of “inexcusable delay” in prosecuting the action, it held that the remaining defendants had not demonstrated prejudice sufficient to create a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible.
The motion to dismiss the entire action for delay was therefore refused.
