Alyn James Johnson

The appellant, Jennifer Ricketts, sought a stay of eviction orders issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board and confirmed by the Divisional Court, pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal, per Lauwers J.A., granted the stay, finding a serious issue to be adjudicated, potential irreparable harm to Ms. Ricketts, and that the balance of convenience favoured her.

The decision discusses the test for a stay and the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in administrative proceedings.

The appellant tenant appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for the landlords' family use.

She argued that her paralegal provided ineffective assistance by conceding the landlords' good faith without her instructions.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to raise the ineffective assistance issue before the LTB in a timely manner.

The majority further held that in civil proceedings, the remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim against the representative, not the reversal of a valid administrative decision, and declined to extend the criminal law doctrine to this context.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to her relationship with the respondent.

The appellant claimed she lived in the unit and shared a kitchen, which would exempt her under s. 5(i) of the Act.

The Board accepted the respondent's evidence that the appellant did not live on the premises.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and judicial review, finding no error in the Board's assessment of the evidence or its refusal to admit fresh evidence under the Palmer test.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board, which allowed the respondent landlord to re-occupy the residential premises.

The tenant argued the Board erred in interpreting a lease renewal provision, mischaracterized a rent increase clause, and denied procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons on review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly interpreted the lease provision using a practical common-sense approach and that the review process met the requirements of procedural fairness under the Baker factors.